Mods, hoping this topic can be left in general discussion 
as it's not specifically related to the actual works themselves, I'm seeking opinions around financial aspects from anyone including those that don't frequent the roofing section.
Background. I own a first floor rental flat. Built late 50s / early 60s. Roof is tiled (concrete tiles) and looks original. Last few months tenant has advised re some small damp patches on the upper landing ceiling and chimney stack area of the lounge wall. Not major but noticeable.
The first roofer I got out to quote said he could do repairs, however given age and condition of the roof, he advised a retile is now required. So I've now had another two roofers out. One of them said they'd only quote for a retile as repairs would be an exercise in futility. The other has provided repair and retile quotes. He says repairs should work however always difficult to say 100% especially on an older roof.
It's possible I'll hold on to this property for the next 20-30 years to boost my retirement income. So my thought process is as much as I don't want to spend x thousands, I should probably opt for the retile now as oppose to further repairs, thus meaning I'll have 'got my monies worth' out of what's a significant financial outlay. Whereas even if repairs work, I might be faced with a retile x years down the line and I've not then benefitted as much from the financial outlay, if that makes sense?
The ground floor property is council owned and I'm 99% sure they're obliged to meet 50% of the costs or a % of the costs at the very least under mutual ownership legislation. I'm getting this checked and have contacted the council for clarification as to their process. So assuming this is the case, that obviously reduces the financial burden on me.
So, given the above info, what would you do? Just keep on getting the roof repaired any time a leak is reported, or bite the bullet and get it retiled now?
as it's not specifically related to the actual works themselves, I'm seeking opinions around financial aspects from anyone including those that don't frequent the roofing section.Background. I own a first floor rental flat. Built late 50s / early 60s. Roof is tiled (concrete tiles) and looks original. Last few months tenant has advised re some small damp patches on the upper landing ceiling and chimney stack area of the lounge wall. Not major but noticeable.
The first roofer I got out to quote said he could do repairs, however given age and condition of the roof, he advised a retile is now required. So I've now had another two roofers out. One of them said they'd only quote for a retile as repairs would be an exercise in futility. The other has provided repair and retile quotes. He says repairs should work however always difficult to say 100% especially on an older roof.
It's possible I'll hold on to this property for the next 20-30 years to boost my retirement income. So my thought process is as much as I don't want to spend x thousands, I should probably opt for the retile now as oppose to further repairs, thus meaning I'll have 'got my monies worth' out of what's a significant financial outlay. Whereas even if repairs work, I might be faced with a retile x years down the line and I've not then benefitted as much from the financial outlay, if that makes sense?
The ground floor property is council owned and I'm 99% sure they're obliged to meet 50% of the costs or a % of the costs at the very least under mutual ownership legislation. I'm getting this checked and have contacted the council for clarification as to their process. So assuming this is the case, that obviously reduces the financial burden on me.
So, given the above info, what would you do? Just keep on getting the roof repaired any time a leak is reported, or bite the bullet and get it retiled now?
