Are you required to use water resistant sheetrock in a kitchen?

House Repair Talk

Help Support House Repair Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

merk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
115
Reaction score
14
Hi All,

In a dispute with my crappy contractor who is now resorting to threatening me with cease and desist letters if i dont remove my reviews of them.

One of the things his lawyer mentioned was that there is no industry standard that would require them to use water resistant sheetrock around the sink in the kitchen.

Ironically, they DID use water resistant sheetrock the first time they put up sheetrock. But they had to tear it all down since they did all that work without any permits or inspections. I also don't think they put any insulation in the walls which i think they were also required to do.

Oh, and this is in california, daly city.
 
Not required. It is probably not the best thing to do, getting into an online urination contest with someone STILL working on your house. Exterior walls need to be insulated even in a mild climate like Daly City, CA. You still dip down to freezing there.
 
If he has come back because he is fixing a permit problem, I would take down the review or at least state that he is working on it. Everything goes better when the war is cooled a little.
 
Knucklehead. Take a deep breath and agree to work together amicably. If he is eating the re-work cost, just make sure it is done properly without harassment. If he has a lawyer involved, things have already gone from bad to worse. Find a qualified inspector to review the job as a 3rd party. You need an advocate in case this goes to court.
 
I'm not a knuclehead, you guys are assuming things.

Work is finished. I've filed a complaint with the CSLB. These are the type of contractors that make other contractors look bad. I am not the only person they have done this to. I've been contacted by several other people since posting my review. There is no way I would let anyone from that company back in my house. I want to make sure no one else gets ripped off by these guys, but i also, unlike them, want to be honest. So if regular sheetrock is all that is required then I'll correct my statements.

So water resistant sheetrock isn't required around the sink?
 
Would the IRC (International Residential Code) stipulate required building materials for kitchens?

I've never heard of waterproof sheetrock being required. Now, as a consumer, you have the right to request water resistant sheetrock at your own expense. Otherwise, once the sheetrock is up, some good water resistant / waterproof paint or some other covering can be put over it. Many people use tile backsplashes, but you can do all sorts of things as a wall treatment over the sheetrock. My family used a textured gypsum board that looks like tile.

If water resistant sheetrock was stipulated in the contract and the work had to be redone because of their failure to get permits, then they should use water resistant sheetrock in the re-do. If they charged you for the materials and you had to pay for them, you should get those materials. They should just have to eat the cost. (Which is why good contractors get permits and try not to screw things up).

If the permits were not pulled and the insulation was not put in the walls, then that can cause heat and cold loss in the house and will make your heating and cooling bills go up. IIRC, insulation is required in exterior walls pretty much everywhere.

Unless your statements about them are untrue, they don't really have grounds for "harassment" if you post reviews of them online. You are entitled to your opinion of the quality of their work, but you need to have factual evidence behind any claims of wrongdoing in terms of code violation.

Other than the sheetrock and suspected insulation issue, did you have any other problems with the contractor?

A detailed description with dates and times listing what happened and what led to your dissatisfaction could help paint a better picture.

It is important to always have the details of what you expect them to do listed explicitly in the contract. Always get an itemized bill if possible. Basically, if they charged you for the materials and had to buy more to redo it at their own expense, they are obligated to use the same materials for which they charged you (at least, that is my understanding) and not use cheaper materials than you paid for.

Now, if you requested changes that required them to have to redo things and it wasn't because of their own failure to do something right, then you would have to eat the cost. But if they just screwed up, it's on them to eat it.

Disclaimer: I am not a contractor or a lawyer so I don't know the laws for certain. This is just my understanding of how things work.
 
Last edited:
Whether the lawyer has any grounds to stand on is dependent on what you wrote in your online review. I would hope you stuck to facts and verified your suspicions before you posted ( sounds like you may not have, from what you wrote here). Zannej seems to hit all the key points. A negative review is not subject to a cease & desist order.
I wonder if this contractor has had issues before. He obviously has a quick finger on the dial for his lawyer.
 
As far as i know, the only thing i was incorrect on was a subcontractors permit being expired instead of revoked (he does have a pending bond payment that needs to be resolved though) and possibly the drywall.

Ironically, the first time they put up the sheetrock they used water resistant sheetrock. They had to tear all that down though since they did it all without permits.

You can read the full account here - www.everlast-construction-sucks.com
 
Quite a story there. And it sounds as if you have every right to be pissed at them. However, since you have a website with their name on it, their lawyer may have a case for a cease & desist order. You may consider getting your own attorney if you plan to keep up this fight. Or you may want to contact a local TV station that has a consumer advocate reporter. You're going to need an ally or two. These guys have a business plan that includes attorney threats.
 
Reminds me of a story about a hummingbird, an alligator, and a fundamental orface.
 
It goes something like; "Don't let you alligator mouth, overload your hummingbird ***."

Anybody recall anywhere in the OP's diatribe, where he visited the DALY City building Dept. and made this inquiry, asked about the prevailing building code, where he could purchase a copy or done anything on his own behalf, to broaden his knowledge of building practices, exercised any self-improvement.
 
Granted, the OP could have done a much better job of shopping for a contractor; "let the buyer beware" and all that crap. But based on what we see here, there are many contractors that know how to get a job and not how to do it. Seems pretty clear to me that their business plan is based on running roughshod over the customer, with the attorney practically part of the crew. IMHO, if i were you, I would not want to defend these guys too quickly.
 
Perhaps you could show me something I've missed;"Anybody recall anywhere in the OP's diatribe, where he visited the DALY City building Dept. and made this inquiry, asked about the prevailing building code, where he could purchase a copy or done anything on his own behalf, to broaden his knowledge of building practices, exercised any self-improvement." The part where I'm defending the contractor?
 
Knucklehead. Take a deep breath and agree to work together amicably. If he is eating the re-work cost, just make sure it is done properly without harassment. If he has a lawyer involved, things have already gone from bad to worse. Find a qualified inspector to review the job as a 3rd party. You need an advocate in case this goes to court.

:confused:

Why do you feel the OP is a knucklehead?

Consumers are taken everyday by shady/unqualified contractors.

If water resistant drywall was installed originally and non-treated was re-installed to correct/cover work not complying with code, it is further evidence of his incompetence/dishonesty. And I surely wouldn't want him doing any further work as his incompetency has clearly been shown.

If the average consumer had the wherewithal to be able to understand and comply with code(s), he wouldn't need a contractor. He would sub-contract. He is paying (out the a$$ most likely) for all of this to be done for him correctly, not having to stand over the contractor constantly watching the work.

And equating one's self to Bob Villa is not a smart thing as he is as dumb as a box of rocks... :down:.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I read the review and that makes a lot of sense.
It was a representation of what happened and how the OP felt about how they were treated.
Merk, were the threats to put a lien on your property sent to you in writing? If so, you could go to court and mention that they are attempting to blackmail you in a way. You could show that in court and state that you gave your honest assessment of their performance on the job.

and I know it is hindsight-- and it seems you have quite a bit of that in this situation, but for others who might be thinking of hiring a contractor, it is important to get the details of what you want done -- plans for what you want the layout to be and so forth-- BEFORE any demo takes place. That should be stipulated. It sounds like you had to do a lot of work to make sure things got done, and that was something the contractor should have done and not been left up to you.

Personally, if I were in your situation, I would consider consulting another contractor about getting that one electrical outlet uncovered and getting the right sheetrock put in and so forth and sue the original contractor for the cost because they screwed the job up. Make sure to get all of the reports from inspectors in writing in case you ever have to go to court-- and stipulate that you want them to pay your legal fees as well as reimbursing you for repairs to make things the way they should have been.

This sounds like one of those cases that would end up on Holmes Inspection or Holmes on Homes. People get screwed over by contractors all the time. It makes it hard for the genuinely good contractors out there.

Again, if you had water resistant sheetrock installed originally, then that is what you paid for and that is what should have been put back in when it was redone.

I hope that you can get things sorted out with this.
 
Why do you feel the OP is a knucklehead?

He'll probably respond but it's more than likely that the OP "elected" to negotiate on social media, without first educating himself on common building, OR, common business practices.

Consumers are taken everyday by shady/unqualified contractors.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and when you "elect" to subordinate good sense, to a flowery sales pitch that agrees with your "want" and not your need, you have only yourself to blame.

If water resistant drywall was installed originally and non-treated was re-installed to correct/cover work not complying with code, it is further evidence of his incompetence/dishonesty. And I surely wouldn't want him doing any further work as his incompetency has clearly been shown.

It is neither incompetent nor dishonest to use material you have on hand, and is actually prudent business practice to reduce stored material inventory.Either regular drywall or WR board will satisfy the fire rating of the wall.

If the average consumer had the wherewithal to be able to understand and comply with code(s), he wouldn't need a contractor. He would sub-contract. He is paying (out the a$$ most likely) for all of this to be done for him correctly, not having to stand over the contractor constantly watching the work.

Everyone has the "ability", however they elect to subordinate to a "professional"
as a matter of convenience, or they simply do not want to take the time to educate themselves.

And equating one's self to Bob Villa is not a smart thing as he is as dumb as a box of rocks... :down:.

Would that be an example of an actionable opinion?
 
Ok, I read the review and that makes a lot of sense.
It was a representation of what happened and how the OP felt about how they were treated.

As long as it remains just an opinion, it's not actionable and a lawyer letter, is not free.

Merk, were the threats to put a lien on your property sent to you in writing? If so, you could go to court and mention that they are attempting to blackmail you in a way. You could show that in court and state that you gave your honest assessment of their performance on the job.

BOLOGNA

Personally, if I were in your situation, I would consider consulting another contractor about getting that one electrical outlet uncovered and getting the right sheetrock put in and so forth and sue the original contractor for the cost because they screwed the job up. Make sure to get all of the reports from inspectors in writing in case you ever have to go to court-- and stipulate that you want them to pay your legal fees as well as reimbursing you for repairs to make things the way they should have been.

Why wasn't the building inspector made aware of and addressed the covered outlet?

After all, there was a permit.

All correction notices are in writing and become part of the addresses permanent record.

Again, if you had water resistant sheetrock installed originally, then that is what you paid for and that is what should have been put back in when it was redone.

BOLOGNA
 
Back
Top