| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 81614 | 2007-08-01 23:13:00 | Our house is falling apart! | Greg (193) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 575337 | 2007-08-04 16:54:00 | Not sure that it makes any difference here . The upperside of the ceiling is covered in a layer of batts, so there is insulation . The house is generally warm enough in mid-winter (like right now) with minimal heating, and the under-roof area is free of moisture, mould or mildew . Not really . . . the zone between the ceiling and the roof, commonly a semi-dead air space called an attic is the best insulation you can get . If the moisture is successfully blocked at the (exterior or upper layer) of the ceiling, then there's little or no moisture containment to contend with in the attic zone . What we do is insulate the ceiling with about R-16 or better, and then insulate the roof with the same amount of R-value . The combined R-value is 'way over R-32 with the semi-dead zone calculated in to the equation . Some new code allowances for R-factor include the values of the tiles themselves . We allow about a 3-5% air change via soffet vents or wind turbines in hotter/drier climes . Some use thermal sensored eves fans for keeping the heat soak to a minimum . . but that may not be your situation . In cooler/wetter areas, we have peak vents and/or soffet vents to keep the moisture flowing out of the attic and things stay dry . I imagine that if you DO have a drainage capacity for the collected moisture, that just having good ceiling insulation and waterproofing is sufficient . . . but you need to think of a home as a giant inverted funnel, taking rain, moisture, snow etc AWAY from the home itself . Letting it collect and grow mold is not a good idea under any circumstances . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 575338 | 2007-08-08 23:32:00 | Greg, How did you get on with repairing or replacing the damaged tile? Did Sky TV come to the party in helping you? | Richard (739) | ||
| 575339 | 2007-08-09 00:44:00 | Haven't spoken to Sky yet. And have been a bit slack in getting the claim to the insurers. But meanwhile I have sealed the crack, and that's probably as good as it'll get. I'll report back after the insurer assesses it and when I've eventually spoken to Sky. | Greg (193) | ||
| 575340 | 2007-08-09 01:38:00 | hi greg . sorry i didn't see your post before . simply ring SKY . it is an installer fault . they have used an iron roof mount on a tile roof . years ago there was a scrap between contractors and sky due to sky wanting dishes installed even tho there was no proper tile mount available . even fitting packers through the tile wasn't very good as the packers simply sunk into the soft timber . also with the leverage effect the screws could get ripped out easy enough, especially as no installers actually abide by skys rules and screwed them into structural timber ie the beams . i'm not sure if they even make a proper tile mount yet . so basically its a SKY problem and repairs will be at no cost to you . |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 575341 | 2007-08-09 02:03:00 | Ta Tweak. I took your (and others) advice and called them a minute ago. They said they'll get someone from the local branch to get back to me. We'll see. | Greg (193) | ||
| 575342 | 2007-08-09 02:05:00 | Greg, have you bunged some sealant on the crack? It's only ever going to be a temporary measure, no matter what anyone says about sealants. The cost of not repairing the the tile correctly by replacing it, is potentially far higher than the cost of doing the, minor, work involved. It should not be a hard or expensive exercise. The F***wit who installed the aerial should be slapped hard around the ears and the follow up F***wit who adjusted the aerial should get a kick in the nuts for his services. There is no way a concrete or clay tile can withstand the forces exerted on it by an aerial mounting without support to the underside or better still a sleeve to take the load and allow proper weathertight measures. Plus the muppet who drilled the cable through the tile failed to provide a drip loop As to recourse. Essentially, you are quite entitled to make a claim under the WHRS Act 2006. It's not for me to say whether it is an eligible claim, but if it leaks and the house is within the 10 limitation and damage has been caused as a consequence of the leak, then it's odds on it's eligible. What constitutes damage can be very minor, staining on a construction material for e.g. It's quite possible that in the event a claim was made and accepted, that the pre-purchase inspector would be pulled in as a party along with Sky and their installers. As with most litigation, scatter guns are more often used than a microscope. With the very minor amount of money riding on it, all concerned would be fools not to roll over and settle ASAP. With regard to having no roofing underlay (and yes Billy, it does allow vapour transmission, but the amount transmission is specified and I can't be bothered going in to the whys and wherefores at the mo), it's pretty silly not to use an underlay regardless of what the regs said at the time. The July 2005 amendment to E2 AS/1 2004 of the building code acceptable solutions says you can do without a roofing underlay under type I tiles (yours Greg) if the pitch is under 20 deg, has no discharge from a spreader and, the roof pitch is increased by 1 deg for every 0.5 metre of rafter span over 4.5 metres. (I'd have to delve in to check if the specific clause was in place in the 2004 version, otherwise we're looking at the 2001 amendment which is 17 deg but not at all in avery high wind zone). Get it fixed. You can sort out who you want to nail for it later. But, I would suggest that, at the mention of the WHRS Act and WSG (Weathertight Services Group), anyone remotely involved in construction and with such a piffling amount involved, will be around their either fixing it or giving you money in the blink of an eye. Edit: How does the builder/developer feel about this and the other "maintenance" issues you've had? Edit # 2: Just saw Tweake's post. On ya. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 575343 | 2007-08-09 03:14:00 | Wow Murray - that's a ton of information! :eek: Thanks . As for: How does the builder/developer feel about this and the other "maintenance" issues you've had? You haven't heard it all . . . last week we looked at getting a solar heating panel installed, and the rep advised us that our hot water system was missing three gadgets, one of which is required by legislation . And then while up in the roof I find that there're no batts above the garage area . *groan* I haven't spoken to the builder/seller yet, but will do sooner or later . I just ain't in the confrontational mode at the moment . :( |
Greg (193) | ||
| 575344 | 2007-08-09 06:30:00 | Wow Murray - that's a ton of information! :eek: Thanks . As for: You haven't heard it all . . . last week we looked at getting a solar heating panel installed, and the rep advised us that our hot water system was missing three gadgets, one of which is required by legislation . And then while up in the roof I find that there're no batts above the garage area . *groan* I haven't spoken to the builder/seller yet, but will do sooner or later . I just ain't in the confrontational mode at the moment . :( This is a touchy point in the US . . . The garage is NOT usually a living space unless the interior walls are finished . . . but I know there's a percentile value to the "finish" that's required . If there's a toilet, sink, electrical receptical and a refrigerator in the garage, then the roof has to have equivalent R-values as the house or main domicile . Drainage and moisture control would also be the same . We call them "granny flats" here in the US . . and some districts have very strict rules that may or may not be enforced, according to the age of the conversion to a place for human to live, and the surrounding areas, and the homes in the areas if they have like accommodations too . But . . if I had a home recently built I'd insist on complete insulation and consideration that every roof and wall be brought to domicile values . Right now, it's a very powerful buyers' market here in the US . . . new, unsold homes are sitting vacant and waiting for a buyer . . . therefor conditions may not be the same in Upsidedown Land . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 575345 | 2007-08-09 08:29:00 | [QUOTE=Greg;580100 And then while up in the roof I find that there're no batts above the garage area . *groan* [/QUOTE] normall . you don't live in the garage so its not needed to be insulated . the inside of the house is insulated by the door to the garage and the insulation above . |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 575346 | 2007-08-09 12:42:00 | Wow Murray - that's a ton of information! :eek: Thanks. As for: You haven't heard it all... last week we looked at getting a solar heating panel installed, and the rep advised us that our hot water system was missing three gadgets, one of which is required by legislation. And then while up in the roof I find that there're no batts above the garage area. *groan* I haven't spoken to the builder/seller yet, but will do sooner or later. I just ain't in the confrontational mode at the moment. :( Hold off on talking to the builder/seller for the mo. If insulation is installed between the garage and main house and those walls are lined, i.e. in the walls that separate the habitable space from the uninhabitable space, then it complies with the building code as far as energy efficiency is concerned (it actually saves the cost of heating the garage). If not, then it doesn't and both the builder and local consent authority (probably your council) are in breach of the code, the council for negligence in discharging their duty and the builder for whatever you can nail him for (both under the Building Act, both tortious). In every other respect, the garage, if otherwise integrated with the house, has to comply with such things as external moisture, internal moisture structure, durability, etc, etc. Same applies to the missing plumbing components, except that the plumber can be included to the two above, but you'd not usually go directly to the plumber if your contract was with the builder, developer or some other party (The builder/developer/trades-person/designer + consent authority and dog, still has a duty of care to you, even though he may not have built the house for you. That's to do with the ten year liability/long stop under the act, you see and is not specific to contract which is another matter entirely. Also, labour only contracts or contribution by an owner/buyer is a different matter, but one that could see the owner/buyer liable along with the aforementioned parties. For those thinking of building in the future, be sure what your obligations and legal liabilities are for the various forms of contract, you could be classified as a developer and therefore carry a liability for the construction for ten years, regardless of whether you continue to own it. In fact, in theory that liability can stretch to 16 years, but I won't go in to that here [tradespeople, I bet 16 years is joyous news to you]). The construction industry is a lot of fun, have no doubt about that. :thumbs: Disclaimer: All the above information, real, implied or otherwise and anything else I have ever written on this website, is most probably bull-merde and cannot in any way be relied on. All except for this: Get your own independent expert advice. :cool: |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||