Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/30/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  UnansweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  ON OR ABOUT 12/17/2024 ***** ****** (PRESIDENT OF THE CONDO ASSOCIATION) ADVISED THAT AN INSPECTOR FROM THE GAS COMPANY (*****) HAD REPORTED A DEFECT IN THE VENTING OF THE HEATING SYSTEMS OF 6 APARTMENTS AND THAT IT HAD TO BE REPAIRED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ***** ****** PROCEEDED TO CONTRACT A RAPAIRING OUTFIT AND ASSIGN PART OF THE COST ($367) TO EACH OF THE 6 OWNERS WHICH APPROVED THE CHARGES WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE *** THAT STATES THAT THIS TYPE OF DEFECTS (COMMING FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING) IS THE TOTAL REPONSABILITY OF THE ASSOCIATION. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE ISSUE ***** ****** REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE *** AND HAVE THE ASSOCIATION PAY THE WHOLE COST OF THE REPAIRS.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/13/2025

  *** Response to Mr. ******* BBB Complaint: 
  
  Despite numerous attempts of amicable correspondence, Mr. ***** of Unit M is attempting to extort the *** for money by mischaracterizing the events, misunderstanding the laws and the situation, and reneging on his own written and legal commitments.
  
  First of all, here is the timeline of factual events: 

   - On December 16, 2024, following an unrelated repair to the building's main gas line, ********* technicians went around to each unit in the building to inspect in-unit gas appliances before restoring natural gas service to each unit. During these inspections, 4 units (across two vertical "stacks") were flagged as having improper exhaust piping from their furnaces that inappropriately passed through air intake ******** of the units above them. Mr. ******* furnace was one of the offending furnaces, which posed a safety hazard in the event of a carbon monoxide leak in one of the exhaust pipes. The technician verbally stated that it was the responsibility of the owners of each furnace to remedy the hazards of their own exhaust pipes, and that gas heaters may need to be shut down until such a remedy was made to the piping. 
  - Immediately following notification of this issue (the next day) some of the affected owners and the *** began discussing how this issue should be addressed. Several **** professionals were contacted and two were brought on-site to inspect the issue and provide repair estimates. The *** board also convened to assess the information and determine who would be responsible for paying for fixes. After careful evaluation, considering the facts of the case and precedent in the building, it was determined that these repairs were the full responsibility of the individual owners, due to the following factors:
       1) The problem is caused by unit-specific, walls-in appliances (furnaces)
       2) Fixing the problem requires walls-in repairs
       3) The consequences of neglecting repairs are unit-specific
       4) Neither the problem nor the repairs involve common areas
       5) Clauses in the association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCNR) which clearly define what constitute "walls-in" issues and clearly stipulate that addressing such issues are the responsibility of the individual owners
  - HOWEVER, the *** board recognized there were unique circumstances involving appliance piping that passed through another unit and voted to voluntarily contribute a portion of the cost to one of the possible repairs to assist its expedient and cost-effective resolution, despite no obligation to do so. Additionally, the contractor offered a discount if all affected units were repaired at once, rather than leaving it up to each owner to repair individually. Therefore, despite no obligation to pay for any part of the repair, the *** proposed to coordinate the repair on behalf of all affected owners and make a substantial $2200 voluntary contribution, which would leave the individual owners to contribute just $367 each for a repair that would otherwise cost them $1400. 
  - A full report and proposal was sent to all affected owners on 12/21/24. This included an explanation of the ***'s assessment that this was a walls-in (owner-responsible) repair, as well as detailed contractor estimates, and a proposal for how the *** could coordinate a joint repair and even contribute financially to it (with individual owners contributing $367 each), if and only if ALL affected units provided prior written approval to proceed.
  - Mr. ***** sent his written approval of the proposal on December 22.
  - By 12/30/24, all owners had approved the proposal and the *** moved forward to schedule the repair, sign a repair contract, and put down a deposit. All owners were asked to provide their $367 contribution to the *** as soon as possible; the *** would front the entire bill for the repair for convenience. 
  - The repairs were completed on January 5 and January 6, 2025. At this point, the *** was under the impression that the issue was resolved and was just awaiting repayment from a couple outstanding units, including Mr. ****** All other units besides Mr. ***** submitted payment within a few days.
  - On January 19, Mr. ***** sent a letter to the *** protesting the $367 charge on the basis that the repair was made to a "common area" and therefore should be 100% paid for by the ***. This is despite the ***'s detailed report provided on 12/21/24, and Mr. ******************** consent to contribute $367 on 12/22/24, and the repair by this point having already been completed two weeks prior (1/6/25 in Mr. ******* unit). 

   Mr. ******* letter sent on 1/19/25 was the first in a series of emails where Mr. ***** attempted to backtrack on his written commitment, saying he was "a little *****" in providing his approval (but he still allowed the *** to front the money and the contractor to enter his unit and complete the repair under those written terms). Mr. ***** proceeded to shift his argument several times, at different points vaguely citing "prior cases in the building" and "California law", without providing any specific details. Eventually Mr. ***** sent a ChatGPT-generated summary on 1/22/25, which Mr. ***** claimed provided legal justification for his position that the *** should pay the full bill, despite not being anything close to a legal document. Still, in good faith the *** reviewed the summary and checked the actual sources provided and found that they said that condo associations were "responsible for structural issues" and that builders were responsible for construction defects for a period of 10 years according to the Right to Repair Act. Since the *** had already provided a detailed justification into why this was an individual unit issue and not a structural issue, and since the building was built in 1970 and thereby even any potential legitimate issues would be outside the limitations explicitly defined in the law, the *** pointed out to Mr. ***** that this law was not applicable and did not define the ***'s responsibility to fully fund the repair as he claimed. In response, Mr. ***** dug in his heels and refused to accept the facts of the case or adhere to either his own prior written commitment or to the rules of the association enumerated in our CCNR, to which Mr. ***** is legally compelled to comply with as an owner in the association. 

  Furthermore, it is plain to see in Mr. ******* own written statement to the BBB that he is either willfully distorting facts or negligently misrepresenting them: 

  - Mr. ***** states ***** ****** is a president of the Condo Association, which is not correct. Mr. ****** is a member of the board and one of the owners, but not the President. Perhaps this is an honest mistake, but when combined with his numerous spelling errors, his self-admitted "hastiness", his shifting justifications, and his reluctance to provide detailed citations, there is a pattern of behavior that Mr. ***** does not pay attention to the details that are critically relevant in a dispute such as this one.
  - Mr. ***** states that Mr. ****** "assigned" a $367 cost to each unit, as if this was a unilateral decision. The $367 number came from a proposal presented to all 6 owners (including Mr. ****** before any work was done, and was the result of both a voluntary *** contribution and a negotiated group discount lowering the total cost per unit. Mr. ***** personally approved this $367 per-unit expenditure in writing, a fact that even he does not dispute. If each unit, including Mr. ****** had proceeded without this assistance, the cost of the repair-as-completed would have been $1,400 with his full responsibility to pay, or over $10,000 for other options. 
  - Mr. ***** continues to push a frivolous argument that his personal appliance's defect is a structural defect of the building that the *** is fully responsible for repairing. This is despite the clear definitions that his personal appliance is NOT in the ***'s purview, which have been provided to Mr. ***** verbatim. He is rejecting textual facts and pushing a perspective that is entirely of his own fabrication.

  The *** has offered to reconcile the situation with Mr. ***** on several occasions but Mr. ***** continues to respond with mean-spirited, inflammatory, and abusive language, and to this day continues to refuse to honor his commitments and obligations. The *** remains committed to simply resolving this issue as originally agreed and putting this matter to rest, and believes it has operated in good faith and with full transparency -- and retains records of correspondence that unequivocally prove that to be the case. The *** refuses to succumb to Mr. ******* attempt to extort the association for his own personal benefit at the expense of its other members, as the *** has a fiduciary duty to treat all owners equally.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/14/2025

   
  Complaint: 22874175
  
  I am rejecting this response because:FAILS TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF THE *** TO THE CASE
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* *****