Spray Foam Insulation Inspection

 Spray foam insulation has become an increasingly common issue for homeowners, buyers and mortgage lenders. While some installations perform adequately, the presence of spray foam can make it difficult to assess the condition of the roof structure beneath and may influence lending decisions.

Kenny Relf Surveyors was instructed to carry out an independent spray foam inspection at a residential property in Emsworth after concerns were raised regarding the presence of spray-applied foam insulation within the loft space. The inspection was undertaken in accordance with the PCA/RPSA Sprayed Foam Insulation Protocol. 

The property was a traditional house with a pitched roof covered with natural slates, decorative clay ridge tiles, lead-lined valleys and brick chimney stacks. The roof appeared generally serviceable from external inspection, with only age-related weathering and routine maintenance requirements noted. 

Importantly, no significant evidence of active water penetration, roof covering failure or structural distortion was identified from the available inspection positions.

The property had been fitted with spray-applied polyurethane foam insulation fixed directly to the underside of the roofing underlay between the rafters. The installation appeared, based on its visible characteristics, to be an open-cell foam product. However, no supporting documentation was available to confirm the exact type of insulation, installer details or installation specification. 

Spray foam presents a particular challenge because it conceals large parts of the roof structure, preventing full inspection of rafters, underlay and other critical components.

As a result, areas that would normally be visible during a survey become inaccessible without removing the foam.

The loft structure was inspected as far as reasonably possible.

Visible timbers appeared:

• Straight and serviceable
• Free from significant distortion
• Free from visible active decay
• Free from obvious wood-boring insect activity
• Dry at the locations tested

Timber moisture testing recorded readings between 12% and 18%, which were considered acceptable for the accessible areas inspected. 

To assess the installation further, localised sample openings were created within the foam at two locations. The foam separated relatively easily by hand, and there was no significant visible damage to the adjacent timber or roofing underlay at those sample points. However, these limited inspections could not confirm conditions across the entire roof structure.

While the visible condition of the roof was reassuring, a more significant concern arose from the complete absence of installation records.

No documentation was provided to confirm:

• Installation date
• Installer details
• Product certification
• Product specification
• Warranty information
• Pre-installation roof assessment
• Ventilation design
• Condensation risk assessment
• Photographs of the roof before installation

Without this information, it was not possible to verify whether the roof was suitable for spray foam at the time of installation or whether the installation complied with manufacturer requirements.

This uncertainty resulted in the highest risk rating within the assessment being allocated to documentation rather than to the physical condition of the roof structure itself. 

The overall assessment was therefore considered Medium Risk,

This is an important distinction. The medium risk rating was not assigned because widespread decay or structural failure was found.

Instead, the rating reflected the fact that substantial parts of the roof structure remained concealed behind the foam and could not be inspected, combined with the absence of supporting documentation. 

Although no significant active defect was identified within the accessible areas, we recommended removal of the spray foam insulation.

This recommendation was made to eliminate uncertainty and allow the roof structure, roofing underlay and concealed timber elements to be properly inspected in the future.

Following removal, we advised that the exposed roof timbers should be reinspected and tested for:

• Moisture content
• Fungal decay
• Timber infestation
• Structural movement
• Water penetration
• Previous repairs

Any defects identified during the removal process could then be addressed before they developed into more significant problems. 

This case highlights a common misconception regarding spray foam insulation.

Many property owners assume that the presence of spray foam automatically means the roof structure is defective. Equally, some assume that because no defects are visible, no further action is required.

In reality, the key issue is often uncertainty rather than evidence of damage.

At this Emsworth property, the accessible roof structure appeared dry and serviceable, but the spray foam prevented a complete inspection and supporting documentation was unavailable. This created a level of uncertainty that needed to be addressed before a fully informed assessment of the roof could be made. 

If your property has spray foam insulation, or you are considering purchasing a property where spray foam has been installed, an independent inspection can help you understand the risks and make informed decisions.

Kenny Relf Surveyors provides spray foam inspections across Chichester, Emsworth, Havant, Waterlooville, Petersfield, Portsmouth, Bognor Regis and throughout West Sussex and Hampshire.

We provide independent advice and do not undertake spray foam removal works.

Get an expert opinion before committing to a purchase, sale or remedial work.