Problem with roofing material under warranty. I have a lean on this house that the owner installed a new roof with Tamko shingles. These shingles were put over another roof that was in fairly good condition and another roof on a garage that was stripped of the old roofing completely.

Both roofs encountered curling of the shingles (3 tab). One was put on 6 years ago and the garage about 3 years ago.

The Tamko roofing co. issued certificates prorated for the shingles on the house, and are in the process of covering the garage.

The problem is, that now the roofs (both) must be completely stripped to remove the shingles. This will involve removal of shingles, tearing of felt, damage of metal edging and hauling away the materials to a land fill.

The contractor who installed the roof, said he will not install TANKO shingles, as he has had several jobs do the same. But Tamko issued a certificate for purchase of Tamko shingles, and a certificate for the contractor to ONLY install the shingles. Since these are damaged and curling up, they must be removed.

No one will budge such as offering monetary refund from Tamko or the contractor as far as using Tamko products in the settlement. To top it off, we live in the midwest, and the roofing season is just about near the end do to the weather. And the certificates expire Jan. 1st., and most roofers are booked to the end of the roofing season.



What should the owner do, or who can they call to report this type of settlement and the problems involved?

The owner is a single mom who is pinched for money and can't afford this addition expense, as she added these roofs onto her mortgage and does not have the money to pay for the complete removal on her own.

 

The roofer should be able to turn the Tamko certificate into a local distributor at anytime before the expiration date. I'm sure if you hired a roofer and he could not get to it until after the expiration date, you could call Tamko, explain the situation, and they may extend the date.

The roofer should also be able to get any brand of shingles for this particular roof.

I believe this is how it works:
The roofer turns the certificate into a local distributor. The distributor will turn the certificate in to Tamko for the replacement shingles. Tamko will ship the shingles to the distributor "free of charge".

Now the roofer can do 1 of 2 things. He can use the Tamko shingles and it's over.

OR...he can choose a different brand, in which the distributor will have to transfer the "costs" of the Tamko shingles to the other brand of shingles, BUT the distributor will want his mark-up for the other brand of shingles. So the distributor will offset the costs of the 2 brands, but will still charge for roughly his mark-up.

In essence, you can do one of two things:

1 - Go back with Tamko shingles.
2 - Go back with another shingle and pay the distributor's mark-up.

It sounds as though Tamko has lived up to their responsibilities, which is more than can be said for many other manufacturers.
They had a problem and they settled it. The fact that the roofer wants to use a different brand is not really Tamko's responsibility.

My guess is that you have some of the "organic" shingles that are/were very common in the mid-west. All manufacturer's organic shingles curled. Most have now gone to a "fiberglass" shingle that is not as prone to that kind of curling.

You may want to check the warranty to see if they pay for the removal of the old roof. My experience with ALL roofing manufacturers tells me that they don't. I don't know any that do.

You mentioned calling someone to report something. I'm not sure that there is anyone to call. Tamko honored their warranty and settled the claim.

The only one that you may call would be maybe the local Tamko representative. Maybe you could explain your situation and he/she could pull a few strings. You never know. As they say, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease".

I hope I understood your situation correctly. If so, I hope this helps.
Good luck.....

 

And now you know why the warrenty on shingles really is not worth very much. It does not cover the labor, and that is the lions share of the cost.

 

Yes, the warranty should include labor....maybe not to tear off, but it should cover the installation.

 

Should and does are two different things. I have yet to see a shingle manufacturer warrent labor. If you know of one post it. A lot of people would use the product.

 

Fact is, warranty doesn't sell. It sounds great, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't sell. You have to pay just a little extra (maybe just $1.00 per square) to get a better warranty, and customers on the whole would not pay for it.

TAMKO and Owens Corning used to have warranties that covered labor (prorated) through the ENTIRE LIFE of the roof. That costs the company more money. The other manufacturers did not. When it came down to buying a roof, the warranties did not matter. Of course, there are always exceptions, but on the whole, it came down to price. Homeowners and roofers were not willing to pay more for a better warranty. TAMKO and Owens Corning had to be competitive in the market (as anyone would) or they would lose sales.

I believe that TAMKO and Owens Corning finally changed their warranties to be "just like everyone else's" which is:

FULL MATERIAL AND LABOR for the first 5 years of the roof's life. After that it is material only, prorated for the rest of the life.

It is sad that TAMKO and Owens Corning do not have the superior warranties anymore, but it was market driven. People just wouldn't pay the extra $1.00 per square....sometimes even less.