Again, the condition is important. There are conditions that do not make the building to collapse, but if the condition is dangerous or is damaging the co-op and other units, then BE THANKFUL, take care of the problem and BE DONE!

I don't understand a board who is afraid to fix things. If ASSESSMENTS are required to take care of the problem, SO BE IT! After all, boards are responsible for conditions that they know that may threatened lives or major catastrophes!

Our building had two joist issues discovered after the resident moved out; so we bit the bullet and took care of it. It cost $5000 to fix the problem, but we do not have a whole room collapse into another person's apartment with potential for injuries.

AdC

there was a pre-existing gas leak in one of the main risers that was caused(many years ago) by a long screw placed in to the wall to hang something up. The new shareholder uncovered this and their Ins. will not pay becuase they did not cause the leak.

It turns out that there is more work being done for items not up to code that have nothing to do with the leak itself. (these repairs were picked up by the dept of bdlgs)

Please no more anonymous posts. Give yourself a name (even Mary Jane) so be it. Then we know who we are responding too. Its impossible to respond to anonymous. (now was that anonymous that posted the question, or anonymous that was responding?. See my point

Bob.

Yes. Point well taken. Do you have a response?

I am getting how this works now. Yes. Point well taken. Do you have a response?

It is acknowledged that the shareholder did not place the screw in the wall that severed the riser. Two lines were shut down and all of the work was done by a well known plumbing company in NY. The screw was so old that it had the concrete of the wall all over the screw. It was probably done years ago by either the former shareholder or a worker in the bldg.

The shareholder wants to do work but the board will not let them do anything until they clear the additional 17k plumbing bill added to their maintenance. The shareholder was advised to make an offer to the board to settle. The board, knowing all of the facts, will not budge.

Agreed,however it came to a standstill and the shhldr was not allowed to do future work unless they cleared this bill. As Attny fees would be in excess of the 17k,Shldr reluctantly offering 5k to settle just to move on.

do you think this was not a smart move by the shldr based on the circumstances?

Regards

First, you should rationally address each topic, i.e., the nail has nothing to do with the out of code work. So, the fact that out of code work is being done does not mean you are to hang the bill for a nail.

Staring here...

(1) There are many things that will accidentally cause problems in common areas. In this case, a nail that penetrated or broke an old pipe. However, the nail was not driven by the current shareholder, or you cannot prove that this is the case.

Then, the co-op as the ultimate landlord for the building has to step in. Tough! Did you have the gas turned off for the entire building??? If this is the case, then I feel sorry for the co-op.

(2) Work out of code: A co-op should have an alterations / renovation policy and anyone who is to do work in a building should submit papers to the co-op for review. Demand licensed plumbers and electricians, review certificates of insurance, find out from the code what types of work require permits. Obviously, you cannot allow shareholdersto do work w/o the co-op knowledge. People usually have good intentions, but they are probably as ignorant as your board when it comes to renovations.

AdC

It is acknowledged that the shareholder did not place the screw in the wall that severed the riser. Two lines were shut down and all of the work was done by a well known plumbing company in NY. The screw was so old that it had the concrete of the wall all over the screw. It was probably done years ago by either the former shareholder or a worker in the bldg.

The shareholder wants to do work but the board will not let them do anything until they clear the additional 17k plumbing bill added to their maintenance. The shareholder was advised to make an offer to the board to settle. The board, knowing all of the facts, will not budge.

Well, in this case, let the shareholder sue the co-op and be finished. For $17K, I will do it if in the case of the shareholder.

A board that cannot distinguish night from day should be fired when elections come!

AdC

Agreed,however it came to a standstill and the shhldr was not allowed to do future work unless they cleared this bill. As Attny fees would be in excess of the 17k,Shldr reluctantly offering 5k to settle just to move on.

do you think this was not a smart move by the shldr based on the circumstances?

Regards

Agreed,however it came to a standstill and the shhldr was not allowed to do future work unless they cleared this bill. As Attny fees would be in excess of the 17k,Shldr reluctantly offering 5k to settle just to move on.

do you think this was not a smart move by the shldr based on the circumstances?

Regards

Well, what's done is done. If the shareholder caved in, that's its problem.

However, the board who pressed so far should go to bed with not such a clean conscience. Too bad!

AdC

Thank you for your comments and insightful thoughts. If the board were to no charge or settle woth the shhldr, do youknow how would they absorb the cost? Is the only way by assessment or do they take the money from the reserve fund? Have a nice day

I tell the board at budget time not to cut their nails too short since there is a need to scratch money from stones if necessary. With this said, not only do we pad our budget a bit to take care of this contingencies, but if necessary and depending on the magnitude of the repair, you either go to reserves and/or assess to replenish your reserves.

I find it EXTREMELY unethical to charge for something that was there and was found through incidental construction.

Case in point, last year we uncovered an A/C that was pulled from the wall by God knows what renter or shareholder at one point in the history of the co-op. The co-op found the problem because a commercial space that had not been rented in years was getting water through the head of the window in beautiful days. The problem was traced back to the unit above. The co-op, not only paid for the sleeve ($270) but for its installation. If this story could have cost more to the co-op, the co-op would have taken care of it, because the board knew that the sleeve was not taken by the person.

AdC