I did not hire an outside contractor for several reasons. They tried talking me into things I did no want. I was also told that what I wanted done was impossible. I did all the work myself and I will be 60 this August. It consisted of all new appliances and I needed plumbing work because I was installing a dish washer. I removed 2 layers of tile the glue was so thick it was like playing with mud pies. I leveled some dips in the floor with wood filler rather than the carcinogenic self leveling compound that a contractor recommend. I removed old cabinet doors and sanded an painted them. I purchased an unfinished cabinet so I could paint it to match. I removed the draw and turned it into a sink front tray, and cut out a section of the back for plumbing. All I need from him was plumbing and to cut my butcher block countertop. The MA gave the go ahead for him to do the plumbing. If they can not stand behind their employee them they should not recommend him. I had no idea he was uninsured in fact maybe he is insured. Why would a MA allow an unlicensed individual do this work. It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I am the victim and I find his behavior unacceptable and in fact criminal. Contractors who walk off the job and rip people off are criminals and that is a fact. I am the victim and you are in effect "blaming the victim". It is not all about the money and saving a buck either. Several years ago I paid a contractor for a complete rip out of my bathroom it cost 10 thousand and it looks great. I could have hired the super for that job ( a different one who was fired) he wanted the job but when I discussed it with him he did not seem to know what he was doing. I could have "saved money" if I hired him, but I did not. All I needed was a little help with plumbing something I don't do and don't want to do. For any MA or board to allow an employee to continuously do side jobs and recommend them for these jobs without any guarantee is ludicrous. The MA and board are fiduciaries. Allowing an employee to do this is a complete failure in this regard. He did it during regular business hours and it appears to me that they are working on his behalf instead of mine. Also offering him this side job was that same as offering him a fig leaf, he took it snapped it in half and threw it in my face. Excusing this behavior because he has a grudge REALLY! I am sorry to say that I completely disagree with your point of view, but you are entitled to your opinion. So I guess we can just agree to disagree. Yet I do appreciate that you took the time to give it consideration and provide a response
Thank You

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

First lets get a few legalities out of the way, even though I am not a lawyer. Only board members are considered fiduciaries and they owe their fiduciary responsibility to the co-op corporation. The MA is an agent of the corporation and the board is responsible for their actions. If you have a beef with the MA you need to address it to the board. Same with the super. He is an employee of the corporation. Any problems need to be taken up with the board.

You may have received a recommendation from the MA and they may have approved your alteration (dumb without an alteration review or any form of pre-alteration oversight), but you contracted privately with the super. The MA had no involvement at all in the transaction. It is your responsibility to sufficiently vette the super or any contractor who performs work for you.

In your original message you said that the super had performed satisfactory work for other shareholders. As far as the MA was concerned, there were no red flags that would prevent them from making the recommendation. If the MA were to assume any liability with regard to the super's performance, it should have been stated very clearly up front, and they would need to be compensated for taking on the risk. It doesn't sound like you had any agreement or guarantee in effect with the MA.

The fact that you tried to make amends by offering the super a paying job is admirable, and it's a shame that he didn't reciprocate. No one is excusing the super's behavior, but it sounds like you and he were flying at different altitudes. Did you say to the super anything to the effect that you realize there was bad blood between you in the past, but that you wanted to end the animosity, and would he be willing to accept a paying job from you. Did you give him any indication that the job was a de facto peace offering? Invite him in for a cold brew while the two of you discussed what you wanted him to do? If not, what lead you to believe the super had any idea about what you were thinking?

Hopefully you will remember this episode the next time you need work done in your apartment. Not all contractors are scam artists, most are on the very up and up. You will need to perform you due diligence by reading reviews and performance rating websites to learn about others' experience with perspective contractors. The red flags will appear pretty quickly.

Best of luck with future renovations.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

No I did not invite him for a brew. I hired him to do a job. I treated him with dignity and respect. In return he was malicious. There is no excuse for his behavior. It is just that simple. Any other questions regarding what I may have done to make amends is irrelevant.
More to the point is why does the board and MA allow it. If he is not vetted to do the work wouldn't it be prudent to warn potential customers. Or better yet enforce co-op policy. But that is the dysfunction of co-ops. I feel like Alice in wonderland. Instead of pointing a finger at me and coming up with all the things I could have, should have, and would have done. I suggest you look at the situation in its entirety. Then come up with a could have, should have, would have list for the super, the MA, and the board.

> Join the conversation