I agree that your co-op is responsible.

If your Board had been less penny-wise, pound-foolish, this would have cost a LOT less.

Still, they're fortunate the Shareholder isn't suing for a lot more.

Sally: First - How did your resident get a leak under his floor? Was it, in fact, a "leak"? Did a plumbing line/pipe under the floor break? Or was there a flood/overflow in the apt caused by the resident or a neighbor? Was it something else? Just curious.

If it was a bldg fault, the first thing mgmt should've done was call the coop's insurance company. They'd pay most/all the repair costs. That's what insurance is for. Coops tell residents to always use licensed repairmen/contractors to protect against poor workmanship and save money. Your coop was foolish not to do that themselves. They didn't save any money, in fact, they lost money. Maybe the resident didn't know enough but he shouldn't have allowed your unlicensed super to do the work in his apt. Many experienced supers know plumbers, electricians, etc. they can call to do work in their bldg, but I never met a super who's also an expert at plumbing and laying floors.

I'm not sure but if the coop or insurance had no written agreement with the resident to pay for or reimburse him for floor replacement, he may have forfeited the right to hold the coop liable for it by just getting it replaced on his own. I am NOT sure about this - do ask your coop attorney. There is or was also a question of habitability. Maybe your resident could've gone to a hotel until the leak/floor were fixed if the apt was unliveable and the coop would've had to pay for it. Or maybe he could've deducted part of his maintenance for time he didn't live in his apt. I assume he didn't stay anywhere else, the leak is fixed, and the floor is now replaced so I doubt he has a case. I am NOT positive so ask your coop attorney (or tell the resident to ask his own attorney) about this.

BTW, protections under the warrant of habitability only exist if there is a "landlord-tenant relationship". Courts have consistently held that since coops give shareholders a proprietary lease, this relationship exists but it is not applicable in condos since there is no lease or any such relationship between a unit owner and the condo (homeowner) association. Just threw that in FYI.

It doesn't strike me that your mgmt people are the right ones to ask about all this if they were foolish enough to let an unlicensed super do major work in someone's apt that he was in no way unqualified for. Talk to the attorney.

Hope this was of help in some way, Sally.

thanks BP - it was a pipe under the floor. in a coop.
I do not think residents can refuse the coop sending someone in to fix a leak even if they are unqualified staff.
also many residents do not know that it is illegal to have unlicensed plumber in the walls - they think because it is the Super it is OK.

distrubingly, the buildings has even been given a violation before for having the unlicensed staff member do plumbing work. the resident protested the second time around and asked for a guarantee to quality floor replacement. the coop insisted on repairing the pipe and the resident ended up paying for an outstide contractor to do the floor but is still trying to get payment from the coop.

Funny how when others use unlicensed contractors it is not OK, there seems to always be a double standard.
If the building superintendent is CAPABLE, then let him do it. The floor should not have been closed until the leak was verified by management as properly repaired (therein lies the problem).

The flooring, even if it is a coop related plumbing leak (in the wall/floor), is still the shareholders responsibility as per 99% of Proprietary Leases. At the point that the repair is confirmed as complete, the Shareholder may perform the repairs at their own cost, or call their individual homeowners policy to place a claim. Some Coops do make these repairs when it is not too extensive, but I personally don’t believe they should. Always draw a solid line.

Remember, I did say if the super is competent to perform these repairs, this is a judgment call that can make or break the entire process. He is a building employee, and as such, licensed to perform these repairs within the building (within reason).
It sounds more that the project was improperly managed.

Being the shareholder is responsible for apartment finishes, the Coop Board will use less expensive labor of it deems it a better financial and practical decision. Your PL usually indemnifies them as well with some language (The Lessor shall not be liable, except by reason of Lessor's willful acts or gross negligence…) as such. It does not make them right, but it does justify the decisions to have in-house help perform many repairs that should be done by outside professionals.

AR thanks but a few points: the house rules require the shareholders to bring in licenced plumbers whne required by code (plus pay a fee for a horrid renovation argeement). yet, the coop can bring in an unqualified worker to do work that may violate city codes? Nope. seems wrong and also unwise. . I would say it is gross neglegence ont he part of the coop to allow an unlicenced person to do in-the-wall plumbing - esp when it has not been sucessful on two pervious occaisons causing additional damage to neighboring apartments - and it in full knowledge of possible consequences. no?

Obviously, your house rules would have to rule any decisions the Board, or any shareholder makes.

However; unless something requires a licensed plumber to physically file, obtain approvals & sign off, there are no city codes being violated. The only thing being violated is the house rules, but, then again, only in case of the aforesaid, would a licensed plumber be needed, thus, not even a violation of your HR.

On the other hand, if the super cannot make a proficient repair, and has proved this in his previous attempts, the manager/Board very well should have brought in a professional.

~AR

thanks AR but for your info: city codes dictate a licenced plumber for work in the walls. it does not matter what teh skill level of the super it. legally a licensed plumber must be retained when it is other than a faucet or tiolet installaiton. it says this smack on the dept of buildings website. there is no grey area.

my questions concerns the level of neglegence on the oart of the Board when they decide to send in an un licensed person and the job is screwed up causing additonal damages to shareholders.

Sally, you should check with the co-op attorney (I'm asssuming you're on the board) to find out liability here. You may be right that the board was negligent, in which case I would suggest that the board pay all costs and fees to cure the problem -- and do it soon. But, again, check with the lawyer first.

Plumbing work is defined by the NYC Building Code as “the installation, maintenance, repair, modification, extension or alteration of any waste, domestic water, gas or fire standpipes in any building or piping system.”
The Department of Buildings Plumbing Division has offices in all five boroughs. The Plumbing Division is charged with enforcing the City's plumbing code to make sure that drinking water is kept safe from contamination and that gas lines and appliances are installed and maintained in a safe manner.
Application and Permit Information
Simple repairs or direct replacement of existing faucets or fixtures such as toilets and sinks are considered cosmetic work and do not require a permit. Direct replacement involves work that does not alter or change the fixture's hot and cold water shutoff valves or fixture trap.
Work involving the alteration, rearrangement, relocation or permanent removal of any piping must be supervised by a licensed master plumber or fire suppression piping contractor.
The aforesaid is direct from the DOB sites.
NOTICE that replacement of plumbing does NOT require a permit. Thus, the repair of a steam pipe, etc… does not require permits and can be done by any COMPETENT super.
The following is just supplemental information for anyone’s perusal with regard to a supers tasks/duties and requisites.
“The First Assistant Building Superintendent performs complex repairs and maintenance tasks, provides guidance and supervision to subordinate employees on the maintenance staff, and performs other related duties”…. This is the NYC Court superintendents duties… http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ea/xml/asp_transform/DisplayTitleStandard.asp?title=9445329

Who decides what your superintendent is supposed to do? The super, managing agent and board have pretty much free range in constructing a job description as long as it's consistent with the collective bargaining agreement, if there is one. I don't know that I would always recommend that there be a written job description because later on if you ask someone to do something that isn't explicitly in there, you can get, "˜That's not my job. Nevertheless, from the perspective of management, it is better to have a clear understanding of what is expected of the superintendent." To ameliorate the apparent negatives of a written job description, any such document contain a catch-all phrase, such as, "Plus any other directive issued by (whomever)."
http://cooperator.com/articles/1078/1/Super-Supers/Page1.html
explains more of the supers duties.

Hope this helps

~AR

If the board decides to "save money" by using an unlicenced person to do inthe wall plumbing or electric and there are damages to any apartments, they are LIABLE - this is NOT representing the ficuciary interests of the coop. It must be by the book and by city codes and not in contraditcion to house rules requiring tenants to use licensed persons - otherwise any decisions to use a "competent" super to do work that violates codes breashes the prop lease. get it AR? this is the core of the point being made.

Why do you ask questions if you just argue with the answers?

Sally, I agree with AR. Many people gave you very knowledgeable replies to your question based on their first hand experience and you keep coming back. It is now up to you, and your board to base your decisions on the feedback.

FN

there is misinformation being given - we have spoken to some people offline and found out it is NOT OK to have an unlicensed staff member doign this work. it is necessary to indicate the liability aspect in case people read AR's messages and get misinformaiton. competence is fine but if there are any mishaps the fiduciary interests fo a cop are at risk.

it is interesting that you try to cut me doen for this. it is useful information for people.

It is the nature of living in America; …. You can use a licensed plumber and still be sued for not using a more proficient one. There is never 0 liabilities with anything you do, simply because you live in a litigious society. Will these things stand in court, that's another question.

I have been doing this for many-many years, have seen most every scenario ever spoke about in this forum and have been down the exact road concerning supers performing plumbers work literally hundreds of times. I say all this not to boast, but to affirm that what I am telling you is based on REAL Practical knowledge and experience, not opinions of related professionals (written, oral or implied).

I am more than confident that when you go the distance, you will see that what I am saying holds water, or I would agree to bear the cost myself... There is no breach in the Boards fiduciary responsibilities if my previous post is followed explicitly.

~AR

Ok well what aobut the fact that my friends building got a violation and $1000 fine formthe city for having the super do unlicensed plumbing and also his work damaged to apartments below? what about that AR?

that is lawsuit if the resident of one of the damaged apts wants it to be. they would win. ALLOWING SUCH A SITUATION IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY INTEREST.

Once again, I reiterate my post above..
Simple repairs or direct replacement of existing faucets or fixtures such as toilets and sinks are considered cosmetic work and do not require a permit. Direct replacement involves work that does not alter or change the fixture's hot and cold water shutoff valves or fixture trap.
...Work involving the alteration, rearrangement, relocation or permanent removal of any piping must be supervised by a licensed master plumber or fire suppression piping contractor.
The aforesaid is direct from the DOB sites.
NOTICE that replacement of plumbing does NOT require a permit. Thus, the repair of a steam pipe, direct replacement, etc… does not require permits and can be done by any COMPETENT super.
He must have been doing something that required a permit, or DOB Would not have been there in the first place, in which case he deserved the fine.

was too quick to pull the trigger

AR - If I misunderstood something you said, my apologies.

You said if a super is competent to do repairs, this is a judgment call that can make or break an entire process. I agree that some supers can do certain repairs. They may be licensed plumbers or electricians. Or they may have years of experience at some things and know exactly what to do and how to do it. They may be with the same building for a long time and know its systems and quirks inside out. In such case, a board and mgmt can be pretty confident that a super can handle certain repairs capably.

You also said a super "is a building employee, and as such, licensed to perform repairs within the building (within reason)." This is where I may have misunderstood you. Being a building employee doesn't mean a super is "licensed" to do anything. What he's able to do should be based on his qualifications and experience. Some buildings hire someone who's never been a super and wants to learn the business. Some hire, or promote, a porter to the job of super who may know basic porter/maintenance tasks but little else about taking care of a building yet. Some may have a super who's been with a building for a while (maybe even a long while) but was never very proactive in learning how to do his job well or how to handle certain functions.

The board (or more correctly, mgmt since they work directly with staff) has to decide what a super should and can do.

It's surprising how many buildings keep a super who's lazy, not doing a good job or not that capable because it would take too much time and trouble to find a new super and deal with the upheaval of such a transition.

Sally, like all jobs there are good and bad supers (they are not all bad). Blameing the super for everything is a cheap shot. How about the board and management companies are they not somehow responsible?. Like I said they are some fantastic supers that completely run properties and save the building $$$$$ each year, and then they are not so good supers.

FN

Thank you not seeing, what was not said!
Competent is a KEY word.
I have a super in one of my buildings who is a master plumber, and was at one time (until I hired him). He does allot of repairs for us (here and sometimes in other buildings if time permits).
I make it a point not to hire supers who what to be just someone to pick up a phone to make repairs, and the "jack of all trades, masters of none". I have another building where the super is an excellent electrician (better than most companies I know), and so on. Even if I do not use the super for the repair, they can effectively troubleshoot and diagnose the problem so the appropriate repair can be made. The supers all help each other out. This seems to save allot of money, and add to the efficiency of each building.

While this model may not work for everyone, it works very well for me. I have no double repairs.
It also is a suggestion to many that may be seeking a new super in their building. If your building has issues, then hire a super that is proficient in the area of your buildings weakness.


Best
~AR

Sally I have to agree with RLM, your building is very penny wise and pound foolish. It also appears that very poor judgement calls were made from the beginning. If it helps Sally here is how we handle such situations.

1. Shareholder reports a leak.
2. Building staff, immediately troubleshoot the problem.
3. The staff, expose the areas around the leak (savings)
4. Once visible, we contact our licenced plumbing company
informing them of what we have done so far,what we found
and the materials that are required (savings).
5. If necessary we photograph leak.(In case needed later)
5. Once the repair work is done, we allow adequate time for
the surrounding areas to dry, and also monitor repair.
6. We then write up an incident report and forward copies
all parties involved (shareholder,mgt company,insurance
company.
7. A quick decision is then made on where the liability lies

The above works very well for us as we do "all the leg
work" and let the licensed people fix the repairs. As a
rule of thumb we do not involve staff in repairs where
the risks/liability are high, and where professionals are
required. Finally I do know of a few supers who are
licensed plumbers and they perform repairs in their
building. This would have been pre negotiated.

Hope I was of some help FN