New Shingles For Roof

[Golfgar4]

I'm preparing to put my house up for sale. Last fall, I discovered that my 30 year shingles that were in the house specifications when we built it are in fact only 15 year shingles. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif And we are in the 16th year of living in the house.

The builder has long been out of business, but ironically not due to shoddy building practices. He just couldn't manage his personal life and so his marriage and business comletey fell apart. Don't even know where the guy is now. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Anyway, we've been debating what our options are. We could 1) put on a whole new roof (major bucks!), 2) just put on a new layer of shingles, which is approved by inspection department (fewer major bucks), or 3) not do anything and reduce the asking price of the house for the cost of re-shingling (maybe the potential buyers don't even ask about it /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif).

Regarding #3, I've not yet determined if we would be required to mention the situation with the roof as part of the sale or not. I know, for example, we would have to divulge any water infiltration problems, but I don't know if the same thing applies to a worn roof. I would certainly not lie about the condition of the roof if a buyer were to ask about it. But is it one of those things that must be mentioned even if not asked?

Does anyone have an idea of what the general cost difference would be of doing a completely new roof versus just a re-shingling job? What kind of percentage savings can a person expect with the re-shingling? Say 25% the cost of the new? 35%?

To be honest, I guess I would feel more comfortable doing the re-shingling just because we can then say that we did it, which should make it more attractive to a potential buyer. I've been told that by doing a job like this as part of the preparation of selling a house, a person could expect to get 135% - 140% return on the cost of the job. That wouldn't be too bad.

So has anyone done this? Anything else to consider?

 

[Robert_in_NY]

If your house is was built 16 years ago and there is only one layer of shingles there is no reason why you can't put a second layer on and not think twice about it.

 

[Highbeam]

If the roof is not leaking and has not suffered obvious damage then it is what it is, a perfectly sound 16 year old roof. No need to disclose anything that is nothing more than a cosmetic problem.

If it is leaking and needs to be fixed immediately to prevent escalating damage then I feel you should disclose it.

How do you know it is broken? If it is a leak then have the leak fixed to restore it to original function and call it good.

 

[boustany]

Hmmmmm

How do your shingles look? They don't have a self destruct function built in.

If they appear to be in good shape (not 'bald', not curled, none missing) then why not just leave them that way.

If its any consolation, I bought a house with actual 25 year shingles I had to re-roof 10 years after it had been shingled by a 'professional'. Why, well, he didn't vent the roof, he didn't install on top of tar paper, and he nailed the shingles down wrong. So, he violated the 3 things that invalidate the warranty. And the joke was on me: in Quebec (where I was then) roofers usually close and reopen every 2 years to avoid warranty claims!

If it were me, as long as the roof were in good repair, I'd leave it. It I were to redo the job, (and I've shingled a few houses) I'd strip, repair any bad woodwork, layer tarpaper, and reshingle.

 

[SnowRidge]

If the roof is not leaking and doesn't have any hidden defects, don't do anything. The buyer may or may not have it inspected. That is their choice.

I was in a similar situation with a house I inherited, except that the roof was older and the house was in sunny California. The realtor suggested replacing the roof. I balked and suggested getting it inspected instead. The inspection cost about a hundred bucks, with a verdict of "the shingles are old, but their is nothing wrong with them."

Getting big returns on small investments prior to sale applies to things visible to potential buyers. These are mostly cosmetic. I'm not sure a new roof is in that category.

 

[EddieWalker]

If you haven't hired a realtor yet, make sure you interview at least three with five being better. Invite them out to your house on seperate days and ask them about your home and the market.

Don't mention the roof, let them take a look first. If they see it's bad, and most can tell at a glance, then you know you have an issue. If none mention it, you probably don't need to worry about it.

But just to contradict myself, a home inspector will probably find something wrong with it and tell the buyer. The bank financing the buyers loan might require a new roof.

When I buy a fixer upper, I ignore the roof since I know it will be a barganing chip the buyers will use. If it's already done, then they will try some other tactic to get my price down.

If and when you have to get a new roof, just put on another layer. It's about 30 percent cheaper then stripping off the original and it's common practice.

You can go three layers, but each layer has a shorter life span then the original.

Save your cash for fuel and RV Park fees. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Eddie

 

[Durbob]

I worked in cnstruction for 20 years and never even heard of 15 year shingles. 20 year shingles are the cheapest i have seen. Just put new shingles over the old ones UNLESS the old ones are curled up to where the new ones wont lay flat. In that case take a razor knife and cut the curls off before installing the new ones.

Dur

 

[gsxr1100]

the problem going over old is how many layer are underneath?

Example, I had 2 layers already when I purchesed my home so I could not put #3 on per my MA law.

So I stripped the roof, installed fire and water, new think roofing paper and 19 square of 30 year shingles. The shingles are the cheap part.

 

[Bird]

I'm sure the rules are different in different parts of the country. The last roofing job I did, several years ago, was to strip 3 layers of shingles, plus the roofing paper down to bare wood and start over, but 3 layers was acceptable on homes of that type at the time it was done. Now this mobile home I'm currently living in had hail damage about 3 months before I bought it, and the owner was told (I think correctly, but am not really sure) that even two layers was not permitted, so it was stripped to the wood and re-roofed before I bought it. And exactly what do you mean by </font><font color="blue" class="small">( installed fire and water. )</font> I assume? you mean fire detection (heat, smoke, or both) and a sprinkler system?

 

[Durbob]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( the problem going over old is how many layer are underneath?

Example, I had 2 layers already when I purchesed my home so I could not put #3 on per my MA law.

So I stripped the roof, installed fire and water, new think roofing paper and 19 square of 30 year shingles. The shingles are the cheap part. )</font>

He did say he built the house 16 years ago so i would assume that there is only one layer. Two layers are normal , but i would never have three layers.

Dur