This is a checklist for reading a commercial roof inspection report you have been sent. It assumes the inspection has happened and you are now deciding what to do about it.
The aim is to find out whether the report is something you can act on, and to send back the gaps while the inspector still remembers the roof.
The structure
| Should contain | Why |
|---|---|
| Date, weather and conditions | Conditions limit what can be concluded |
| Who carried out the inspection | And what their qualification or basis is |
| Scope of the inspection | What was and was not within the brief |
| Method used | Visual, infrared, drone, core sampling |
| A numbered roof plan | Every finding needs a location that survives |
| Area descriptions | System, build up, approximate age by area |
| Findings, located and photographed | The substance of the report |
| Limitations | Specific, not boilerplate |
| Recommendations with timescales | So the report produces a plan |
Each finding
| Should have | Why |
|---|---|
| A location by area number | So the roofer can find it without a guided tour |
| A wide photograph | To place it on the roof |
| A close photograph | To show what it actually is |
| A rating | Against a scale defined in the document |
| A recommended action | Repair, monitor, investigate further |
| A timescale | Now, this year, next cycle |
| A reason | Why this rating rather than the one below it |
The phrases to question
| Phrase | What to ask |
|---|---|
| Generally sound | Which areas are not, and how bad are they |
| No major defects noted | Were any minor ones found, and where |
| Limited access | Which areas, why, and what would resolve it |
| Appears to be | What would confirm it |
| Consistent with its age | What is the actual condition, independent of age |
| Recommend monitoring | By whom, how often, and looking for what |
| Further investigation advised | What investigation, and what would it cost |
The numbers
| Check | What to ask |
|---|---|
| Remaining life | Is the basis condition or age |
| Roof area | Measured from a plan, or estimated |
| Affected area for any defect | Stated as a figure, or described in words |
| Indicative costs | What they include and exclude |
| Moisture survey results | Area, confirmation method, limitations |
The omissions
| Missing | What it means |
|---|---|
| A roof plan | Findings cannot be located or compared next year |
| Photographs | Nothing can be verified or compared |
| A rating definition | Each reader applies their own meaning |
| Timescales | Everything competes with everything else for budget |
| A limitations section | You cannot tell what was not looked at |
| Interior observations | Half the evidence about a roof is inside the building |
What to do with it
- Try to locate three findings on the roof plan. If you cannot, the report is not actionable yet.
- Send the gaps back in one numbered list. Within a week, while the visit is fresh.
- Ask for the basis of the remaining life figure. It will travel further than anything else in the report.
- Treat limitations as instructions. A locked hatch is a solvable problem.
- File it with the plan and the photographs. The next inspection starts here.
Want the reasoning behind this? Read what a report should contain and what an inspection covers.
Walked by Date Roof
Common questions
What separates a usable report from a descriptive one?
That somebody who was not there can act on it. In practice that means every finding has a location on a plan, two photographs, a rating defined inside the document, a recommended action and a timescale. A report without those describes a roof rather than recording one.
- Findings located on a numbered plan, not in prose
- Two photographs per finding, wide and close
- A rating scale defined inside the report itself
- A recommended action against each finding
- A timescale, so priority is explicit rather than implied
The test takes a minute. Hand the report to somebody who has never seen the building and ask them to find the third finding on the roof. If they cannot, neither can the contractor you send it to, and the quote that comes back will be priced against a guess rather than against the roof you actually have. Apply the same test to a report you are commissioning by writing the requirement into the brief, which is easier than asking for it afterwards.
Which phrases should prompt a question?
Generally sound, no major defects noted, limited access, appears to be, and consistent with its age. None of these are dishonest and all of them can be hiding something, because each one compresses a judgment into a phrase without showing the reasoning underneath it.
- Generally sound, which averages a good roof with a bad corner
- No major defects noted, which is not the same as none found
- Limited access, which should say which areas and why
- Appears to be, which flags an inference rather than a finding
- Consistent with its age, which is a comparison, not a condition
Send the phrases back as questions rather than treating them as conclusions. Most inspectors answer immediately and specifically, because they had a reason for each one and simply compressed it for the report. The ones that cannot be expanded are the ones worth pressing, and the answer usually arrives as a second visit.
What should the limitations section say?
Which areas were not examined, why they were not, what it would take to examine them, and what the consequence is of leaving them unexamined. Specific to this roof on this day, not boilerplate carried forward from the last report the inspector wrote.
- Named areas, not a general disclaimer
- The reason: locked hatch, standing water, unsafe access
- What it would take to complete the examination
- Whether the roof was wet, and what that limited
- Whether any destructive testing was permitted
A limitations section written as instructions usually gets acted on, which is the point of writing it. Area four not accessible, hatch locked, return visit required is a sentence that produces a key. A paragraph of general caveats produces nothing except protection for the author, and the unexamined area stays unexamined until it fails. Count the limitations as findings in their own right and carry them forward, because an area nobody has examined for three years has effectively been written out of the record.
How should remaining life in a report be read?
As a judgment that needs its basis stated. A figure derived from condition is worth something; the same figure derived from age minus years elapsed is arithmetic dressed as an assessment, and the two are frequently presented in identical language.
- Ask whether the basis is condition or age
- A range is more honest than a single year
- It should move if the maintenance regime moves
- Wet insulation changes it regardless of surface condition
- It should be revisited after any major repair or storm
This figure travels further than any other part of the report. It ends up in a capital plan, in a negotiation and in the next consultant's assessment, usually without the reasoning attached to it. Asking for the basis once, at the point the report arrives, is the only practical moment to attach the reasoning to the number. Record the answer next to the figure in your own file rather than relying on the report, since the report and the number tend to part company within a year.
What should go back to the inspector?
Anything you could not act on, in one message rather than several. Missing locations, unexplained phrases, findings without a recommendation, a rating scale that is not defined, and any limitation that does not say what would resolve it. Put it in one message rather than several, numbered so each item can be answered in turn.
- Findings you cannot locate on the roof
- Phrases you cannot translate into an action
- Any rating whose definition is not in the document
- Recommendations with no timescale attached
- Limitations with no resolution offered
Send it as a numbered list within a week, while the inspector still remembers the visit. Most of it comes back the same day, because the information existed and simply did not reach the page. The small proportion that does not come back is the part worth paying attention to, and it usually points at something that was not examined. Keep the reply with the report in the same file, because the clarifications are frequently more useful than the document they relate to.