We've discussed Syncon
Homes' shoddy workmanship throughout our website. We've seen their
defective siding installation, the omission of
insulation from our ceiling and at least one wall, their defective installation of the structural sheathing,
walls that are not weather resistant, water pipes that
freeze during
the winter, and other defects. These are a few examples of Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship
that has led to serious
consequences for us.
However, there are many
other construction defects that we have yet to discuss. Most of
the shoddy workmanship violates the building code and all stand in
direct opposition to Syncon Homes' claim that they
build "superior" houses.
Let's take a look at
another example of Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship that not only threatens the
structure of the house, but also the health and safety, and even the life, of anyone who
lives in, visits or passes by the residence.
What did Syncon
Homes do?
Syncon Homes failed to comply with
the building codes and the mandated manufacturer's installation
instructions when they built our roof. Roof tiles are not
fastened, flashing is incorrectly installed or possibly missing and the interface
with the siding is clearly defective.
It appears to us that Syncon
Homes' shoddy construction practices have endangered the integrity of
the house and exposed us and the neighbors to the very real possibility of
serious injury or death. We think you'll see it the same way, too.
What does Syncon
Homes say about it?
Syncon Homes denied that they
defectively installed the roofing materials. We don't know how they could
make
such a claim in light of what we're about to show you, but they made the
denial nonetheless. Consequently, they've refused to resolve the
terrible conditions
and have exposed us and the neighbors to the dire consequences of their
defective craftsmanship.
Actually, we shouldn't be
surprised at their refusal to accept responsibility for their defective
workmanship. When Syncon Homes was notified of the defective roof
construction, they sent out someone to inspect the workmanship after a
long delay. We were told that the inspector was from the company
that did the roofing work.
Should it surprise us that the
roofing subcontractor wouldn't find anything wrong? He was on the
hook for repairs that would be very costly and for which he wouldn't
receive any compensation.
When Syncon Homes' roof inspector
finally arrived, later than Syncon Homes had expected, he simply walked around the exterior of the house, looked up at
the roof from ground level and then left without comment. He
didn't ask us about our findings or climb on the roof to inspect the
components. His inspection appeared cursory at best and it seemed to us that he was annoyed
that anyone would question his workmanship.
Based upon the
"inspection," Syncon Homes denied that anything was wrong with the roof. They
claimed that no repair was necessary.
So, what evidence of
defective construction and shoddy workmanship did we find? We'll explain.
Syncon Homes didn't follow the building codes
Let's begin with the
governing documents.
The building codes are
laws that govern the construction of the house Syncon Homes sold to
us. They are laws enacted as minimum standards to ensure a safe
and habitable structure for the residents and the community.
Syncon Homes is not empowered or allowed to violate them.
In the case of the roof,
International Residential Code (IRC) Section 905.3.7 prevails. It dictates that the manufacturer's instruction must be
followed when it states that the:
We're also in a Class C
wind region with wind speeds that can reach 105 miles per
hour. It's codified in the Douglas County Building Codes and in
Syncon Homes' own construction documents for our house. Here is
the applicable County Building Code Section that documents the 105 mph
wind requirement:
1609.3
Basic wind design.
Section 1609.3 of the IBC, is amended by substituting the following
language:
The minimum basic wind speed at any
site in the County is 105 miles
per hour (three second gust) for determining design wind
pressure. (Ord. 1131, 2005; Ord. 802, 1998; Ord. 711, 1995; Ord. 641,
1994, Ord. 558, 1992)
The wind speed notation
in our County is of import because IRC Section 905.3.7 further documents that:
It can't be more
clear. IRC 905.3.7 has twice dictated that Syncon Homes
is required to comply with the tile manufacturer's
instructions. There's no denying it.
Syncon Homes has no option to install the roof tile any differently
than instructed.
Finally, there's one
other part of IRC 905.3.7 that we'd like to point out. It has to do
with a "snow" requirement. It's written in the code
that:
We've now been in this
house through two winters. In each case, it has snowed here.
Snow has accumulated on the roof, melt and freeze cycles have repeatedly
happened
and the snow has returned again and again. It's obvious that we're
subject to snow, so the building code adds the two nail requirement to
the tile manufacturer's installation instructions.
Here's the governing
building code section (IRC 905.3.7) for reference:
So which company
manufactured the roofing tile, which tile did they use, and what did
this company mandate for the installation? Here's what we've
discovered:
Syncon Homes chose to
install tiles made by Eagle
Roofing. They used the Capistrano
Model No. 3645 concrete roofing tiles that you can see at the
Eagle roofing links we've provided and in the pictures on this page.
Eagle Roofing was very
clear in its directions to Syncon Homes. Syncon Homes was not only directed to follow Eagle
Roofing's instructions,
but that their installation "must be in accordance with the
Concrete and Clay Tile Installation Manual for Moderate Climate
Regions."
Eagle Roofing's
directions were clearly written and the documents provided concise diagrams that
pictured the correct installation of their product. They established how the concrete tile, metal flashing,
underlayment, nails, and other components were required to be installed
and Syncon Homes did not have any choice but to comply.
Here is an excerpt from Eagle Tile's installation
instructions that documents the requirements:
We finally end with three
documents that Syncon Homes is required to follow. They are not
optional, only suggestions or just good ideas. Compliance with
their instructions are mandatory. Any non-compliance will amount to
construction defects and
violations of the law. It can't be denied.
Here is a list of the
three documents that we will see Syncon Homes failed to follow:
-
International
Residential Code, Section 905.3.7
-
Eagle
Roofing Installation Instructions, and
-
Concrete and Clay Tile Installation Manual for Moderate Climate Regions.
Why must Syncon
Homes comply with the building codes and instructions?
The building codes and Eagle Roofing's requirements were put in place for a reason. They are not
arbitrary nor capricious.
Instead, they
represent the MINIMUM installation standards that must be met for the
roofing system to
perform in an adequate manner. They have been
put into place to provide a roof that will adequately do its job of keeping rain out of the
structure, tiles in place in the wind, birds out from beneath the roof
tiles and to help minimize deterioration of other
structural components the roof was designed to protect.
Conversely, any failures
to comply with the MINIMUM requirements established by Eagle Roofing plainly
amount to
construction defects. They would be violations of the various documents and
it
means that the roofing system will not perform as designed and required
by Eagle Roofing and the International Residential Code.
That is the situation we've
found with Syncon Homes' roof installation. It is also the problem we asked them to
resolve. We discovered that they failed to meet the MINIMUM requirements in multiple
ways and yet
Syncon Homes has refused to resolve their shoddy workmanship. It's a situation that we find despicable and
unsatisfactory in almost too many ways to count.
What roofing defects
did Syncon Homes create?
We found a variety of
construction defects with the roofing system that stem directly from
Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship. Here are a few examples.
Let's consider how the
concrete tiles overlap each other. Syncon Homes
was required to overlap each and every preceding tile by at least
3". It is not an arbitrary requirement. It's
the MINIMUM overlap that the manufacturer has determined is necessary
for their tiles to meet MINIMUM performance levels. Anything less represents substandard
care, amounts to shoddy
workmanship and culminates in a construction defect that violates the building
codes.
Here is the document that
shows the 3" overlap requirement that Syncon Homes was required to
follow. It is from the
"Concrete and Clay Tile Installation Manual for Moderate Climate
Regions" where Eagle Tile and the building codes mandated compliance:
What did we find with
Syncon Homes' tile installation? We found big overlap variations
throughout the roof. Some tile rows met the 3" overlap requirement
while many others had overlaps as small as 1 1/2".
It may sound like not a
big deal, but consider the consequences. The less overlap
that is present, the greater water, snow, ice and other weather-related
conditions will intrude under the tiles and into
places it is not meant to go. It is water and weather that leads to all kinds of
big problems like accelerated deterioration of the substrate, damage to the
structure, damage to the tiles and eventual health and safety-related problems.
Let's also remember that
the manufacturer and the building codes have established the BARE
MINIMUM for our tile overlap to be 3" for EACH AND EVERY ROW
OF TILE, not
just some rows. Anything less represents a
clear violation of the law.
Here's one example of what
we found. It is not a picture of the smallest overlap of 1 1/2", nor is it the only
violation by Syncon Homes. It's just the most accessible example
that kept us from climbing onto the roof. In this case, the
overlap is only 2 1/4".
Please remember that the
installation instructions and building codes are not recommendations. They are the
MINIMUM requirements that cannot be violated. They have been established
as the lowest acceptable standards required for the product to perform in an
adequate fashion. Anything less can fail to perform as designed.
How else did Syncon
Homes mess-up the roof?
Syncon Homes was also
required to nail the tiles down to the sheathing. It makes sense,
right? If the tiles were not nailed down, they could be blown
aside, moved around by snow or heaved up by ice. Such conditions
would allow easier access for water to enter the structure, expose substrates to the
ravages of weather conditions they were not designed to handle and even
allow the tiles to be
thrown from the
roof in a storm. It is a dangerous condition that could injure or
kill a passerby if a heavy concrete roof tile were to strike them in the head.
Even if we don't speak
about the two nail building code requirements in snow areas, Syncon Homes
still failed to nail many of the roof tiles to the sheathing with even
one nail. Many tiles were
just placed on the roof and were being held in place only by the
weight of subsequent tiles above them or just by their own weight
against the substrate. It's not true for all the
roof tiles, but it's a condition that is rampant in many areas of the roof.
Eagle Roofing is clear
about the nailing requirements. Their standards come directly from the
application chart included below where it is written:
Fastened, in this case,
means nailed down and it is directly applicable to our area. The local building
codes have designated our region as a Class C wind area with building
requirements for winds of 105 mph.
Here are the actual and
applicable Douglas County, Nevada, Building Codes that address the 105
mph wind issue:
1609.3
Basic wind design.
Section 1609.3 of the IBC, is amended by substituting the following
language:
The minimum basic wind speed at any
site in the County is 105 miles
per hour (three second gust) for determining design wind
pressure. (Ord. 1131, 2005; Ord. 802, 1998; Ord. 711, 1995; Ord. 641,
1994, Ord. 558, 1992)
1609.4
Exposure category.
Section 1609.4 of the IBC, first paragraph, is amended to read as
follows:
An exposure of "C" shall be
used as a minimum in the design of all structures within the County
. . .
Additionally, Syncon Homes own County-approved building plans
acknowledge the Class C wind zone and the 105 mph design
requirement. As such, they were required to nail all, not
some, of the concrete tiles on our roof.
Here is the Eagle Roofing
document
showing the nailing requirement:
So, what did we
find? We found all tiles absent of the two nails required in
"snow areas" and numerous concrete tiles
that Syncon homes failed to secure with even one nail. The tiles
lacking any fasteners can be found in many
different locations across the roof.
Again, we're not
presenting pictures of the most blatant or extreme examples of Syncon
Homes' failure to secure the roof tiles. Instead, we just took
photos of examples where we could gain reasonable access without
exposing ourselves to undue danger due to height, slope or loose tiles.
Please consider the
following examples of Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship:
The evidence depicted in
the first photo is quite apparent. It is a photo showing the lack
of a nail to secure the tile on the roof.
Then we come to another
tile that looks strangely out of place. Why is it falling
away? Why is it slipping? Why has it shifted to expose underlying
components? Why is this happening?
Perhaps it's been moved
by the high winds we have in our area. Perhaps the snow weight has
pushed it around. Maybe the freeze/thaw cycle has budged it away
from its original location. We really don't know what has caused
the tile to begin to move. However, it shouldn't
happen if the tile was nailed down. Perhaps subsequent photos
will reveal the problem.
Now we can tell!
The next photo shows the same tile. It is a view looking up
underneath the overlapping tile. We can clearly see the nail
hole and it looks like there is no nail in it.
Here's a closer view of
the same nail hole. It's a close-up that clearly shows Syncon Homes
failed to nail the tile in place through the only nail hole available in
this tile.
The photos of the sliding
tile also depict the danger caused by Syncon Homes' shoddy
workmanship. The unsecured tile has already begun to move. It has
clearly been blown out of place, or nudged by the snow and ice, and it is on its way towards
being torn from the
roof.
The tile is also within 3' of the edge of the roof in an area of
usual and customary access to the residence. Would you want to be
standing beneath the tile when it decides to hurl itself towards the
ground?
What do you think would
happen to you if this tile blew off in a high wind and struck your
body? What do you think would be the consequences of this roof
tile hitting you in the head? The consequences could be life
altering!
Let's take a look at a few other
tiles that are within an arm's reach of the edge of the roof:
Why don't we fix
Syncon Homes' construction defects?
Even though Syncon Homes has
denied that the roofing defects exist, we can't let it slide. We
have to act. We not only need to hold Syncon Homes accountable
for their despicable actions, as we're doing through the State
construction defect legal process, but we also need to protect ourselves
and others as best as we are allowed until Syncon Homes is finally
ordered to do the right thing.
However, there's a problem.
We've mentioned elsewhere that one of Syncon Homes' partners has
subjected us to a court order as part of the State construction defect
action. We are required to preserve evidence of the defective
construction. The order restricts us from fixing any of
the defects, even though the defects threaten the health, safety, welfare and
even the lives of ourselves
and others who visit or pass by the house.
We can only do what is
within our
power and abilities. We will never break the law, even though the
law (court order) subjects us to frightful risks, so we've been forced to do the only
thing we can do. We've had to warn the public about the
threat from Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship if they come near the house. We've had to restrict people's access to
the property just
so they're not exposed to the danger of being injured or killed by
unsecured concrete roof tiles.
Here is a photo of what we've done
to warn the public and restrict access, so far:
It is our intent to keep
people away from the roof where Syncon Homes failed to nail numerous
tiles. As long as passerbys adhere to our caution, our hope is
that they will not be injured should any of the tiles be blown from the
roof or fall to the ground.
If we find that our
caution tape is insufficient to keep people away from the danger,
we'll be forced to install something that we hope would be more
effective. We're thinking that an orange construction barrier
might accomplish the task.
Even though we're not
responsible for the defect, even though Syncon Homes' partner has
disallowed us from keeping the tiles from falling and even though
Syncon Homes continues to expose us and others to the dire
consequences of their shoddy workmanship, we still need to take some
kind of action to warn the public of the danger. This is a
photo of what we might have to install around the house:
It is all we can do.
It's all we're allowed to do. It's what we feel is necessary to do under the restrictions that have been imposed
upon us.
Let's continue with
another example of Syncon Homes' defective roof construction . . .
Did Syncon Homes'
shoddy workmanship show up in other ways?
Syncon Homes' defective
roof installation does not stop with their failure to nail, secure and
fasten many of the heavy concrete tiles. They also violated the roofing
instructions by their incorrect installation of the roof where it meets siding on the
house.
It is important to
remember that the building code section 905.3.7 mandates that Syncon
Homes install the siding in compliance with the manufacturer's
installation instructions. It is a "shall" section that
Syncon Homes had no option to ignore.
It should also be
remembered that Syncon Homes was also required to comply with the instructions
and diagrams established by Eagle Roofing and the "Concrete and Clay Tile Installation Manual for Moderate Climate
Regions." Syncon Homes did not have the
option to ignore these directions.
The roof vs. the siding
interface is clearly articulated in all of the mandated instructions.
We can't see any valid excuse for Syncon Homes' non-compliance with the
instructions and details. Let's take
a look at how they were required to assemble the roof vs. the siding.
The following detail comes
directly from the documents that Syncon Homes was required to
follow. It shows how the concrete tile was required to be placed
against the adjacent wall. It shows how the bottom of the adjacent
siding was mandated to be located NO CLOSER THAN 4" above the
roof sheathing. It shows how the tile doesn't cover the bottom of
the siding and how the flashings are REQUIRED to be
installed.
Then we can take a look
at another detail provided in the documents we've previously
listed. It also shows the relationship between the concrete tiles,
siding, flashing and batten extensions for nailing the tiles. Again, these are pictorial
representations of the installation instructions that Syncon Homes was
required, mandated and obligated to follow. If they failed to
follow the instructions, their workmanship would amount to a
construction defect and a clear violation of the building codes.
So did Syncon Homes
follow these instructions? The answer we've discovered is a clear
and resounding,
"NO."
Let's take a look at a few pictures and
you'll see Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship.
The first picture shows
one wall and roof intersection:
-
Question:
Can you see the bottom of the siding?
-
Question:
Is the siding above the tile installed as
required by the roofing manufacturer?
-
Question:
Can you see the "Z-Metal Counterflashing," or any
other flashing depicted in
the details?
The next photo is a closer
view of
one section of the above picture. It shows the bottom of the
siding peeking out in some areas. It looks nothing like the
above diagrams, does it?
What's really going on here?
It's difficult to tell with the tile right against the siding, but due
to Syncon Homes' lack of nails in some of the tiles, we were able to make
measurements with a ruler.
Here is a photo of what we found:
Remember Figure 4-8D we showed
earlier? It shows that the siding
shall be no closer to the roof deck than 4". It can be
higher, but no closer. However, the photo shows that Syncon Homes
installed the siding
approximately 2 1/2" from the roofing deck.
Why is this violation of
the installation instructions and building codes important? It's
due to water and weather. The diagrams were developed to provide
for a roofing system that would provide an adequate weather barrier to
protect the structure from deterioration. Syncon Homes' shoddy
workmanship and violation of the installation instructions will
contribute to water, snow, vapor and weather intrusion into the wall cavity.
Under those conditions, all kinds of bad things can happen, not only to
the substrate and structure, but also to the residents of the home.
The next photo we have is
of a different wall section where it meets with another part of the
roof. Does it look like the diagram provided from the
manufacturer, or does it look like the previous wall section we
identified as defectively installed?
Again, the siding is
either under or immediately above the tile at best. According to the
roofing manufacturer and the building codes, the tile should be significantly above the tile. However, that isn't the case
here. It is defectively installed just as it was on the other wall
we just saw.
Here's a close-up photo of the wall pictured above. Let's see how close the
siding is to the roof base.
It's again pretty
clear. Syncon Homes' installation is defective and has no
defense. It violates the building code and the mandated
installation instructions from the roof manufacturer. The siding
should be located no closer than 4" above the roof base. Instead, it's only
approximately 1 7/8".
Now let's look around the corner
and see what we find. We think you'll be shocked!
HOLY COW!
We thought it
couldn't get any worse, but it did. Not only are the tiles not
fastened as required, but they've been displaced. In fact, we'd
say they are an obvious danger to anyone standing below this location,
which happens to be at the front door of the house.
It appears that the wind we
commonly have in this area may have taken it's toll on Syncon Homes' shoddy
workmanship. This is the same shoddy workmanship that Syncon Homes
has denied exists. However, it can't be denied and Syncon
Homes has only proven themselves to be less than truthful about the
quality, or obvious lack of quality and condition of their workmanship.
Let's take a closer look at this
area and see what we find.
Thanks to the fact that Syncon
Homes didn't secure the roofing tiles, we can see that the Z-Metal
Counterflashing, required by the roofing instructions, is missing.
We can also see that excess concrete rubble appears to have been left on
the roof and that the roofers just installed other flashing and the tile
directly over it.
It is just plain, lazy, unsatisfactory, dangerous, unacceptable and shoddy workmanship that
clearly amounts to a construction defect and code violation. It is
a clear failure by Syncon Homes to meet the most minimal standards of
care they need to exercise when building the house.
Let's take an even closer look
in this area and see what has been revealed.
Here we go again. Syncon
Homes can't even install the flashing that they did use in the right
way. The flashing is supposed to shed the water, just like tiles,
not capture it and direct the water under the flashing. It's just
another example of Syncon Homes' shoddy workmanship and failure to meet
the most minimal standards of care required in the construction of a
house.
Let's take another close look in
this section of the roof and see what we find:
What we found is just another
example of lazy, shoddy, uncaring and defective construction by Syncon
Homes. In this case, Syncon Homes left the concrete rubble,
produced during the siding installation, lay on the roof
sheathing.
They should have cleaned it up
before building the rest of the roof, but they didn't do it.
Instead, they just installed the remaining roofing components right over
the top of the rubble.
By leaving the debris in place,
Syncon Homes was unable to lay the flashing flat against the roof's
substrate as required. It raises the edge of the
flashing, allows an easy path for water to enter and isn't allowed to function as designed and
required by the roofing manufacturer and the building codes.
The debris is also piled up
against the bottom of the weep screed. That's the siding component
with the holes in it to allow water to drain down and escape from the
siding. If the rubble isn't plugging the holes, it's allowing a
route for water to wick upwards into the structure or providing a path
to direct blowing snow into the wall.
The rubble jammed under the weep
screed is of special concern when we note that this section of the wall
and roof is in an area that is most likely to retain snow and ice for
extended periods of time. It faces north. As the snow accumulates, blows under the
defectively installed siding and roof structure, melts, refreezes and/or
continues its accumulation, the snow and ice has extended and
exacerbated opportunities to enter the structure.
Oh yes, and we have one other
question. Do you see the "Z-Metal Counterflashing"
required by the roofing installation instructions and the building
codes? We don't see it.
Now that we're completely
disgusted with the shoddy workmanship from Syncon Homes and their
audacity of denying that these defects exist, we still need to look at
one other section of the roof. Let's see what we find.
It's the same old problem we've
seen again and again. The wall appears to be installed far too
close to the roofing substrate.
Let's see how close it appears:
This time it's approximately 2 3/8"
inches above the roof base. If we remember, the closest it can be
to the underlayment is 4", but Syncon still failed
to follow the instructions. It shouldn't be a surprise by this
point.
This photo also shows the
reason the siding needs to be installed no closer than 4" to the
substrate. Take a look at the roof tile at
the right of the picture.
As it rains, the water flows
down the roof and slams into the wall. If the siding was at or above
the mandated minimum 4" height, the water would strike a properly installed
solid metal flashing and then drain away.
However, with the siding being so
low, and with the bottom of the siding consisting of a weep screed with
holes in it, the water is going to be slamming into those
components. It will not be difficult for the water to enter the
drain holes, fill-up the siding since the water is under pressure, and migrate to places where it doesn't belong . . . like the
structural interior of the wall.
So we ask:
-
How can Syncon Homes expect us to
to see such shoddy workmanship as acceptable?
-
How can Syncon Homes
deny that such shoddy workmanship exists?
-
How
can Syncon Homes expect us to live with the dire consequences of
their defective construction?
-
How
can Syncon Homes live with themselves?
The answers to those
questions are completely beyond our wildest imaginations, so you'll need
to answer them for yourselves.
Do other houses have
the same construction defect?
First, let us mention again that
we are not home inspectors or building industry professionals.
We
are just the unfortunate buyers of a house built by Syncon Homes who
have been forced to educate ourselves after exposure to the dire
consequences of their shoddy workmanship, constructions defects and
violations of the building codes. However, we have also been
advised by building industry professionals who have identified seriously
defective construction throughout the house Syncon Homes sold to us.
Even without being building
industry professionals, we can still read, write and understand
installation instructions just like you can. It doesn't take a
genius to read the building codes, review the installation instructions, look at the diagrams and
then compare them with Syncon Homes' workmanship. It's a simple
thing to see whether or not Syncon Homes installed the roofing vs.
siding differently than required.
It also does not take a genius to
look at other houses in our neighborhood to see how their roofing
installation looks in comparison with the mandated installation
instructions. It's not hard to see the outside evidence.
It's visible to all who care to look.
When we look at other houses in
Syncon Homes' La Costa at Monte Vista tract, it appears to us that the
roof vs. siding interface on some appear similar to the construction
defects identified on our house. They do not look like the diagram
provided by the manufacturer.
However, we want you to make up
your own minds. We will present pictures of five neighborhood
roofs and you can decide for yourself if the installation appears
anything like the manufacturer's installation diagrams or if it looks
like the pictures of our roof. You can decide for yourself if
Syncon Homes followed the rules or created a construction
defect.
Since we are not the owners of
the houses we will present, we didn't go on their roofs. As
such, we were unable to provide measurements as we did in the photos
on our house.
However, we were able to take
pictures from public areas like the sidewalk or street. The
roofs and walls were clearly visible to anyone without the aid of artificial
means to see them. They were in full view of the public and the relationship between the roofing
components and walls were visible.
Let's begin with a reminder of how
the roofs vs. siding were required to be installed. The diagrams
come from the instructions that Syncon Homes was mandated to follow.
Please note that the siding is
required to be above the top of the tile and that flashing, which
includes Z-Metal flashing, is also required to be installed.
It allows for a roof system that will keep rainwater from inundating
the siding and deteriorating it. It also keeps water from
entering the wall structure by providing a secure route for it to
exit the roof structure.
As you compare these diagrams to
the pictures of the other Syncon Homes-built houses in their La Costa at
Monte Vista tract, take a look for these components and
take note of their relationship. We think you'll see that Syncon
Homes did not install them as required by the manufacturer.
Here are the diagrams we have
previously presented:
So what did we see when we
looked at houses in the La Costa at Monte Vista tract? We found
that some of them appeared to have a roof vs. siding interface similar
to what we found on our house - defectively constructed.
This first photograph shows what
caught our eye. It shows the roof vs. siding interface
on a Syncon Homes' house that they have for sale..
-
Does
the roof & wall interface look like the installation diagrams provided by the
manufacturer?
-
Does
it look like the bottom of the siding is above the tile?
-
Is
any flashing exposed to view on the sidewall?
We don't think it looks anything
like the diagram provided by the manufacturer. It looks to us
like the siding disappears beneath the top of the tile and that the
flashing does not extend above the top of the tiles. It looks
just like the defectively constructed roof vs. siding interface on the house
Syncon Homes built and sold to us.
According to the manufacturer,
the siding should be no closer than a minimum of 4" from the
base of the roof, which would expose the solid metal flashing and
allow it to do its job. That would put the bottom of the
siding approximately 2" or so above the top of the rounded roof
tiles, which we don't see in this photo.
Then we come to another
house. The house pictured below has been sold and is occupied by the
owners.
Again, even with the flat tiles,
the bottom of the siding is supposed to be above the top of the
roofing material. That would expose any flashing that might be
present and allow it to do it's job. However, we can't see the
flashing because the siding is so close to the tile.
-
Where
do you think rainwater will go when it blows into the bottom of
siding that is compromised by it's close proximity to the roof
tiles?
-
Don't
you think that water is likely to inundate, wick into, and/or
soak through the bottom weep screed holes and into the siding
before it heads to places where it doesn't belong?
-
Don't
you think that if the solid metal flashing been exposed as
required that the performance consequences would be minimized or
eliminated?
The next photo pictures a
different side of of the same house pictured above. The same
defect is even more clear. We don't see the siding above the top
of the roof tile. We don't see the flashing exposed.
What we see also looks entirely different than
the diagrams provided by the manufacturer.
Then we come to another occupied
house shown in the next picture. This one is occupied by one of the higher ranking Syncon
Homes employees. It had been for sale and we had toured it, but
after remaining unsold, one of the company decision makers bought it.
Again, we can see construction
similar to the defective construction identified on our house and the
other two we just discussed. The siding comes too far down the
wall and the flashing isn't exposed to take the brunt of the
rainwater. It's clear that it doesn't meet the standards
established and mandated by the installation instructions and building
code.
We come now to a fourth
house. Again, this one is occupied so we didn't climb up and put
a ruler to the installation. However:
-
Can
you see the bottom of the siding?
-
Isn't
the bottom of the siding supposed to be above the top of the roof
tiles?
-
Is
the flashing visible to direct the water away from the siding
instead of being concealed, which allows the tile to pour water
into the siding?
-
Does
this installation look the way the manufacturer mandated?
Finally, the next picture
is of
the roof vs. siding interface found on one of the newest houses built
by Syncon Homes in their La Costa at Monte Vista tract. It's
currently for sale. We think the picture speaks for itself.
Syncon Homes was required to
follow the diagram. They had no option. They had no option
but to install the siding no closer than 4" to the base of the
roof. They had no option but to install the flashing components
as shown in the diagram.
It doesn't look like it to
us. It looks like they didn't comply with the rules and
consequently didn't comply with the building codes. It looks
just like the construction defect identified on our house.
Just wait a few years until
rain, wind, snow and ice have prematurely worked their way into places
where they would have been blocked had Syncon Homes followed the
rules. At that time, the consequences of their shoddy
workmanship and failure to follow mandated instructions and codes will fall
directly on the unfortunate homeowner.
The question now becomes:
The answer from us is:
Other houses they have built will be different than
the one Syncon Homes sold to us.
However, we
think that the evidence we have presented shows that that Syncon
Homes defectively constructed our roof by disobeying rules they were not
allowed to disobey. Once we knew what to look for, it was easy to
see conditions on some other Syncon Homes-built houses in our tract that
looked similar to the conditions professionally identified as defective
on our house. That is what we showed you in the previous pictures.
However, we haven't looked at
every roof in the La Costa at Monte Vista tract. There may or may
not be even more houses with conditions that look similar to the construction defects
professionally identified on our house.
There are also houses in many
other Syncon Homes' developments that we have never seen. We can't
and won't say that the same defect is present on houses in those
tracts. We've never seen them.
However, what we can
strongly suggest is
that anyone considering a house built by Syncon Homes needs to be
very very careful. That's our advice, which is prudent advice for anyone
considering
any large purchase.
We would hope that you'd want to
avoid being entrapped in the same quagmire that has engulfed us - a
quagmire of:
-
Shoddy
Workmanship,
-
Construction
Defects,
-
Code
Violations,
-
Dire
Consequences, and
-
Despicable
Denials.
If
you're very careful, consider the evidence we've presented, listen to your
chosen advisors and verify all of Syncon Homes' claims, you should be
able to make a wise and informed decision.
Is there anything
else
It seems to us that Syncon Homes'
construction defects never end. Here is another building code
section that wasn't followed by Syncon Homes.
What is the point of this
section? It says that attic spaces and roofing spaces such as are
found in our entry way, require ventilation. Half of the
ventilation is required by the code to be in the "upper portion of
the space."
Here are four pictures showing the
roof area above our foyer. Take a look at the four sides of the
roof to see if there is any ventilation.
You should have been unable to
identify any vents. There's no vent on any of the four sides of
the roof, yet Syncon Homes
was required by the building codes to install the correct number of
required vents.
By the way, this is not the
only roof section that falls beneath the standard of care for roof
ventilation. Other areas of the roof may have ventilation
present, but it is nowhere near the "1/150" required by the
building code. The problem is widespread, but as usual, Syncon
Homes has denied that the defect exists.
This omission by Syncon Homes is
just another construction defect that will accelerate the deterioration
of roofing components. Heat will be retained, the roofing underlayment will wear out
sooner than designed, the sheathing will bake and deteriorate and the roof will break down sooner than it was
designed. However, Syncon Homes has told us there is enough ventilation in the roof.
It is just another despicable denial
by Syncon Homes. It's just another example of Syncon Homes'
refusal to take responsibility for their lack of good workmanship and
lack of care. They keep denying undeniable defects, and that's
why we've had to seek redress through the construction defect legal
process in our state.
Syncon Homes'
behavior is
shocking!
We find it shocking that Syncon Homes can deny
the existence of the obvious defects we have presented. We find it
deplorable that they expect us to live with
the health and safety consequences that they caused.
It's now come to
the point where we're being exposed to various construction defects that can actually injure
or even kill us, our neighbors or anyone visiting the home.
We're
almost speechless about Syncon Homes' ability to deny responsibility for
such serious defects and continue about their business unabated.
We now ask if you would
want to be subjected to such actions by Syncon Homes? We can
imagine your answer, but we really can't answer it for you.
However, please consider this . . . even if another new house built by
Syncon Homes wasn't built with the same defective roof construction or
code violations we've described on our website, just look at
the way Syncon Homes has acted.
Syncon Homes is the part of the equation
that remains the same. Another house is
different and may be built better or worse than our house.
However, the decision-makers at Syncon Homes still remain. They
are the same people who have denied indisputable life and safety defects on our
house and they will be the same ones accepting or denying responsibility for
construction defects and code violations on future houses.
It would be
nice to think that Syncon Homes has changed their ways, but we have no
evidence of it happening. Instead, we hope that you will
consider the real-world evidence we have presented, along with the advice of your chosen advisors,
before you gamble with your future and rely on the sales-hype from Syncon Homes.
We wish you all the luck,
no matter what you decide.
