Restoration after water damage, what is the practice?

[Mats_R]

An acquaintance, who lives in a condominium, has had water damage in the kitchen, which he is not responsible for. The condominium association's insurance company covers the damages. A sanitation company immediately came and removed the floor (parquet floor with 3-4 mm. sandable wood) and installed fans and extraction pipes in the concrete subfloor.

The construction company hired by the insurance company is now supposed to lay a new floor, but they only want to lay it up to the baseboards of the kitchen cabinets, meaning no floor underneath the baseboards. Is it normal to do this? The old parquet floor extended to the wall under the cabinets, which allowed the possibility of changing to a different type of cabinet.

The water came from a couple of old pipes that hadn't been used for many years, which were built in behind the wall behind the sink. The sanitation company made a substantial hole at the pipes, and the construction company now wants to close the hole without an inspection hatch. If my acquaintance wants an inspection hatch, he must bear the additional cost himself. Is this reasonable? From what I know, there are new regulations that require an inspection hatch at pipe joints or plugs.

Is it normal to have the inspection hatch above the sink under the cabinets where you would otherwise have tiles? Or is it reasonable to demand that the pipes be cut half a meter, so the hatch is under the sink inside the cabinet? Should one, in that case, pay extra for this, or is it considered part of normal construction practice?

 

[Nils82]

Work with what you describe, i.e., building service. There are divided opinions about parquet under base cabinets, but if it has been under the cabinets, one can demand that the restoration be done according to the original execution. As for the pipes, these are owned by the BRF, and since plugged pipes must be able to be inspected, for example, via a hatch, the BRF should bear the cost for this if not the FB. The hatch should, of course, be placed in an appropriate location, i.e., not above the kitchen sink.

 

[Tosse]

Is it tap water or heating?

If it's tap water, there must not be plugged dead ends due to the risk of stagnant water. It sounds strange if it's an old pipe that is not used but is pressurized water.

If it's heating, hidden joints are allowed.

Note that it is safe water that "decided" you can't have hidden joints on tap water. It is not the law. It is the responsibility of the housing cooperative (brf). The member can point out to the board if the installation is inappropriate. The board then has to decide if the housing cooperative should cover any additional cost to comply with safe water.

 

[Mats_R]

Is it tap water or heating?

If it's tap water, there must not be plugged dead ends due to the risk of stagnant water. It sounds strange if it's an old pipe not in use that has pressurized water in it.

If it's heating, then you can have hidden joints.

Note that it is Säker Vatten that has "decided" that you can't have hidden joints on tap water. It's not a law. It's the housing association's responsibility. What the member can do is to point out to the board if the execution is inappropriate. Then the board must decide if the housing association should take any additional costs to comply with Säker Vatten.

Thanks for the answers.
It's tap water. They have been without pressure for many years. Someone, either a member or a hired plumber, accidentally pressurized the pipes.

 

[topmount]

If the pipes are not used, then an inspection hatch is probably not necessary. If the entire floor is to be redone, don't the kitchen cabinets have to be removed?

 

[Tosse]

It depends on how the base is made. If there are plastic legs and not too low of a base, it might work anyway.

But I think it seems completely unnecessary to lay flooring under the cabinets afterward. Moreover, it is against the flooring manufacturers' instructions and will void the floor's warranty.

 

[Mats_R]

It depends on how the base is made. If it's plastic legs and a not too low base, it might still work.

But I think it seems totally unnecessary to lay flooring under the cabinets afterward. It's also against the flooring manufacturer's instructions and will void the warranty.

The bases are removed, and the cabinets are supported on temporary blocks. The reason for wanting flooring under the cabinets is to be able to change and replace kitchen fittings in the future.

 

[tergo]

One advantage of having flooring under kitchen cabinets is that there is a greater chance that water will flow forward in the event of a leak, for example in the sink cabinet.

When it comes to restoration after water damage, you should, as far as possible, restore it to how it looked before the water damage. I have personally been involved in laying flooring under cabinets after water damage. It can be a bit tricky, but it is possible.