Business as Usual by Roofing Materials Manufacturers and Contractors

Maybe you can help me determine whether the following is deceptive marketing or simply that I did not do adequate research into the cedar roofing products that are listed in the contract I signed to put a roof on my house.

My objective has been to put a roof on my house that will last 30 – 40 years. I am 62 years old and I don’t want to be dealing with the same kind of expensive re-roofing project that I am dealing with now when I’m 85. Our house is in a cul-de-sac community with a covenant that requires cedar or ceramic tile roofs. We explored the possibility of changing the covenant, and, though my wife and I wanted to change it and open the option to use aluminum, composition, or other roofing products, the neighbors wanted to preserve the uniform “Northwest distinctive” cedar roofing on houses in the cul-de-sac. During this time we talked to four or five sales people about the various roofing products.

Finally, resigned to not aggravating the neighbors, we started getting estimates for cedar roofing last fall. We got an offer in writing from one contractor for cedar roofing that included options for two grades of cedar shakes on our house:
Medium CCA treated cedar shakes: $24,993
Heavy CCA treated cedar shakes: $25,772
If you add covered gutters, which this company does not do, the total for re-roofing with heavy cedar would have been $35,000 - $40,000.

At the time, I did a few repairs on the roof myself and we let it ride until this spring.

About a month ago we began discussions with another contractor. Two salesmen came to pitch their company and products. Since our choices are limited to cedar roofing, we spent an hour discussing the cedar options. The pitch included a comparison of the cedar now on our house, which needs to be replaced after only twenty years, with the options sold by the contractor. The salesmen said that the cedar on our house is thin and light-weight and that this cheap option is now used pervasively because home builders will not pay for thick, heavy-weight cedar of the kind that was previously used in the Northwest, which lasts 30 -40 years or longer.

The salesmen offered an option of thick, heavy weight cedar, which they described as much thicker than the cheap stuff on our house now in need of replacement. The only other option offered was the thin, light weight cedar, which we knew we didn’t want. We signed a contract that includes the description, “thick, heavy-weight cedar shakes” with a 50 year manufacturer’s warranty and 20 year installer’s warranty at a price, including gutters, of $52,275.83. After addition of taxes, we wrote a check for 1/3 down payment of 19,080.68.

A couple of weeks later the construction manager called and said we needed to choose the finish option for our cedar shakes, because the shakes come in smooth and striated finish. He brought examples of each for our decision. When he produced the samples, my wife and I both objected that this did not look like the thick heavy-weight cedar that we thought we had bargained for. It didn’t look any different than the cedar on our roof now. When pressed, the construction manager said that thickness varies because the shakes are hand-split (they looked machine-manufactured to me), but the thickness is our main concern. I asked the construction manager if these shakes will last thirty years. When pressed, he answered, “That’s what they tell us.”

When the roofers arrived to begin taking off the old roof, they brought felt underlayment, which was not the synthetic product that was on the contract. This concerned me because we were trying to get a long term roof and had intentionally purchased the more expensive underlayment. The roofers convincingly explained that the more expensive underlayment is not feasible for cedar and could only be used with composition or metal roofing. Somebody had crossed off the synthetic on the delivery order and replaced it with felt. This set off another alarm after the earlier apparent discrepancy between the thickness of the shakes that we thought we had ordered and the shakes that were evidently going to be used on our roof. It was raining that morning so the tear-off of the old roof did not begin.

By that afternoon I was having serious doubts about this roofing contractor, whose salesman did not know that the synthetic underlayment could not be used with cedar roofing, and whose construction manager could only explain the apparent similarity of "cheap" cedar shakes on our roof to the product that he was going to use to re-roof it, as variation due to hand splitting. We thought we had ordered and were paying for thick heavy-weight cedar that is superior to the cheap stuff now on our house.

I called the construction manager and voiced my concerns. The underlayment is a negligible factor, and the manager offered to change the price and contract accordingly. But, the thickness and weight of the cedar is my main concern. We contracted for thick heavy-weight cedar. Why did the samples look like what is on the roof now? The manager explained that medium weight shakes are 1/4 inch to 5/8 inch in thickness and heavy weight shakes are 5/8 inch to 1 inch in thickness, but there is variation. Anything 5/8 inch thick up to 1 inch thick is heavy. This did not alleviate my concern, since what is on our roof now is roughly 5/8 inch in thickness and he was describing thick heavy weight cedar as anything 5/8 inch thick and thicker.

As our telephone discussion of thickness and weight of cedar shakes continued, I persisted in asking for reason to believe that we were getting something superior to the cedar now on our roof. I asked why the salesman had told us that cedar an inch thick would be put on our house when the samples were only 5/8 inch - 3/4 inch thick.  I thought we had bargained for the best, not the cheap stuff.  Eventually, the manager said that there is an option that is thicker, but they don’t sell it because it is too expensive and difficult to work with. That thickness, he said is called jumbo.  I argued that we had been offered two options that consisted of cedar similar to the stuff on our roof and heavy weight cedar an inch thick. I told the manager I thought this was a deceptive categorization of the product options. The options are in fact: medium, heavy-thick, and jumbo. The verbal description by the two salesmen of the product that we bought was heavy-weight cedar an inch thick. But, to be sure we would get cedar an inch thick, we would have to buy the jumbo grade shakes, which are “too expensive and difficult to work with”.

In the past few days I have done more research on cedar and found that manufacturers do, in fact, categorize their shakes in three categories: medium, thick, and jumbo. The grading system seems to be pervasive in the industry. It seems to be a deception in favor of the manufactures and sellers.  They can sell the lowest grade as medium and another category that is described as thick, heavy weight, and not talk about the jumbo grade at all, unless somebody questions why thick, heavy weight seems less thick than expected.

The owner of company came to discuss this situation yesterday. I told him I was ready to contact an attorney. He said he’s never had to go to court and wants customer satisfaction, a claim that seems credible enough to me. He hinted at possible discounts. I told him I didn’t think the kind of shock I experienced was uncommon. There must be other people who are angered to find out that what they thought they bargained for is a grade of cedar that is technically called jumbo when what they get is cedar that varies from 5/8 inch to 3/4 inch in thickness. He said nobody else had ever raised this objection.

I might be able to get some reduction in price in this transaction. I think the roofers will do a reasonably good job of installation. The big question appears to be whether this grading system of medium, thick, and jumbo is deceptive marketing by a large group of cedar shingle manufactures and sellers. A challenge to this grading system would be interesting. An attorney might be able to tell me whether it would be economic.

See also ROOF MAINTENANCE: http://roof-maintenance.blogspot.com/