For whatever reason, the owner advised that the recommended repair method should be to carefully chop off the promenade tiles (which almost certainly had been fixed to the roofing membrane with an adhesive), patch repair the membrane and then lay new promenade tiles on the top.
The original contractor had returned a few times. He believed that the roof was not leaking, and the damage was caused by condensation dripping onto the suspended ceiling beneath the air conditioning ductwork. Both landlord and tenant were becoming frustrated. Meawhile the builder was adamant that it wasn’t his work.

Having developed the site 25 or so years ago, the landlord, fortunately, had a comprehensive set of all the construction drawings. Still, as is often the case, it became apparent that what was drawn was not necessarily built. Similarly, the replacement roof had been procured without any specification; it was a simple case of ‘replace the roof in this section’.

So, at this stage:

• we didn’t know what was originally specified in the design.
• we didn’t know what materials had been used or how it had been built,
• we didn’t know the nature and extent of the repair.

How could we have helped to prevent this?

A simple but thorough check of the cause of the leak, as it may have been that the roof covering wasn’t at fault at all. The contractor had removed, and not replaced, coping flashings and other critical protection around the parapet wall. None of these things had been considered.

The internal and external faces of the walls were painted with an elastomeric paint which was exhibiting blisters indicating that water was finding its way in or becoming trapped between the junction between the paint and the wall substrate.

The reality of deciding to chop off or remove promenade tiles was never going to work, regardless of how careful they may have intended to be.

GWE Property & Advice would have recommended a simple inspection of this area of the building. As a result, scheduled up a specification identifying what work and material needed to be used where on the roof and procured the work through a reputable and cost-effective contractor (either by tender or negotiation).

The work could have been managed and supervised to ensure that the repairs specified remained appropriate as work progressed, as it sometimes needs to adapt or change based on findings.

As part of this supervision, we would have kept notes and photographs to ensure it was executed correctly.

We would have gathered all essential documentation together (specifications, warranties, and producer statements) for the work completed for the client.

Whilst we cannot be sure, our experience suggests that the cost of engaging GWE Property and Building would have been disproportionally less than the cost now facing the landlord who has paid for something that does not work on his building. Best to do it right and do it once.

As Henry Royce (half of Rolls Royce) said