Hello,
Today we noticed a roof tile that had slid down a considerable distance, leaving the underroof exposed. The house was built in the 70s, and in this case, they neither used rafters nor roofing felt; they settled for double plywood boards. Unfortunately, this means that the wood comes into direct contact with moisture if the roof tiles do not do their job.
Here you can see a short film (apologies for the reversed format):
1. The roof tile covered about 30% of the hole, and you can see that there is water damage on the right side.
2. View downwards, it doesn't look like the battens below have taken any significant damage.
3. This is the batten where the tile was sitting; it looks quite bad. But even though it looks bad, I don't understand how the tile could have jumped out of its track. You can also see in the picture how damp the plywood is.
4. This piece was loosely lying under the roof tile
5. Even though I couldn't see the previous roof tile was damaged, I put in a new one
6. Inside, I expected a large damp spot but could not actually find anything remarkable.
7. This looked like a damp spot, but it didn't feel damp, and it didn't sag. I also think it was a bit too far down to be in the right area.
What do you think about this? Should it be addressed? And if so, how?
Today we noticed a roof tile that had slid down a considerable distance, leaving the underroof exposed. The house was built in the 70s, and in this case, they neither used rafters nor roofing felt; they settled for double plywood boards. Unfortunately, this means that the wood comes into direct contact with moisture if the roof tiles do not do their job.
Here you can see a short film (apologies for the reversed format):
1. The roof tile covered about 30% of the hole, and you can see that there is water damage on the right side.
2. View downwards, it doesn't look like the battens below have taken any significant damage.
3. This is the batten where the tile was sitting; it looks quite bad. But even though it looks bad, I don't understand how the tile could have jumped out of its track. You can also see in the picture how damp the plywood is.
4. This piece was loosely lying under the roof tile
5. Even though I couldn't see the previous roof tile was damaged, I put in a new one
6. Inside, I expected a large damp spot but could not actually find anything remarkable.
7. This looked like a damp spot, but it didn't feel damp, and it didn't sag. I also think it was a bit too far down to be in the right area.
What do you think about this? Should it be addressed? And if so, how?
I suggest that you save for a roof replacement and consider whether you want to decorate the attic/build a dormer/change the roof angle. Until then, keep an eye on the roof, both inside and out. That's it.
All roofs must have waterproofing. There's nothing wrong with plywood, but it needs something waterproof on the outside. If the plywood looks like in the top pictures, it must be replaced. All tiles and battens must be removed, rotten plywood replaced, and everything covered with fabric or underlay paper. The tiles are also ready for retirement. You probably need to lay a tarp as a temporary measure. What is the roof pitch?
I wouldn't put a tarpaulin unless there's a leak. The tarpaulin can damage the roof more than it is beneficial, as long as there's no leak anyway.
It is doubtful that the roof can be damaged more than it already has. It absolutely must not leak. One should not mess with the roof now.
Of course, it's possible to damage the roof more. All the tiles are in place and are worn but probably intact. There are no damp spots on the inside. If you put a tarp on, it will flap against the roof, it will break itself and can damage the tiles. Then you can't see if a tile becomes misaligned.
I agree that it's time for a roof replacement, but if you accept that you need to replace the entire roof, a little moisture penetration or a bit more damage to the plywood might not matter.
Focus on what you want with the house and plan a suitable renovation in connection with the roof replacement, then you can probably deduct costs from the capital gains tax upon sale.
I agree that it's time for a roof replacement, but if you accept that you need to replace the entire roof, a little moisture penetration or a bit more damage to the plywood might not matter.
Focus on what you want with the house and plan a suitable renovation in connection with the roof replacement, then you can probably deduct costs from the capital gains tax upon sale.
The point of my post is not that you should wrap the house in plastic, but that you shouldn't do anything with the roof right now. If you need to protect something temporarily, you can use tarpaulin (the real kind that you can rent, not fake versions). Given the condition the roof seems to be in and considering the age of the concrete tiles, a roof replacement can't be delayed for very long.
But then we agree 
Keep an eye on the roof, tiles that become misaligned or break should be replaced. If it starts leaking (moisture spots on the inside), you should place a tarp over it and replace the roof. Until then, you can save and make plans for any potential renovations.
Keep an eye on the roof, tiles that become misaligned or break should be replaced. If it starts leaking (moisture spots on the inside), you should place a tarp over it and replace the roof. Until then, you can save and make plans for any potential renovations.
No, they don't have to. My roof has been in place for 160 years without a waterproof layer. It's probably time to do something about the roof. But it has worked for a long time without a waterproof layer. However, it becomes much more sensitive if there's an issue with the tiles, as was the case with the OP. With proper underlay, there will be no consequential damage.J justusandersson said:
If you expand the selection to include historical buildings, then naturally Daniel 109 is right. Asphalt felt probably didn't start appearing until sometime in the 1870s (I am not entirely sure). The problems were solved partly with a very steep roof pitch, preferably around 45 degrees, and partly with open constructions that could withstand the occasional splash of water.
When we requested a quote for roof replacement a year ago, several of the craftsmen questioned why it needed to be replaced now. No tiles were broken, there were no visible moisture penetrations, and the moisture meter showed no increased moisture.
The general opinion was that if it's not leaking, there's no reason to replace it.
Everyone agrees that the roof has reached its estimated lifespan, but that does not necessarily mean it has to be replaced. The more years you can extract from it, the more economical it becomes.
As usual, it's always risk-free and safe to say you should renovate/replace/buy new, but can't you really get a few more years out of this roof?
Of course, one can point out that there is some moisture penetration, BUT we are talking about a small area and the moisture has not penetrated the roof. When this dries up, what is the condition of the roof? Wouldn't it last a couple more years?
The reason for the leak in this case is known, a tile has slipped down. I suppose this wouldn't be entirely impossible even shortly after a roof construction. And if that had happened, would you then discard the entire roof? Or perform a minor fix?
What I am pondering here, however, is that the batten that is supposed to hold this tile in place appears to have moisture damage. The question I ask myself when I look at the photos is how this piece could have become moisture-damaged. Either it must be raining in at a special angle or there is another leak further up the roof. Since I didn't think along those lines when I was there, I didn't look out for it either. However, I did lift a couple of tiles to find a replacement and didn't notice any additional problems.
So my amateurish opinion right now is:
- Lift the roof tile above and ensure there's no impact there as well
- Let the material dry for a few months (until summer)
- Check the strength in the area and if necessary, nail/screw some type of reinforcement, maybe a piece of plywood.
Putting a tarp doesn't feel like a well-thought-out solution; the risk is that you trap the moisture. In this case, we don't have an open hole, the roof tile that should protect the underlay is back in place, so the area should be able to dry on its own.
The general opinion was that if it's not leaking, there's no reason to replace it.
Everyone agrees that the roof has reached its estimated lifespan, but that does not necessarily mean it has to be replaced. The more years you can extract from it, the more economical it becomes.
As usual, it's always risk-free and safe to say you should renovate/replace/buy new, but can't you really get a few more years out of this roof?
Of course, one can point out that there is some moisture penetration, BUT we are talking about a small area and the moisture has not penetrated the roof. When this dries up, what is the condition of the roof? Wouldn't it last a couple more years?
The reason for the leak in this case is known, a tile has slipped down. I suppose this wouldn't be entirely impossible even shortly after a roof construction. And if that had happened, would you then discard the entire roof? Or perform a minor fix?
What I am pondering here, however, is that the batten that is supposed to hold this tile in place appears to have moisture damage. The question I ask myself when I look at the photos is how this piece could have become moisture-damaged. Either it must be raining in at a special angle or there is another leak further up the roof. Since I didn't think along those lines when I was there, I didn't look out for it either. However, I did lift a couple of tiles to find a replacement and didn't notice any additional problems.
So my amateurish opinion right now is:
- Lift the roof tile above and ensure there's no impact there as well
- Let the material dry for a few months (until summer)
- Check the strength in the area and if necessary, nail/screw some type of reinforcement, maybe a piece of plywood.
Putting a tarp doesn't feel like a well-thought-out solution; the risk is that you trap the moisture. In this case, we don't have an open hole, the roof tile that should protect the underlay is back in place, so the area should be able to dry on its own.
But the pan must have slipped down 10 years ago considering how rotten it is?
Then I think, at least, that something as visible as a roof should look a bit tidier than that; I would have replaced it without thinking any more.
Then I think, at least, that something as visible as a roof should look a bit tidier than that; I would have replaced it without thinking any more.
No, it goes pretty fast if water gets in.
Last edited:
I have been in the attic maybe every 3 months and on the roof maybe once every 6 months. Since I haven't encountered this before, my impression is that it hasn't been like this for more than a month at most. In the future, we will keep a better eye on the roof so that it doesn't go so long before action can be taken.
Now, I am no expert in the area, but if it rains and especially snows a lot like it has now, I would say that rot can develop quite quickly in exposed and untreated wood.
Regarding the condition of the roof, it should be mentioned that there is a tree directly above this part, which means there is clearly more moss and dirt.
Here are some pictures of other parts of the roof:
Now, I am no expert in the area, but if it rains and especially snows a lot like it has now, I would say that rot can develop quite quickly in exposed and untreated wood.
Regarding the condition of the roof, it should be mentioned that there is a tree directly above this part, which means there is clearly more moss and dirt.
Here are some pictures of other parts of the roof: