Check out some similar questions!

asnigro · Jan 19, 2012, 07:42 AM

I have two new tenants who tried to install new shower heads in both of the showers in my 2 BR/2 Bath unit. After they do this, they are now telling me the water pressure across the whole condo runs normally for a couple of seconds, then weakens down to about half power. Not enough power to take a shower or do a load of laundry.

Any ideas as to how this could be occurring? Was it just perfect timing that they were installing shower heads on a day when something else went wrong?

This is a condo unit was built in the mid 90's, mine is an all 1st floor unit, this a building with close to 20 units some on the first floor, some on the second. Not sure what kind of piping was used. After peeking under the sink I believe they were copper? There appears to be no water leakage inside or outside of the unit. As of now, no other units have reported any problem with their water pressure (this issue did only happed at around 7pm last night however, the association just opened at 0830 this morn).

speedball1 · Jan 19, 2012, 08:01 AM

they are now telling me the water pressure across the whole condo runs normally for a couple of seconds, then weakens
Down to about half power.

This is a volume problem. What I think has happened is that in changing out the shower heads they disturbed some minerals built up on the pipe walls and not you have a blockage in the water lines. It goes like this. The water builds up behind the blockage until you open a tap. You have full pressure until you run out of volume. Then everything falls down to a trickle. The solution would be to flush out the water lines and if any faucets are still affected open them up and clean the inlet poets on the cartridges. Good luck. Tom

mygirlsdad77 · Jan 19, 2012, 05:30 PM

Changing just the shower heads would in no way affect any other plumbing in the complex, unless, of course they shut of a water supply somewhere (but don't need to just to change shower heads). Either its coincidence, or they aren't telling you the whole story.

asnigro · Jan 24, 2012, 07:43 AM

It turns out they neglected to tell me that they DID in fact attempt to shut off the water to the whole condo in the laundry room. When attempting to turn the water back on, the valve wouldn't open all the water, thus restricting the water pressure.

Had a plumber come, attempt to crank the valve open, but instead broke it. Now the whole valve needs to be replaced. This will require shutting the whole buildings water off for approx two hours.

Plumber charged $130 per hour.

speedball1 · Jan 24, 2012, 09:33 AM

instead broke it. Now the whole valve needs to be replaced. This will require shutting the whole buildings water off for approx two hours.
Plumber charged $130 per hour.

Say What?? They broke it and are now charging you for their screwup? This is unacceptable. What ever happened to " If you break it you bought it?" This should be replaced under warranty at no charge to you. Good luck. Tom

massplumber2008 · Jan 24, 2012, 03:51 PM

Hey guys! Sorry Tom, but I have to disagree with you on that! It is not the plumbers responsibility to replace a shutoff that is old/defective... all he did was try to turn it back on after a tenant shut it off. Most likely the tenant overtightened the shutoff and the plumber tried to open it fully... not his fault that the shutoff broke off.

The plumber is certainly charging a bit of money, but the homeowner is responsible for this... no doubt about it! ~

Shame of course, is that the shutoff didn't need to be touched, but good point here is that they can deal with this now in a convenient manner instead of in the future when say there is something else wrong going on.

Do NOT let those tenants touch anymore plumbing, OK?

Good night guys!

Mark

speedball1 · Jan 25, 2012, 07:12 AM

I don't know Mark! Any time I was on the job and broke something, (old or not) my company replaced the broken part. We just didn't break it and walk away. Have things changed so much out there that a tradesman has no responsibility to his customer? Regards, Tom

massplumber2008 · Jan 25, 2012, 09:09 AM

Hi Tom...

I come along after a tenant shut off an old shutoff they should never have touched and I simply try to turn it back on and the shut off breaks off in my hand and you think that I should somehow replace that? With all due respect, I just don't agree here.

Should I also replace the fill valve on a boiler when it doesn't shut off simply because I filled the boiler or is it that the fill valve is old and needs to be replaced?

How about when I walk in and try to snake an old drain line and my snake breaks through the old corroded pipe... should I replace the drain line or is it simply time for the homeowner to replace old/defective plumbing pipes.

I mean, negligence is one thing, for example, I'm working under a sink installing a faucet and I lean into the PVC drain and snap it off... definitely my issue and I repair it. However, if while working under the sink, I rub against an old tubular brass drain line and it leaks when I fill the sink I inform the customer that the drains are old and need to be replaced... that's called an extra and I get paid for that.

Of course, if I am a smart plumber, I told the customer of my concerns regarding the old drain pipes before ever getting under the sink, right?

Anyway, a good, experienced plumber always informs the customer of the "worst case scenario" BEFORE they proceed with the work if they want to have happy customers, for sure, but in my opinion, fixing a shutoff that the tenant broke shouldn't fall on this plumber in this case... ;)

Have a great day!

ballengerb1 · Jan 25, 2012, 09:18 AM

I have to go with Mark on this unless the plumber did something out of line like using a pry bar or large wrench on this valve. If you hand tighten/loosen a valve and it breaks the plumber should not be liable for free repair.

mygirlsdad77 · Jan 25, 2012, 04:40 PM

I also agree here with Mark. Even if the plumber had to use a wrench to try turning the valve on, it was either that, or, the valve stays as is and the volume is low, so they would have to pay the plumber to replace the valve anyway. The plumber was called for a reason. That reason being shortage of water volume. The culprit was the shutoff, which the plumber tried to open, and it wouldn't open because it was fualty, hence it broke. Correct so far? I see now in no way how this would be put directly on the plumber to pay for. This type of thing happens very, very often, and that is why we are here, to fix the problem at the owners expense. If we had to replace every defective part we ever touched at our own expense, none of us, (or at least myself) would be able to afford to be a plumber.

Tom, Its great that your company stood behind things like this, and quite honestly, more companys need to stand behind negligence, but I don't see this as negligence at all. There's a fine line for sure, but this isn't even close to it in my opinion. Take care guys.