Rooftop courtyard and replacement membrane issues

Hi All,

Our IP apartment complex roof is flat and owners with top level apartments (such as myself), each have an uncovered courtyard area on the roof to themselves (freehold not common property and a big space equal to the size of the covered area of the unit below it).

The complex is now 10 yrs young and the roof membrane has been replaced. The body corporate agreed to go with a contractor who applied “DuroMastic” coating for the replacement roof membrane for the 200sqm work (at $46k roughly - which was about half of the 2nd quote to use Emer-clad product).

Now that the work is complete, the following concerns have been raised by the majority of rooftop owners:
1. The product is very textured and retains alot of dirt which is very hard/ almost impossible to clean (an unreasonable amount of dirt is retained);
2. There are indentation marks made by furniture/ potplants (the contractor would do half a roof at a time, let it cure then move furniture to the completed side, to work on the other side);
3. There is some bubbling of the product in places;
4. In parts the surface appears permanently stained by dirt.
5. An aesthetic issue (possibly the texture) but the roof now feels sticky under bare feet.

Such problems were not evident in the prior surface (apart from wear and tear).

The above issues may point to defective application and / or the roof not being afforded enough time to cure. The contractor has been asked to review all issues, so not sure where exactly this line of questioning will take us (also a semi hostile body corp committee, with non roof owners not really caring about the issue and wanting the matter closed...nice).

My belief is that this product was not suitable for the surface in the first place. The roof tops are high use areas which residents use regularly, and the Duromastic product to me appears more relevant for commercial rooftops where access is more so for ad hoc access required for maintenance purposes such as repairing air con units etc.

Has anyone had similar experiences with roof membrane application/ replacements for high use residential rooftop courtyards?

Thanks,
Tom
 
My belief is that this product was not suitable for the surface in the first place. The roof tops are high use areas which residents use regularly, and the Duromastic product to me appears more relevant for commercial rooftops where access is more so for ad hoc access required for maintenance purposes such as repairing air con units etc.

Has anyone had similar experiences with roof membrane application/ replacements for high use residential rooftop courtyards?

Thanks,
Tom

As you say the product used may not be a suitable product for underfoot or traffic areas.

Here is a link to their External membrane products and hopefully one of them was the one used on the roof. If it was an internal product then they are really designed to be tiled over.

http://www.durotechindustries.com.a...ranes/?phpMyAdmin=lqM9DaGdno3g8jtJvFQg1uO0I3d

A suggestion for you is to build a on ground deck over the concrete so that you are seperated from the stickiness. Again don't do this until you determine the product that was used and then ensure that the product can take point loads.

Cheers
 
Thanks HandyAndy.

The product used appears to be DURO MASTIC™ Non Slip (a modified Duro Mastic AC, used to be called Durocoat AC).

Its productsheet on the site does state that it is for "LIGHT foot traffic", though query whether the intent for is for ad hoc light traffic to check for maintenance rather than "always used" decks for resi purposes.

Would love to hear anyone's experiences either with this product or application of other products to similar areas.
 
Hi All,

Our IP apartment complex roof is flat and owners with top level apartments (such as myself), each have an uncovered courtyard area on the roof to themselves (freehold not common property and a big space equal to the size of the covered area of the unit below it).

The complex is now 10 yrs young and the roof membrane has been replaced. The body corporate agreed to go with a contractor who applied “DuroMastic” coating for the replacement roof membrane for the 200sqm work (at $46k roughly - which was about half of the 2nd quote to use Emer-clad product).

Now that the work is complete, the following concerns have been raised by the majority of rooftop owners:
1. The product is very textured and retains alot of dirt which is very hard/ almost impossible to clean (an unreasonable amount of dirt is retained);
2. There are indentation marks made by furniture/ potplants (the contractor would do half a roof at a time, let it cure then move furniture to the completed side, to work on the other side);
3. There is some bubbling of the product in places;
4. In parts the surface appears permanently stained by dirt.
5. An aesthetic issue (possibly the texture) but the roof now feels sticky under bare feet.

Such problems were not evident in the prior surface (apart from wear and tear).

The above issues may point to defective application and / or the roof not being afforded enough time to cure. The contractor has been asked to review all issues, so not sure where exactly this line of questioning will take us (also a semi hostile body corp committee, with non roof owners not really caring about the issue and wanting the matter closed...nice).

My belief is that this product was not suitable for the surface in the first place. The roof tops are high use areas which residents use regularly, and the Duromastic product to me appears more relevant for commercial rooftops where access is more so for ad hoc access required for maintenance purposes such as repairing air con units etc.

Has anyone had similar experiences with roof membrane application/ replacements for high use residential rooftop courtyards?

Thanks,
Tom

Tom

Had a similar problem in a 6 storey apartment block with common roof area with pool several years back. Roof area was a significant bonus and major attraction for many owners buying into the property given city views and pool.

Problem: Roof membrane leaked causing ceiling damage to units directly below. After several years and after several cheap(ish) repairs similar to yours, problem escalated and subsequent quote was +$0.5M. !!!! Area required complete removal of tiled areas and re-installation of waterproof membranes.

Body Corporate could not get any owners to agree or contribute to these significant costs of repairs. Penthouse owners offered to make repairs in exchange for exclusivity of rooftop area but this was still rejected by many owners who were prepared to pay their share of costs..

Lesson Learnt: Fast forward 18 months later. Significant legal fees, owner dissention and several appearances in State Administrative Tribunal resulted in Penthouse Owners getting exclusivity of rooftop area. This was despite unanimous owner approval required despite many objectors and thereby proving “that deepest pockets win any legal argument”.

In relation to your situation, I can only suggest that your body corporate spend whatever monies are required to get a professional company (with liability insurance) to quote and offer guarantee for said repairs. Don’t accept cheap quote, but go with one that can stand behind their guarantee. Although it may sound expensive, it is certainly cheaper when shared between multiple owners.

Good luck!
 
Back
Top