!!! WARNING FOR BUYERS !!!

Syncon tries to divert attention from the elephant in the room!

Syncon Homes has begun giving a letter to homeowners who have started to question the construction defect involving the siding vs. wall vs. foundation issue in their homes.  It's from the company that installed the siding.  The problem is that it doesn't address the installation.  Instead, it just says that they "are not using the EIFS stucco system at this project" (La Costa).  They're calling it "a standard one coat stucco system."  

The issue is, "Who Cares?"  They're trying to divert the attention from the elephant in the room, their poor installation that fails to comply with the installation instructions dictated by manufacturer that was designed to meet building codes.  The fact of the matter remains, no matter what they want to call it, the siding is installed incorrectly.  

Here's the letter:

Along with the letter, they included a diagram.  It's one of the same diagrams from Omega Products, the manufacturer of the siding, that we've already posted on our Omega Siding page.  They've now confirmed that it's the same product they installed, so rather than discussing the installation again, here are the pictures as a reminder:

What Syncon Homes failed to provide with the letter was the manufacturer's diagram that shows installation of the shear panel that they failed to follow.  Again, it's posted it on our Omega Siding page.  Rather than discussing it all over again, here's another smaller picture as a reminder:

By their own admission as to the product that Syncon Homes used, the above diagrams show the correct installation.  Anything else is a construction defect, which is what we have on our house.  It's also the same defect we've seen on other houses.  Again, we've already discussed the defect on other pages.  However, here's a couple pictures as a reminder:

It's quite apparent that there are numerous defects in our house and others built by Syncon Homes:

• The shear panel is not enclosed within the weep screed as required by the manufacturer,

• The weep holes at the bottom of the weep screed are plugged up to varying degrees around the house,

• The sill plate is not on top of the foundation, as shown in the diagrams,

• The siding does not meet the side of the foundation, and

• The wall interior remains unprotected from many problems that will affect the habitability of the home, such as water and vermin intrusion.

The whole point is that Syncon Homes did not install the siding as required by the manufacturer, which was dictated to ensure that it met building codes and allowed it to perform as designed.  Instead, Syncon Homes has failed to acknowledge that fact and has chosen to try to divert attention away from the defect.  

That's an unacceptable act by Syncon Homes.  

---

Why has Syncon done this?

There's no disincentive to keep Syncon Homes from diverting attention from the construction defects and from offering repairs that don't fix the defect.  If they can convince homeowners to go with a cheap repair, that fails to correct the defect or bring it into compliance with the building codes, Syncon Homes will save a lot of money.

If they did the right thing and began fixing the problems the right way, Syncon Homes would be spending a lot more money.  That's what it appears they're trying to avoid, even if it's what they need to do.

When a homeowner pushes the issue, Syncon Homes will still have to do what they should have done from the start, which is to fix it the right way.  However, there is no punishment for trying to get away with the "Band Aid on a Bullet Wound" approach.  They will be required to spend more money on fixing the defects for the homeowners that demand Syncon Homes do what they should have done when they built the house, but they still saved a lot with those homeowners who fell for the diversion and cheap fix.

No matter what happens, they still come out ahead without any penalties

---

Pay Attention, Syncon Homes

You need to stop trying to fool the homeowners who are living with the consequences of your poor workmanship.  You need to stop trying to divert attention away from the construction defect by focusing on the name of the product.  The name doesn't matter anymore because it's the installation instructions that are at issue.

Just refer back to the documents that are directly related to the Omega Siding.  As a reminder, they are the ICC-ES Report and the Diamond Wall Installation Instruction.  Your installation does not comply with either set of manufacturer-directed instructions, so your installation is defective.  That's the bottom line that you need to resolve, rather than trying to fool your homeowners and "Band-Aid" the problem. 

If the defect turns out to be something bigger than the siding installation, like a problem that actually begins with the wall construction or foundation, then so be it.  It still remains a problem you need to address, whether you like it or not.  It's the right and ethical thing to do, so get it done and stop trying to fool the people who bought homes from you! 

---

Address to Syncon's Claim

We'd rather not get sucked into Syncon Homes diversionary tactics.  There's no point since the true issue is that Syncon Homes did not install the siding properly as already discussed.  

However, you will find some presentation pages included below that address Syncon Homes' diversionary tactics.  They're from a company that provides various siding solutions and offers training materials for different siding applications.  

The slides are from a "One Coat Stucco Systems" presentation, which is what Syncon Homes and their subcontractor claim their product should be called.  For credit and in evidence, Click Here for the full presentation.  In the meantime, here are a few of the pages from the presentation that directly address the situation:

TITLE PAGE - One Coat Stucco

Note: Hard Coat & One Coat is used interchangeably for the purposes of the presentation

What did we just read?  

One Coat Stucco is . . .

"Portland Cement based," and 

"Does not use a layer of foam insulation" 

 

While EIFS . . . 

"May be Portland Cement based," and

"Uses a layer of rigid foam insulation board"

---

. . . and this is how "one coat stucco" is installed, without foam board!

What about the building code.  Maybe Syncon's still okay?

Even though we've seen how this subject matter expert resolves the siding confusion, let's give Syncon Homes the benefit of the doubt.  Let's see how their "standard one-coat stucco system" stands the test of the International Residential Code.

First, we need to define something.  The use of the term "one-coat" is a misnomer.  It is actually a two coat method of stucco application.  Common street vernacular simply refers to it as "one-coat," so Syncon is not misstating things when they use that term.

The other option is "three coat stucco."  That's the traditional way of putting stucco on a building, which takes more time, materials, and effort than the newer two coat method.

Now that we have the definitions out of the way, how does the Residential Code deal with this issue?  It's outlined in R703.6 (Exterior Plaster).  It covers the issue of stucco.  Plaster is just a different word that applies to the same thing.

The important thing to note is that section R703.6.2 is a "shall" section.  What it says is not optional.  In this case, the stucco shall not be less than three coats when applied over metal lath.  Metal Lath is the material that's on top of the foam board on our house, so it appears that Syncon didn't do things to code if their product is truly a "one coat stucco system."  They were supposed to use a three coat stucco since it was going on top of metal lath.

The section goes on to document that two coats is fine (one coat stucco system) if it's applied over "masonry, concrete, or gypsum backing."  Well, that's not the case with our house, and each and every other house in the subdivision, so it still appears that Syncon Homes has violated the code.

Here's the code section:

What's missing from the code section is any mention of foam board insulation on the exterior of a stucco wall.  That's very telling.

We'd still like to give them a chance, so let's look at the diagram of how stucco/plaster is supposed to be applied in a wood frame/slab environment.  Maybe the diagram will have a mention of foam board insulation.  That's the type of construction we have in our subdivision.

In this figure, what do we see?  We see the wall sitting directly on top of the foundation.  We see the wood sheathing, the weep screed, the metal lath, and the plaster levels.  Yet, we don't see the foam board insulation on the exterior.  It's missing, just as it is in the narrative portion of the code section.

 

So the question remains, where does the exterior foam board insulation come into play?  It comes into play in sections R703.9 and R703.9.1, which describe Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems and discusses the components of the system.  Section R703.9.1 specifically mentions "exterior insulation" (foam board), while R703.9 distinctly says that the EIFS "shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.

Here's the involved code section:

We're now left with a dilemma:

• Did Syncon use a "one coat stucco system?"  If they did use it, they violated the building code and their poor workmanship violated the manufacturer's installation instructions.

• Did they use an EIFS product?  If they did use it, they violated a different building code section and their poor workmanship still violated the manufacturer's installation instructions.

That makes things pretty darn clear, doesn't it?  No matter what they want to call it, they did a bad job that has negatively affected our health and safety, and the durability of our home.

We don't need to discuss it much further, other than to remind everyone that the real issue isn't the name of the product.  That's just a diversion that they're using so people don't see the elephant in the room. 

The real issue is that the manufacturer's installation instructions needed to be followed to ensure code compliance and a habitable house.  Syncon Homes did not meet their obligation and now they're trying to hide from their responsibilities.  That's unacceptable.

Syncon Homes needs to do what is right.  It's that simple.

Home Page

"Superior Homes" is what they claim

Lemke and the Hanlys should be ashamed!