Hard to comment without knowing the scale of the problem. How many units? Cost to repair known issues? [You HAVE secured an engineer's report, right?]

Knowing the ratio of legal costs to repair costs [they rarely scale at the same rate], & how these expenses will amortize per apartment, can be important for making sound decisions.

Separately--why did the AG break off pursuit after accepting your case?

The press is a hard thing to "manage"; sometimes it's like letting a genie out of its bottle. Here's a current case where owners were sharply divided on that strategy...& a splinter group proceeded without accord [too soon to know how this story ends]:

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/03/24/disgruntled_northside_piers_buyers_declare_war_on_toll_brothers.php

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2011/03/window_pains_at.php

Another key factor is whether the developer is out of the building, or still owns units [& is on your board].

More info, please...

Hi...so, if you can imagine the multiple structural issues in new construction...then those are the ones we have. These began shortly after the units began to sell..the sponsor, who was, I think, still on board for a bit of that, addressed some and then disappeared. The sponsor is no longer involved.

We did everything from engineers' reports to photographs...we provided the lawyer with every piece of proof we had...the AG worked with an internal engineer who, it was clear, had a bias toward the developer, and chose to identify a few issues. While we were pursuing our case, many other key structural elements began to decline...bad roof (also not insulated), flooding in basements because of the absence of proper plumbing and check valves (which we are installing now), broken pipes that have caused severe internal leaks, poor pointing on the brick that allows water to seep into the apartments, poorly installed wiring...the list goes on...

I think, though, the AG, once the sponsors did not respond to the subpoena, decided it was a lost cause. (We also thought it was against the law to not respond to the AG! Well, so much for justice!) We had public officials contact the AG's office.

And, personally, I think our high-end lawyer (who will remain nameless) took us for a bit of a ride.

So, now we are trying to catch up on our expenses while also tackling repairs. I feel like there is no oversight of developers...and if this is happening all over the city, why isn't there some activity around that ? I think I might have to organize a group.

Yes, the press issue is what you describe here...but we have a small complex...only 15 units...

Thx.

I understand your issue, we have one also. New construction, bad defective construction. Get the press involved, have the press call out the AG, and all agencies and developers, don't know if it will do much but getting a group together and pursuing that avenue on TV and other outlets will bring attention to others in the same position and hopefully embarrass all agencies including the AG for not taking a stand, including inspectors at the DOB.

It is a risk if anyone wants to sell a unit but perhaps if publized via a news story or in print the offending parties at least have respond. Also see if you can get NYC building inspectors involved - there may be violations the developers will be required to address. What is your management company doing - maybe consider a new company that has experience in this area. good luck

I will not get into the general physical fitness of your grandparent or if the person walks alone or under supervision in the event the person were to fall. My questions would be directed (1) How long does the grandparent tend to walk in the hallway to exercise? What floor does the person live in? Does the person get the mail or throw the garbage or does the laundry to allow the person to be visible by other residents and in other areas of the building? Is there a chart of fines used by the condo in which walking, playing or running in a hallway would be fined? Does the condo have a gym where your relative can exercise?

I would try to address the Board with a request. Mention to them that the grandparent be allowed to walk the hallway as a way of exercise for X amount of minutes, she is more confined than other residents and you would be asking for their consideration.

Fines are illegal Management or the Board cannot issue fines, nowhere in the Black Book, or the Proprietary lease does it allow for fines to be issued. As for her walking on her own property nobody can stop her, it is her constitutional right to walk on her own property, no Judge would stop a senior citizen of 91 years of age to have her constitutional walk where it would be safe for her to walk. I would respond registered mail, return recipt to Mgmt. and the Board advising them to stop harrassing your grandmother or a legal suit will commence.

Good luck! If you don't fight back these mongrils will take advantage.

sue them. This is stupid. After you win the case, move out.

Something seems to be missing from your intial post. For example, what is it that the Board and/or Management find so offensive about your Great Grandmother walking in the hallways with her walker?

Is she inappropriately dressed when she is walking?
Is she walking late nights or very early mornings and making noise that is disturbing to others?

The letter that she was sent by the managing agent should have outlined what about her behavior was so egregious that they are contemplating issuing her a fine.

If it is only simply her walking the hallways (which I really find hard to believe that a managing agent would send such a ridiculous letter - but then again stranger things have happened), she would have an action against them under the Americans with Disabilities Act because she uses a walker. The age thing may not apply so much because she was already living there; but most definitely they would be discriminating against her disability if it turns out their issue has to do with her using the walker, which she obviously needs to get around.

You need to get clarity on what the real issue is behind their letter and also make sure that your grandmother is not violating any house rules or rules stated in the proprietary lease.

It doesn't sound reasonable.
But before you waste time and money on legal fees, try to get an explanation from the managing agent or the board. A lot can be achieved this way.
My first take on this might be that the board is concerned your grand mother could hurt herself by tripping or falling, in which case the condo bears some responsibility.
Is your grand mother walking alone or is a nurse with her during those walks.

My great grandmother is coherent, fully dressed, quiet, does not smell offensive, walks for short while about 10min in the afternoons with her caregiver. its very wide hallway so she's not blocking anyone and no one except those living on that floor would see her. nothing bothersome at all. no gym in building so no where else for her to walk. Hard to believe any board can be so cruel, heartless... I wrote to the Board and am waiting to hear back from them... thanks again for the advice

Sorry to hear of your situation. Sad to say these situations are becoming all too common. The board must have very little on their hands than to worry about someone taking a walk on the hallway. Is there a board member living on your floor (that may have an issue and is hiding behind the board to get the message out?) Again shame on your board. They surely have bigger fish to fry.

MRM.

Who is policing this situation? Should they be fined for using the hallway for purposes other then entry and exit to their unit? In fact, could it be possible that your grandmother as a concerned resident actually walks the hallways to ensure that her building is safe? I think Grandma is being very proactive and in looking out for the safety of her neighbors should be commended. Who knows what illegal activity has been thwarted because of her presence. After all, she is walking the halls because of her security concerns...right?

Why on earth are you being sarcastic? This a serious issue involving the bullying of a senior citizen. God forbid you should ever get old and want to leave your apartment.

No No No Not being sarcastic at all! I apologize if that is how you read it. I was ridiculing the board and offering a humorous way for your grandmother and you to defend her harmless activity. What she is doing is something alot of elderly wouldnt do...make the best of a bad situation. She is getting up and moving regardless of the physical limitations. I absolutely WAS being sarcastic, but in your grandma's defense. What the board is doing is despicable and they should be ashamed. And it their actions define bullying. I am so sorry if I came across the wrong way.....

EM, I understand it was directed at the board , it was another reader who was indignant on my great grandmother's behalf. Which I appreciate, I can't tell you how much the support and advice from this Forum has meant to us. I know she will smile when I tell her a group of lovely strangers are rooting for her. For now, still waiting for the Board's response, will report back.

My apologies, EM, for misreading your comment. I guess this horrible board's actions have got us all rightfully outraged.

May I ask who the management company is and if they have gotten involved with this?

Rather not give the name of the management co yet, they are involved from the very beginning and the ones that sent the letter to us. The property manager was unsympathetic when we called their office.

Sadly to say most management companies are "spineless" when it comes to board policies. You see management get paid a fee to carry out the boards wishes. While your agent may not agree with the board on this one they still sent you a letter. If they do not adhere to what the board requests they can/and will be replaced. I would be looking at the board president who is hiding behind this issue.

Best of luck MRM

I'm a board president and I can tell you that even if we as a board decided that we didn't like something, our Management office would not send out a vague notice to a Shareholder, nor would they simply send a letter out to a Shareholder because we wanted them too. The Management Company has to be very careful in letters and notices that they send out because they can be sued by Shareholders for a variety of reasons. Once a Management Company puts something in writing, that gives a lawyer enough ammunition to file a suit against the corporation.

I've seen situations where Board members have wanted to institute certain policies in the co-op and we were told point blank by our Management Company that it would be improper and were encouraged to even discuss a couple of items with our attorney and learned that they would expose the corporation to liability.

Even Board minutes should be carefully worded for the same reasons.

It would be a good idea to identify management firms when referring to them so that it can be determined if a pattern exists and to be better able to distinguish the good from bad.

you should give the name of the management co. so that other coops and condos would not use them for aiding and abetting in violating their fiduiary obligations to shareholders. If mgmt does not know the laws of the building and of the BCL they should not be allowed to manage any building.

Andrea you have a good management company -unfortunately in our coop there have been many instances where management has sent letters to shareholders and some were also board members that accused the shareholder of somethings that were completely unsubstantiated and not true, and when questioned about this was told that they were told to do so by the President of Board and thought it was board decision when it was not

We also had a lousy one... so much so that we ousted them because the Property Manager was stealing from us, but they also were very cautious in anything they put in writing, especially to a shareholder because they did not want to be exposed to any lawsuits.

I think your Management Co. is very nobel to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. I would love to know who your Management Co. is. We are currently being represented by Cooper Square/Wentworth Corporation. I have a 589.00 credit on my maintenance which has been there since I sued the building in 2004. Wentworth Mgmt and the Board were refusing to collect my maintenance so that they would claim I was in default, in which they did. Ever since I sued the building and won, I have kept that amount on account so that they could never say I am late with my payment or didn't receive my payment. Well last month that amount disappeared and they put a late charge on my statement. They never gave any explaination, nor are they answering my emails or certified letter. So back to court I go and open up my index number to sue the building and managment. I also have a stimpulation in place since I won my case and they have violated that as well. Our Board is corrupt and so is the management co. Cooper Square/Wentworth.

Having worked with 2 Management Companies, I think there are pros and cons to just about all of them. You will have some good experiences and some bad. Just like hiring a contractor to work in your home, you have to due your due diligence and check these management companies out and find out how quickly they respond to shareholder issues/complaints. Are the residents & boards of the other buildings they manage happy with them? Do you have someone from their office regularly visit your building to know what is going on?

Put simply management will get back to the board president and other baord members right away. The rest in his/own time and others never. And should management forget to return a call they have a whole list of reasons as to why someone else screwed up. Management 101

MRM.

The individual visiting our building is as corrupt as the Board and the management co. We had fired this company a couple of years ago when we voted a new board, now the corrupt board got elected and brought back this Cooper Square/Wentworth corruption again. The last mgmt. Co. we had Aris Properties was honest, but they refused to go after shareholders illegally and issue fines illegally so they were fired.

It's astonishing to me what some Boards will think up to make people's lives miserable. I had to read your post over again to make sure I was reading right. I recommend contacting the NYC Commission on Human Rights by phone -- they are always very helpful and will give you straight advice. Good luck, and please keep us on Board Talk posted. Please tell your Great Grandmother that we're rooting for her!

I'm appalled but not astonished. Some people get on boards just to throw their weight around.
And the only way to defeat a bully is to stand up to them.

Your gg rocks for keeping mobile at her age!

Given the case of the Staten Island Seniors that Habitat was been covering, where a judge found that owners have a right to use their own common area for ordinary purposes -- and hallways are for walking -- I wonder whether the board has a legal leg to stand on.

The judge negated all the fines the board tried to impose on the five seniors who gather a couple times a week in the spacious lobby to chat.

If someone were to physically touch your fragile grandmother to make her turn around, say, I think you'd have a major lawsuit.

What kind of horrible, awful people, with no sense of humanity, are on this board? A bunch a petty dictators. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE NEED THE OMBUDSMAN BILL.

HAVE THE NAZIS RETURNED TO POWER? ELIMINATING THE SICK,INFIRMED AND DISABLED.
I CURSE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO AUTHORIZED THAT LETTER TO BE SENT AND I FURTHER CURSE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR SENDING THAT LETTER TO THE POOR WOMAN.

"PAX VOBISCUM"

It's always heartbreaking when outrage reaches the level of this analogy. It's heartbreaking because the analogy should never have to be employed, ever again, and would not, if we all treated others as we would like to be treated. (Such a simple rule, constantly being broken.)

I, too, am outraged that a Condo Board of Directors would a) instruct; b) allow a management company to treat a resident, let alone a human being, in such a fashion. Evidently, someone somewhere looked at the bottom line in an insurance suit that could arise from her falling; listened to a kvetching neighbor who doesn't like her; or listened to a hypervigilant lawyer who felt that legal exposure could ruin the condo financially. Or this is one of those "elite" condos that tell you everything but the shade of toilet paper you need to display. There are certainly a lot of people who serve on boards who see their duties as if they were all counting beans or "impacting" real estate values... not affecting people's LIVES.

That's the world we seem to live in today: bean-counters, sociopaths, moralists, elitists, profiteers. Sometimes, they're the only ones who step up to the duty of a Shareholder to serve on the Board of Directors... and that's more than unfortunate, it's dreadful.

If WE want change, WE have to step up and make it happen. And maybe it starts with saying, "I am running for the Board, and I'd like your vote because..." or it starts with educating oneself about the condo or co-op and the laws that regulate them, so you won't make a mistake like this even if you're only looking at the "bottom line." Hopefully, no one here is in that category, either; maybe we're a 'business' but we're much, much, much, more than that.

I would very much appreciate either a) an update from the original poster, or b) an in-depth article on this from Habitat. Thank you.

I agree with the person who asked "what is it the building finds objectionble" about Grandma in the hallways? Grandma has a right to walk in the hallway, home attendant, walker and all. If she wants to move ten feet, rest, and walk back, it's nobody's business but hers. But is there more to the story? Is she leaving her walker in the hallway? Find out exactly what the issue is. But on the face of it, as a long time board member and occupational therapist, I think the board is leaving itself open to discriminating against someone based on age/disability. You reach a certain age, you have to stay inside? i don't think so.

No she doesn't leave the walker outside. We did asked the Board what their objections were. Still haven't heard from them... I don't think they can come up with one so they are dragging this out and hope we will just let it drop.

Who is the management company?

Contact "Help me Howard" Channel 11 and he will stop it making a nice public TV show.
Best Regards.

I want to shout the management company's name and each of the board member's name from the rooftop but right now G-grandmother doesn't want me. Let me see if I can convince her. But I do worry that they might make life difficult for her, they lack decency and common sense who knows what they might resort to.

To say that a property manager never benefited from recommending a vendor/contractor would be a lie. Suspicions mean nothing only hard facts. If you feel the work done is not up to par I suggest you look elsewhere.As a building super/rm the approach I take is to get three bids, discuss the pros and cons etc with the board. In the end I let the board decide.

MRM.

They are definately getting kickbacks it is required that three bids be submitted to the Board, a requirement by law. Possibly the Board is in it also. You must get a sub committe developed by shareholders to check these bids out and constantly do an audit with management company to see where your money is going. A corporation must disclose all financials to shareholders. Get together to create a advisory board and check all financials and bids.

Are you asking if it is okay to accept kickbacks if you disclose them? I'm asking if it is ever okay for a board or management firm to accept kickbacks as theoretically this would raise the cost of a project and eventually owners pay?

I have heard in some instances a certain vendor may reward a finders fee or referral fee for new business that they are referred. I personally don't like that idea and think it opens the door for unethical behavior and activity. But I wanted to know if in that instance, is a property manager required to disclose when they recommend a vendor, that they are getting a finders/referral fee?

The coop. And it should be done fast for financial and safety reasons.
The last thing you want is to have coned get involved and shut the entire building.

The co-op, of course.

And you all ought to thank the shareholder heartily for his renovation having uncovered the leak!

While you're in there for repairs, maybe you should look at the rest of the piping in the building... especially if it's all the same age. Don't fool around with gas leaks - the gas company can shut you down for MONTHS.

I agree with RLM, as a Resident Manager, I went through two Con Edison building wide shut-downs and it is a huge project once the building gets shut down.

It costs the building thousands of dollars!!!

It's cheaper to make the necessary repairs and count your blessings.

Are you kidding? Clearly, the Shareholder performing the alteration is responsible. A gas line typically holds 5 psi of pressure. Essentially you can hold your finger over the pipe and stop it. When Con-Ed performs the test, they pressureize it to 150 psi. A shareholder in our building was claiming some kind of hero status while trying to get the coop to pay 120k in repairs to walls and pipes. In the alteration agreement it states that the shareholder is responsible as additional rent. What ever the contractor did caused this situation causing Con-Ed to turn off the Gas. So the contractors insurance should pay or the Shareholder. The contractor obviously shocked the pipe or cut it causing the leak but you'll never get them to admit it. Give the alteration agreement to your insurance company so they can go against the shareholder. It's like if you know the tire on your car holds 35 psi of pressure and the inspection company puts 300 psi of pressure and the tire blows and they say "see... the tire was no good" duh.

isn't pressurizing the line to 150psi a standard test? All gas lines should pass that sort of test. It should not cause the pipe to "blow" as in your tire analogy. It seems a bit far fetched to imply that the "contractor obviously shocked the pipe or cut it causing the leak". That is a very strong accusation to make. Especially if the building's own plumbing company came in and verified the same leak in the line.

In our co-op, any problems behind the walls are the responsibility of the co-op, not the shareholder. In this case the problem showed up in between floors, had nothing to do with the shareholder's apartment or renovation, and in my opinion, is clearly the responsibility of the cooperative.

It's definatly the contractors fault. His insurance should pay or the shareholders homeowner policy. The contractor obviously did something to trigger a bluecard test. Probably cut the line with a saw or smashed it with a sledge hammer. Since what ever the contractor did was serious enough to make ConEd come to turn off the building and then force the building to conduct the bluecard test to ensure the repairs of the damage that the contractor caused were done properly by a licenced plumber, the shareholder is ultimatly responsible and has to submit to appropriate insurance.

...because if you're not, you're making some pretty drastic accusations/assumptions. The original poster stated quite clearly that this was not related to the renovation IN ANY WAY.

Oh, ha ha, I think what you really mean is that since I disagree it is the Coop's responsiblity and that I would rule that the shareholder is responsible based on what was presented is that I'm maaking accusations and assumptions. The fact is that Con-Ed doesn't just stop by for a visit to shut the gas off at random. Someone obviously called because the renovation "triggered" it. Those are the facts. Of course If the roof is leaking that does not mean the renovation triggered DOH to come by and issue violations for plaster damage or high mold spore count in the penthouse.

Danny, Con-Ed never came by, and the inspection is necessary because of the renovation work. Changes were made to the gas line in the apartment, which forces an inspection of the whole line. It was only inspected by the building plumber and the shareholder's contractor. It was not an emergency situation in any way. The shareholder's plumber and the building plumber simply informed that the line will not pass inspection.

GAS LEAKS MUST BE REPORTED TO CONED IMMEDIATELY. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN INSURER DECLINING TO PAY SHOULD THERE BE AN EXPLOSION AND THEY WOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO. IF I KNEW WHERE THIS BUILDING WAS I WOULD REPORT IT MYSELF- RIGHT NOW. PEOPLE GET WITH THE PROGRAM-LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

This is an inactive line and it has been shut down by the building's plumber.

There is a valve at the meter and it was shut off there.

If the person is committed to gas and not electricity for cooking, the co-op will have to provide the standard facility that they had from the basement to the apartment. Expensive? You bet! This is the case case as the electrical box in the apartment and the box in the basement. The box and cable within the apartments belong to the shareholder to repair; from the basement to the apartment, the co-op is responsible. Most likely your building is old and pinholes appear in gas lines through welding areas.

Before renovating an apartment, please make sure that the gas in the basement does not need to be shut down as you will always find yourself in the same predicament.

Good luck!

AdC

years ago there was a ;lawsuit with a coop in the UWS and Fireman's insurance (as i recall) the building's overall insurance will pay for the entire gasline replacement if it is leaking. You may have to fight but you will prevail.

Hi Sally? Is there any way to look up that case? I have tried. Would be EXTREMELY appreciated. Thanks.

No co-op can prohibit proxy voting. That would be a direct violation of NY Business Corporation Law, Sec. 609(a): "Every shareholder entitled to vote at a meeting of shareholders or to express consent or dissent without a meeting may authorize another person or persons to act for him by proxy." See http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-york/ny-laws/ny_business_corporation_law_609

As I understand it, the co-op can require a certain *form* of proxy, but that's an entirely different matter.

CDT,
Thank you for your prompt reply - That's exactly what I thought, but also knew that Board Talk would be the place to come to air out the situation.

My sister is getting a copy of her co-op's bylaws tomorrow (Monday) to confirm her understanding of them. If they don't prohibit proxies but her Board is dismissing the idea on their own, I hope there will be quite a shake-up, and will keep Board Talk advised. Thank you again.

If the By-Laws of your sister's co-op are based on the same template as many others in New York, start by checking out Article II (Meetings of Shareholders), Section 5 (Voting): "At each meeting of shareholders, each shareholder present in person OR BY PROXY ...."

That particular phrase -- "in person or by proxy" -- appears over and over in our own By-Laws.

CDT, That's a good tip to make it easier for her to find it - I'm chomping at the bit to hear what she finds. Thank you.

There is a basic problem with all of this answers. Not all coops were created pursuant to the BCL. Basically, if you are a BCL coop, you must allow the use of proxies, and you cannot even have qualifications (such as you can give a proxy only to a relative or another shareholder). If you are a CCL coop, then there is no absolute right to use proxies. However the CCL coop can have a by-law provision allowing the use of proxies.

Finally, trumping all of this is a fairly new law, that says if your coop is a Mitchell-Lama, the Board CAN require the shareholders to use a specific form of proxy.

The advocates @ ACCO (Alliance of Condo & Co-op Owners) would like to see any written rules or other documentation stating or suggesting that proxies will not be accepted.

If you or your sister are willing to share & discuss with people interested in helping her express her vote, please contact ACCO: advo@condocoopowners.org

ACCO,

Thank you very much for your speedy reply - I'm forwarding this to my sister, who is getting hold of her bylaws tomorrow (Monday), and I'll ask her to contact you directly.

I was stunned to hear her tell me about no proxies being allowed. Hers is a self-managed co-op, and if the bylaws actually prohibit them, they're in for some changes. If it's the Board at her co-op twisting the rules to make them "fit" their agenda, they're in for a rude awakening, wouldn't you agree?

I have the same situation in my coop in Queens and have been fighting it for years - It seems that we were incorporated as a "cooperative" coop which I am told does not allow proxy voting, although some of our sister buildngs were incorporated under the same documents and they allow proxy vote - I have read the BCL and it does not say that, but I did speak to the AG's office many years ago and he did say I would have to go to court,which as everyone knows is ridicuously expensive if the board is going to fight it which they will; however our bylaws even have a "savings Clause" which says NYS law prevails and that does not work. What is more a problem is that we have many illegal rentals and deceased and the notices of meetings are never sent to the actual shareholder and mostly put under the door therefore not allowing the actual shareholders the right to vote. We really need help - thank you

In this case, too, ACCO (Alliance of Condo & Co-op Owners) would like to know of any undemocratic election practice in co-ops or condos. Specific documentation is essential.

Please contact ACCO: advo@condocoopowners.org

My sister wrote this to me: "I obtained a copy of our by-laws and it clearly states no proxy votes."

I can't imagine attorneys would draw up such bylaws outside of the law, but maybe that prevailed at the time. She said that she would contact ACCO directly, and, like me, thanks one and all for their time and thoughts on it.

Your Black book should tell you how voting is done. All Coop's have proxy voting. Your Certificate of incorporation should also tell you the same thing it is the mother load of laws. If the Certificate does not say that Cumulative voting is is the process to count the votes then legally Plurality voting is the process. When the Certificate is silent then Plurality can be applied. All Coops use proxy voting.

While not specifically disallowing proxy voting, the By Laws can legally require that each vote to be cast in person.

Proxy voting is one of the easiest ways to manipulate co-op elections. Be careful what you wish for!

We definitely have the situation in your first posting stating that you must be present to vote - however again the Savings Clause does say if anything is not per NYS law then NYS law prevails - Yes proxy voting can be manipulated however as stated previously many, many shareholders are not notified or cannot attend because they do not live in the building or vicinity- and unfortunately many do not want to come down, but they would sign a proxy because I did try quite a few years ago and I could have beat them and get new people on the board with the proxies which were not allowed, and we have only 1 vote per apartment - unfortunately the opposition is able to get their people down and vote as they are told - no matter the horrible condition of our building and our finances- Over 70% assessments and raises in the last few years and much more coming and nothing done to repair the building -

In our NYC co-op, when the laundry lease expired, I'm told the Board checked with different companies and chose a different company than who serviced our building for many years. That company agreed to renovate it with new floor tiles, new machines, and painted the walls, provided a new folding table and laundry baskets. We had to upgrade our electrical system to accommodate for the new machines (they added a dryer and front-loader)to bring it up to NYC's electrical code.

My recommendation is to see & research the machines the laundry company proposes to install. We lease the machines and they pay us rent monthly. The Board that made the switch decided to stay with a coin-operated system, but the laundry companies these days prefer the "smart card" because it costs them less (they don't have to send a driver to pick up coins). Because we have a large senior population in our building, the Board thought the coins would be easier for them.

Also, check the quality of the lint filters inside the dryers - ours our tearing already and they are fairly new.

Habitat Magazine had a good article on laundry room contracts - I suggest checking that out also in their archives. Good luck!

My Co-op has 111 units total in three buildings. We have two laundry rooms: one with 4 gas dryers; two front loaded, water recycling regular size and one front loading giant size, also water recycling. The other laundry room has twice the capacity. We use Service Master. They redid our laundry rooms (new paint, floor tile, tables and chairs) along with the new machines. We like their service. The machines we selected have had some acceptance problems. We have a seven year lease and use pay cards.

Since we opted for the water-recycling machines, we do use less water however from an acceptance perspective, your wash water is someone else’s rinse water. This concept may not work well in a multi-family complex. The standing water in the tank can get a little ‘funky’ and one needs to use chlorine bleach from time to time to sterilize the recycling tank (not well noted). However, not everyone uses bleach.

Also, the normal capacity machines do not have a clear port to see what the laundry is doing and since the door locks, one can not confirm that it is actually ‘washing”. I know this is a fine point however this has also led to some resistance (I guess some people like to watch).

There is a pre-wash and regular cycle. You have to add detergent 2x: once for the pre-wash and once for the regular wash. If you don’t know this trick (and it is not well posted), all of you detergent you put in the pre-wash gets extracted and none is left for the wash cycle – means less cleaning. If you wait and put detergent in for both cycles, they clean fine. Note: you can not put liquid detergent for both cycles in at the same time – the detergent access points are not designed that way. Also, the giant wash has a shorter cycle – not sure why. Detergent and bleach can stain the stainless steel surface on the giant washer – so avoid that if you can.

After four years or so, we have not made money yet. The acceptance problem is such that some people go down the street to do their laundry. We had one incident where a shareholder just had to remove their laundry from a locked machine before the cycle was complete resulting in a ruined door which had to be replaced and they we had to install a security camera system in each of the rooms. We also had to add sprinklers to the room.

I am not sure yet what we will do when the contract is up. Few people are happy with the current situation however few people are really upset.

Steve, you bring up a very good point about using recycled water for the washers. I hope we are not using that here, which might be okay for a family, but not for an apartment building. Since I wasn't on the Board when the laundry contract was written, I want to find out, and if we do recycle wash water, I won't use these machines again either. In-between washes, water does sit in the 'drawers' for detergent, so maybe it is!

The other good point you and other Board Talkers bring up is a service contract -- who is supposed to clean the machines? Most residents don't clean anything more than the dryers' lint filters, and they are flimsy at best.

As Lucy of Peanuts would say, "Aack!"

My coop in Manhattan switched from laundry-company-owned to our own machines 5 years ago. We have about 110 apartments, and we replaced all the laundry company's machines with new, low-water-use ones. We also added an extra machine, increasing the number from 6 to 7; all are located in the laundry room in our basement. Our new machines use plastic cards instead of quarters and, of course, we control what to charge for using the machines (I believe we reduced the price). The plastic cards are refilled by putting money into a sort of vending machine in the laundry room.

We had had one of those nasty leasing contracts that you described, and we had to go to court to get out of it, and even then, we ended up settling the case in court by letting the unwanted laundry company make the monthly pick-up of our laundry receipts and service our machines when we need it.

Our contract with this company is about to run out, and we're looking to get a new one. Our machines have been malfunctioning lately, and we're very unhappy with both the timing and the quality of the alleged repairs that the laundry company is making. I'm also unhappy with the delay in their forwarding the laundry receipts to us -- it can take 2 months sometimes.

We get only marginally more income from the owned machines than we used to get when the laundry company paid us a fixed "rent" for the use of our laundry room to place their machines in. We average about $15,000/year now and used to get about $10,000/year free and clear; however, we now have to pay about $3,400/year ($283/month) for the service contract, netting us only $11,600/year. Net income should have been higher, but unfortunately the service contract we got stuck with when we settled the case cost us about $100 more per month than the other company we wanted to replace it with. We hope to get a lower cost (and more reliable) company now.

Our machines cost us about $25,000. Given the small extra net income we've been earning from our own machines, we're nowhere near amortizing the cost of the machines, so financially we're not ahead yet.

However, until our machines recently started malfunctioning, people were happier with them than they had been with the laundry company's much older machines. And they really like the card system better than having to stockpile quarters to do the laundry.

P.S., a few shareholders have installed their own washers and dryers, with our permission (at least in some cases, where we knew about it beforehand).

You must shop around for different vendors and choose the best one that fits your needs, example, the one that will give you the most amount in rent every month, the one that takes a smaller % of the profit, the one that has a lower cut off amount to start leaving 90% of profit to your building, the one that guarantees a certain standard in service being this machines (echo friendly), carts, folding tables, baskets and maintanance of the laundry rooms etc.

what does your proprietary lease say ?

are you in arrears , and to who.
it sounds like a serous matter.
i would think he has a pretty good reason or is incredibly stupid.
if you don't pay you maint , they can auction, I believe.
i would not consider an email a proper notification, in fact i think an email like that just would go in the spam folder.
read your bylaws and proprietary lease.

CARE TO TELL US WHAT YOU DID WRONG THAT PROMPTED THIS ACTION BY THE BOARD?

There is a LEGAL process to do this. Unfortunately, you do not disclose much to provide a comment.

Finally, unless the pres. is the co-op attorney, he/she has no business to annouce the cancellation of the pl and stock.

AdC

If you are only dealing with one unit, i.e., no other unit adjacent or up/down has reported bedbugs, the owner of the unit pays for the infestation. If several units report simultaneously the plague, then the co-op pays.

In Westchester there is no such thing YET as disclosure of prior infestation. NYC requires disclosure.