Renotherm - again . . .

[Anonymous]

Hi all,
Stumbled accros this website after searching for Renotherm on google. I read with interest the discussions posted august 2005. I am in the process of buying a 55 year old semi which already has this foam applied to the roof. The surveyor picked it up and noted it as a "temporary repair" and that it could potentially accelerate rot within the timbers / battens. The seller says it was applied for insulation purposes. I'm stuck in the middle . . .
During your discussions on this foam, did anyone ever get it applied, if so is it any good ?
As it's already applied, alarm bells are ringing and I assume it has been used to cover up all kinds of problems. The company are still in business, and the work still has 2 years of the 10 year guarantee remaining. Am I being paranoid ? I don't have long before completion, so ANY advice would be great. . .

 

[Anonymous]

If you really like the property just make an allowance to replace the roof when it fails.

Could cost quite a bit. Try and get a quote for replacing the entire roof.

If it were me and I had any other doubts about the house and could not afford to replace the entire roof then I would walk away from the deal.

This is one product that I would never use in a million years.

Sorry for not being too positive.

MJ

 

[Anonymous]

Not a good way to treat a roof, if you really like the place then get a survey done and instruct to have the roof looked at very closely, share any conclusion with the vendors and if a cost is involved in any repair to the roof then try to get this cost removed from the asking price. It depands how desperate they are to sell and you are to buy, I would not want the nasty stuff suffocateing my roof space, buyer beware

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your honesty ! This is exactly the opinion I need.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys. So is this conclusion drawn from personal experience or just 'hearsay'??

 

[Anonymous]

Personal experience and hearsay or not the only criteria by which to judge the product, Stuart. Fundamental principles of roofing state that your roof structure MUST be well ventilated, so that condensation does not occur (which would cause rot in the timbers).
If a plastic foam has coated the underside of the roof covering and "mummified" the timbers, then (a) it is very likely to have cut off all sources of ventilation, and (b) has prevented the timbers from giving off any damp that occurs within them.
I have no personal experience of the Renotherm system - nor shall I ever have!

 

[Anonymous]

Well for me it is from logic.

Having never used the stuff and never wanting to.

I look at it this way.

If you coat something from the underside so you can't see what is happening to the beams and that substance ineffect stops you from accessing problems unil it is too late then it does not seem to make sense to me.

Lets assume that you get a small amount of water leaking through the slates and this stuff stops you from noticing that.

Lets assume that the leak causes rot and a beam to fail and you will only notice that when it is too late to repair the leak.

Lots of assumptions but something I would be worried about. But that is just me and an opinon not an expert one.

Hope this helps?

MJ

 

[Anonymous]

Assume nothing Stuart.

Just consider the logical facts ( as already pointed).

What you have there is an irreversible process and basically means it will hinder any repairs which may be required from rime to time.As david suggested these repairs may be needed sooner than you think, that is if you can detect them under the gaunge, before it collapses.

 

[Anonymous]

Half of my house was treated with foam 20 years ago. This was done by the previous owner when the property was in a very poor state. It has kept the rain out all this time and on close inspection seems in execlennt condition. There is no sign of rot in any timbers. Of couse I cannot examine the upper surfaces of any timber but It does seem likely that any problems would be showing up by now.

It is not a product I would recommend, but It did not put me off buying this house and probably will not cause any great problems in the near future.

The real cost will come if you do have to re-roof as you will not be able to use any existing slates. Old slates are hard to come by and very expensive!

I have been told lots of horror stories but not actually come across anyone with a firsthand bad experience.

Douglas

 

[Anonymous]

Stuart just to back up Douglas.

It is all about risk and what it might cost if it does not work out.

It might be fine and not cost you, as per Douglas example.

But then again it might not and that is where you will have to be prepared to pay for a brand new roof.

If you are happy with that risk and could fund it if required then buy the house.

For me if it was the dream house I wanted really badly, and that was the only thing wrong, I would buy it as I would make allowance to re-roof.

E.G. We bought a house with Subsidence (which has been fixed) while some people would not touch it with a barge pole. We took the view that if it did happen again we would only have to find £1000 (insurance excess) to have it fixed. We also paid less for the house as it was left on the market for a long time. Silly as it is a gem of a house.

The risk for the roof is that it might cost you more than that?

Buying is about knowing the risks and making your choice based upon those.

MJ

 

[Anonymous]

My advice would be to think of your hard earned cash. You (we) are already questioning the application of this stuff. Consider three scenarios. You buy the house as is with no allowance made for re-roofing. You want to sell at some time in the future. Someone has made a claim against their surveyor/building society for re-roofing a property where this stuff was applied and the survey originally raised no concerns - and won. All survey reports which encounter this stuff now advise to get an allowance against the price for re-roofing. Your purchaser wants the allowance. Who loses out? Second scenario, much the same as first only no claim has been made, but it is now the current 'fad' (which we are starting....) to always knock the price of a house down where this stuff has been applied because of 'potential' problems with the roof. Third is where you buy the house, live in it until you are retired and then the roof collapses. In all scenarios you would lose out. As previously advised, I would get a quote for a new roof. If I really liked the house I would ask the vendor to make an allowance towards the cost of a new roof. Good luck! Oh and BTW - we just re-roofed our property rather than take the cheaper option of applying 'stuff'.

 

[Anonymous]

..............and another thing, whilst this is an excellent VERY temporary solution to a lot of problems, that is exactly what it is, TEMPORARY.

Most of us on this forum hate the stuff, simply because goes against the spirit of conservation.

Have a discussion with the manufacturers, I am sure they will give you lots of reasons why it is so good, balance the pro's against the con's and make your decision on that.

 

[Anonymous]

The problems with this stuff are already known. By the time you resell they may be so well known that no-one will touch it unless you knock off the cost of rebuilding the whole roof structure. Foamed roofs may even begin to be condemned as unsafe, there is certainly a case for that POV. If you want to take that gamble, your choice, but know what youre looking at.

NT

 

[Anonymous]

Obviously you dont like this product! Neither do I, but do you have any evidence for it causing problems? My roof was done 23 years ago and seems in excellent condition. The building would have fallen down by now with out it as the previous owner would never have paid for an expensive re-roof.

As I said before I have heard lots of horror stories but I think that they are just that - stories. Lets hear from someone with a firsthand bad experience.

 

[Anonymous]

You will not get identifiable contractors/associations slagging the stuff off – they have probably used it somewhere once!

It is bit like ‘asbestos’ really, it took a while to discover what damage that could do! Only this time it is the lungs of the building that will do the suffering, not just those of the populace.

Brunhilde says, she would only use it as a temporary, last ditch gusset filler to stop things sagging for a bit.

 

[Anonymous]

You're asking for failure stories

a) in a forum where probably no-one has fitted the stuff before
b) when it hasnt been around long enough for there to be a large number of foamed roofs about
c) ditto its too early for there to have been reports done by experts digging into the foam to find rotten wood and so on.

Its too early for that. It is however pretty easy to see why its a bad move, and why problem stories will almost certainly begin to come to light as time goes on.

Of course theres always time to find out something unexpected, like eg the foam gives off a gas that kills rot or something, but such unexpected turns are definitely the exception.

NT

 

[Anonymous]

I posted, in another thread on this issue, a letter copied from a SPAB News from an architect in Bristol who had a client who had experienced failure - water coming in and being trapped under the foam and, as it was unable to escape, rotting the timbers.

It doesn't take much imagination really to see covering the underside of a traditional roof with something like this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.