Violation code and they won’t repair

It sounds like you and your 2 other neighbors who share it need to get together to repair it. Sounds like a shared item that can best be worked out by you and your other neighbors.

The responsibility for the HOA to inform anyone else... Why? Cause they didn't call the inspector did they? They aren't responsible if you can or can not sell your house. The city definitely isn't.

Your solution is to just get together with the other two and handle it. If they don't want to, then you can take it on yourself. Our HOA we just highly recommended you have your chimney inspected prior to setting a fire. We could not ban the use of the fireplace just request you do the right thing.

I disagree Melissa, if the two other unit owners are not aware or just don't care all three unit owners can be overcome my CO poisoning if someone should decide to use the chimney. This is an HOA responsibly and should be given the highest priority to repair. The hoa is just digging their heels in and picking the wrong fight.

How old is your house/unit? Was it up to code when it was built? If it was up to code when built it probably does not need to be brought up to code until it needs repairing. You had one licensed guy tell you it wasn't up to code I would get a second opinion or review the code myself. Did you have a home inspection when you bought the place? What does he say?
Depending on the age of the place the builder or engineer may have some responsibility. You should check all your documents and see who is responsible for common elements. If it was a clogged drain that was shared between different units who would be responsible? I don't think the HOA needs to warn other units based on the opinion of one vendor but if I was on the Board we would investigate to see if we felt the contractor was right.

Regardless of who is responsible for the repair cost, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Board to notify the other units? If one of them catches fire damage may occur to parts of the structure that the HOA is responsible for. Seems like common sense to me. If nothing else I would let my two neighbors know myself. This is a safety issue for goodness sake!

You've done what you can. Have you read your governing docs to see if there is any wording that says owners must make repairs under certain conditions such as when it affects other units? If so, the HOA needs to be involved.

Yes, he says it doesn’t pass a code but he didn’t tell me if the code is new. The point is that it doesn’t pass the code now, and even if I repair mine, the building is “in danger”. So I can’t believe the HOA is not doing anything.

True, in my first statement, I explained that the the chase cover is not longer up to code, it doesn’t have enough pace for secondary heat escape making it dangerous for use.

I mostly agree with SamE2's first and third posts and MarkM31's post. Call up the inspector and find out if the chase cover met the requirements of previous codes. Until then I am not convinced the chase cover is dangerous. If the inspector says the chase cover was never in compliance, then I think the HOA and you would be out of luck filing a construction defect type of claim against the builder. This is because the passage of some 29 years is well beyond any time limit I have seen from the statutes of limitations on a claim against a builder.

If your covenants are clear that this is the HOA's responsibility to fix, then you can start the dispute resolution process, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 5910. If you think all the HOA's chimneys have the same problem, then this will help your argument. Start by reviewing the "Internal Dispute Resolution" (IDR) information at https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/ADR-Menu

Thank you for you advice, it is really helpful.
it makes me think that the HOA is the one that should be checking if it is a safety issue, not me. The inspectors that came were licensed and very reputable around here and they went to the roof to inspect it. So I passed this information to the HOA because even if I fix the one on my side, the whole 2 buildings would have the same problem.
Aren’t they responsible for ensuring it is safe to use?

May I mention something kind of obvious? The other 2 neighbors are the "HOA" just like the OP. So if the OP wants the HOA to be responsible, then at some point the 2 neighbors should know about it. The HOA could be making a special assessment to raise money for the repair. Plus if the HOA is to fix it, they may need to involve the other 2 owners in that decision. It does effect their property as well.

When you ask the "HOA to pay" your asking ALL your neighbors to pay. So the 2 other neighbors being in the HOA their dues/assessments will be effected too. So why not talk to them about a solution? It may take a long time for the HOA to react. There is no official timeline a HOA has to respond is there?

Uhm who makes up the HOA and contributed to that reserves? A HOA is ONLY funded by it's members for it's members. So even if it's covered by "reserves" it still money out the neighbors pocket. Plus this may not fall under a "reserves" cost. It maybe be considered a "repair". Which would come out of the operating budget.

A chase cover is used for a pre-fab or factory-built fireplace. Unlike a chimney cap that covers only the top of the flue opening, a chase cover fits over the top of the chimney. They're also called “top pans” because they top chimneys that are sided with vinyl, metal, or wood.

Thank you all. Sorry I didn't come back to the forum. I tried to find more about this code, plus I had issues retrieving my account so I created a new login....anyway.

The problem with the code is that when they built this place, the manufacturer that did all the chimneys, back in 1990, didn't follow the code. So the safety code was in placed then.
I have no idea why this was never addressed before, my feeling is that they know about it but they don't want to deal with it.
Still, there is a safety issue, and HOA told me when I sent the request to them, that using the chimney is not a "mature option" and "that I will be responsible for any damages".
A month later I received a letter from them, stating that homeowners are responsible to fix architectural issues and they don't have anything to do with it.

The inspector told me that in their experience, the HOAs always took responsibility of this problem.

After what the HOA told me, and knowing that there is a safety issue, I am scared to use the chimney.

I do not know the neighbors here, only moved 3 months ago. I tried to connect with them, but they don't want to know also.

I am OK paying for my part, but since 3 units share the chase, I don't want to pay for it alone, so I am stuck.

How can I get the HOA to address this problem and inform everyone? Should I call the city?

I don't know how to move forward

Thank you.

Despite repeated requests, you have neither posted nor quoted the relevant covenants. Do you know what "covenant" means? Do you have a copy of them? Until you provide these covenants to the forum, I doubt the advice here can help you move forward.

Is the manufacturer still in business? If they are give them a call and see if they will do anything for you. As others have said the answer to who is responsible is in your condo docs. It

Thank you all.
The issue is that it seems there is a safety code that is broken, and since this is a community, the HOA should check on it to ensure safety. If it would only affect me, I will fix it for unit.

It is mot my responsibility or my job to do this alone, since it affects everyone. But I can't use the chimney knowing it could be a safety problem, it doesn't feel right.

So your saying you want to invite your neighbors into your home to see the safety code violation and have them pay for it? If you want the HOA to pay for it, then that's what your asking for. Have you even submitted anything to the board or MC? Have you talked to the other neighbors who are effected? Seems you can keep seeping in your tea or you can start spilling it.

This is a key question. Usually there is some language about "party walls" in the governing documents when there are attached residences, duplexes, or townhomes. I've also seen "party roof" provisions in some CC&Rs where roofs are shared. Sometimes the walls and/or roofs will be designated common or limited common areas which can put the maintenance and repair responsibility on the association as a whole.

There's probably a 90% chance that the answer to the problem is contained in the governing documents.

I think city "code enforcement" staff enforce only the city's municipal code. I do not think chimney yada code enforcement is in the city's purview. It might be in the state's purview. The OP could try calling the California Building Standards Commission. See phone number at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC

I brought that up earlier, and the OP was specific that the "inspector" said that the assembly never could have met code when the building was built in 1990.

After a lifetime of construction including a lot of supervision, I personally would need a lot more proof than just a statement by the "chimey chase inspector" that the assemble was not code compliant at the date of construction. How did the building even get a certificate of occupancy?

Not knowing the inspectors bone fides I am no way convinced yet.

But George we do know who doesn't want to be responsible...

Sure they had a handle on it, I'm not sure why you would make a blanket statement like that.

The late 80's and early 90's also saw black monday, the first Gulf War and "...it's the economy, stupid..." all of which indicate that everything wasn't the boom you say it was.

I was around then, and inspections were the same as now.

I think not. From wikipedia:

"The Uniform Building Code (UBC) was a building code used primarily in the western United States.

History
The UBC was first published in 1927 by the International Conference of Building Officials, which was based in Whittier, California. It was intended to promote public safety and provided standardized requirements for safe construction which would not vary from city to city as had previously been the case.[1]

Updated editions of the code were published approximately every three years until 1997, which was the final version of the code. The UBC was replaced in 2000 by the new International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC was a merger of three predecessor organizations which published three different building codes.[2]"

-- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Building_Code

The 1991 UBC appears at https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/ubc/UBC_1991.pdf . See Chapter 37 on pdf pages 691-700. Regarding chimneys, the UBC frequently points out that chimneys must comply with both the UBC and the Uniform Mechanical Code.

The 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code appears here: https://archive.org/stream/gov.law.icbo.mechanical.1991/icbo.mechanical.1991_djvu.txt

"Chase" does not seem to appear in the two 1991 codes. It is possible that more command of vocabulary is needed to interpret the two 1991 codes with regard to "chase cover."

I am not ready to say that builders and inspectors did not have a good handle on the code back then.

Not sure why you took offense Mark.

Maybe the code was articulated better and inspections were carried out better in your neck of the woods than in mine.

Then again, the push between 1994 and 1997 to develop a more substantial and universal code shows a widespread realization that there were problems in the existing code system that needed fixing.

Either way, I do agree with your prior post:

No offense taken, I just thought your statement was inncorrect