Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:RE: Response to Boulder Pools denial via Revdex.com[redacted]November 5, 2015I am rejecting Boulder Pools response because of the following:Cracking and Shifting GroundOne issue that we keep bringing up is that a large crack has formed in a place that was repaired by Boulder Pools. We can understand that other cracks could form in other places, but this crack reappeared in the same place about four to five months after the remodel. The plaster company (Centex) has verified this saying that their pictures taken before and during the work done to repair the cracks show that this area was one of the areas that had cracked before the remodel. Boulder Pools’ fix for this crack appears to have not held.Boulder Pools has claimed that the ground shifting has caused this issue and they take no responsibility even though the main reason we hired them was to specifically address the cracking inside our pool. However, the ground shifting theory is only one possible explanation. Boulder Pools did not take measurements before, during, or after the pool/deck remodel. I do not believe that the structural engineer that owner [redacted] recommended and brought in took measurements either as I was present during his entire assessment. If he did, I would like to view those and obtain the letter that Boulder Pools claims to have seen as we did not receive a copy of this information for some reason. It seems to us that just because Boulder Pools claims that this is the absolute truth, there are many other possible explanations, including material failure for one.Boulder Pools has implied that it is very difficult to keep clay soils from causing a pool to shift and crack. We were under the impression after talking to owner [redacted] multiple times prior to the remodel that his company would perform work that would help mitigate this. Now they are claiming that the pool was built incorrectly (which they did not mention before or during construction) and that our land shifts too much. Owner [redacted] saw the previous cracking deck, saw numerous cracks inside the pool (even if he did not see them all due to the cloudy water), and even saw our cracking driveway, and still took the job claiming that he could fix the existing issues. He even went as far as saying that we would never have the kind of issues that we were seeing in our previous deck in our new deck.To quote Boulder Pools’ last reply:“Pools are successfully built in clay soils, but there are construction methods that can mitigate this situation. It can be deduced that perhaps these methods were not used when the pool was built and/or the extreme drought that has been plaguing this area caused a situation that resulted in the cracks.” If the pool was built incorrectly, why didn’t Boulder Pools tell us this during the remodel? How is it that Boulder Pools could not diagnose this with the information that they had prior to or during the remodel? They dug up a couple feet of dirt on the outside wall of the pool. They cut a hole out of the gunite at the bottom of the pool. They saw indicators of the problems in both the cracks inside the pool and the deterioration of the previous deck. Yet, they went through with the project and now at this later date claim all these issues were due to something that they were not able to identify at the time.If the answer to these questions is that we didn’t pay them to determine the condition of the pool, deck, and the ground below before the remodel, I would say that it would be difficult to propose a solution to the problem without an assessment of the problem itself. If the answer is that they were trying to keep costs down to [redacted]efit us, I can say without a doubt that my wife and I would have gladly paid extra money to save the heartache and have the job done correctly.Sand Stains / EquipmentBoulder Pools says that we should have checked our own equipment to make sure that there wasn’t a broken lateral that would shoot sand into the pool. That seems like a job for a pool professional/expert. It is true that Boulder Pools suggested at the very beginning of the process that we replace our equipment because it was old. However, they never once mentioned the consequences of improperly functioning filtering equipment. Additionally, Boulder Pools neither offered to check the equipment nor suggested that we pay either their company or another to check the filtering equipment prior to filling the pool. Perhaps this is incorrect thinking, but I assume if you hire a reputable company for work, you are paying for their expertise as well as the work performed. If we had been fully apprised of the situation before it was too late, we would have gone ahead and replaced the filter, bypassing the issue altogether.The fact is that the equipment seemed to be working fine before the remodel. I’m not sure where Boulder Pools gathered that I was “confident” about this as I am not a pool expert nor do I work on pool equipment. Prior to the remodel, the pool filter was keeping the water clear and not blowing sand into the pool. We did not touch the pool equipment at all during the remodel. When everything was put back together, the filter was then blowing sand into the pool, staining the brand new white plaster.Boulder Pools states:“Before Boulder Pools was engaged to replace the old equipment, NONE of the work my crew did had any impact on Mr. [redacted]' existing filter, heater or pump.”I’m not sure how Boulder Pools can positively claim this as several small things were done incorrectly during the full job they performed, including problems with our sprinkler lines and leaks in different areas to name a few. After a brief Internet search, it appears that many things can cause a broken lateral, including moving a filter, which could definitely happen while trying to attach new pool lines to said filter. We are not accusing anyone of anything, but it is clear that in a project this size, mistakes can happen. There is no way that Boulder Pools can state without a doubt that they did not cause this. Regarding the “brackish” water, all Boulder Pools had to do was ask us to clean up the water before work was to begin so that they could get a good estimate of the issues, including the equipment. They did not do this. Again, we are not pool experts. We paid Boulder Pools to provide their expertise, but several things that should have been ironed out before the remodel did not happen.Finally, Boulder Pools states that a pumice stone may have removed the sand staining. We tried several of the recommendations in an attempt to remedy this issue but were unable to remove the staining.City of Austin Code Compliance“I am willing to go to Mr. [redacted]' home with a meter, take the covers off the equipment and show him that it is properly grounded and discuss any other “code compliance” issues that might come under the scope of work in either of our contracts.”With all due respect, the only person that can prove that all of Boulder Pools’ work is up to City of Austin building code is a code compliance person from the City. If at that time, Boulder Pools is still willing to stand behind their work and correct anything that might get flagged by the city as incorrect or insufficient, then we would welcome the offer. However, we remain skeptical regarding promises made by Boulder Pools as they have not followed through on their most recent offers, including fixing a poorly done paint retouch and sanding concrete stains from the pool bottom (see attached email).
Regards,
[redacted]
The Original ContractThe original contract stating the
scope of work that I entered into with [redacted] did not include
any equipment work, because according to Mr. [redacted] as he stated
in his letter, the equipment was in working order. Before extending
my bid proposal to him, I did only a visual assessment. The pool was
partly full of brackish water when I first inspected it and I had
only Mr. [redacted]' description of the operational condition of the
equipment. Because of the appearance of the equipment at that time I
told him I could give him an estimate for new equipment. He chose
not to replace any of the equipment at that time. Our contract dealt only with deck
work, repair of
existing cracks inside the pool vessel,
tile and coping replacement, coring the pool for a future cleaner
line and auto fill, and replacing the white pool light with a color
light. (see attached “Bid Proposal). Replacement lights
come attached to the electrical line that is installed with them. It
is manufactured to national codes. After Mr. [redacted] consulted with
the engineer, he decided to go ahead with the work as laid out in
the Bid Proposal.My original
contract did not include going through
his equipment to evaluate, repair or replace any items. Mr.
[redacted] was confident the equipment was in working order. Before
Boulder Pools was engaged to replace the old equipment, NONE of the
work my crew did had any impact on Mr. [redacted]' existing filter,
heater or pump. I cannot warranty something that was
not in my scope of work. Mr. [redacted] even mentioned in item #3 in his letter that he “is not asking for a warranty on anything
we did not touch”. We did not do any work on his filter prior to
the sand getting into his pool. The sand entered the pool because the
filter was defective. The
bid proposal signed by Mr.
[redacted] and myself called
for 50' of crack repair using epoxy
material.
Being partially full of
water, it was impossible to measure the linear feet of existing
cracks in the pool before
taking on the job. A price per foot was included in the bid to
account for this. Once the
pool was drained and cleaned out, there were 122' of cracks that we
repaired. We charged him for only 100' of repairs and did not
charge him the additional $525 for the additional 22 feet of repairs.
Mr. [redacted] did not request this extra work for free. It was a
courtesy on my part. Mr. [redacted] paid for all the deck work and
crack repair for which he was billed.The Plaster Once my work repairing the existing cracks was done the pool was
plastered by Cen-Tex Plaster, Inc. via a DIRECT contract with Mr. [redacted]. Cen-Tex was
not our subcontractor. Please
note there is no provision for plaster in our contract with the
homeowner. Mr. [redacted] accomplished
the start-up of the pump and the filter under
his own volition once he had filled the pool with
water (Attached [redacted]
Email 5/6/13). Also on
5-06-13 Cen-Tex
sent Mr. [redacted] an email with a list of recommendations from
the National Plasterers Council concerning what to do following his plaster job.It included steps for the homeowner to
take for start-up. The first item on
the list from the National Plasterers Council was “make sure the
filtration equipment is
operational”.The defective filter was
the sole cause of the plaster staining.
Mr. [redacted] mentioned
it to me in an email dated 6-12-13 (attached [redacted]
Email) and asked for my
recommendations. I talked with Cen-Tex,
the plaster company, and they said that an acid wash would be the best course of action. Mr. [redacted]
decided not to take this recommendation. An
alternate suggestion was to use a pumice stone to try to remove the
worst of the sand. I relayed these
suggestions from the plaster company to Mr. [redacted]. New plaster
needs to be brushed daily to keep the excess plaster dust from
embedding in the plaster. If this brushing did not move the sand that
was deposited into the pool from the filter, it is possible
that vacuuming would not have worked either. Wheeled
devices, such
as vacuums, in the pool, or
any other activity for
the first 7-10 days are not recommended
and
possibly would have voided his warranty -and
the ability of the plaster to contain water in the pool, its
most important function. It
takes plaster 28 days to cure completely. (NPC
recommendation) The
“stain”/sand embedded in his new plaster was in
no way my
responsibility.With
this issue taking place nearly 2 ½ years ago, I was mistaken in that
I thought that I had paid the engineer who
looked at the pool before any work began.
I did not. The
structural engineer who was consulted at the time wrote a letter
based on his notes of the meeting.
His letter states that “since the pool was in clay soils, any crack
repairs done at this time would most likely reappear when the soils
became wet again.” Pools are successfully built in clay
soils, but there are construction methods that can mitigate this
situation. It can be deduced that perhaps these methods were not used
when the pool was built and/or the extreme drought that has been
plaguing this area caused a situation that resulted in the cracks.
Epoxy repairs are just that – repairs; we could not repair future
cracks or guarantee that there would be no further cracking. When the
ground shrinks and expands as has been the case in central Texas, the
cracks may continue to form.The
Pool EquipmentWork
on the equipment was discussed and decided upon through emails. There
was no formal contract. When contracted
to replace the equipment (after the filter proved defective) my technician also replaced the indoor-rated Romex wire that supplied his equipment with power with
appropriate stranded wire encased in conduit. (The existing wire
would definitely NOT have passed any inspections and did not meet any code standards). He replaced the heater, along with a new section of hose from
the gas supply line to the heater itself (he did not run a new gas
supply line). He also replaced the pump,
and filter. All the work he did was properly grounded. Some items
addressed by “city code” include: proper fencing, proper gate
access with locks and self-closing springs, the pool bond, GFCI
breakers, alarms on doors and windows that provide access to the pool
from the house and proper gas-line installation. NONE of these items
entered into our scope of work that Mr. [redacted] was discussing that
did not meet city code. Our scope of work did not address any changes
to those items. We simply disconnected
the old equipment and replaced it
with new equipment - correctly. Even
to this day, he
has not indicated to me that the equipment
or the installation of
the equipment was
defective except
to imply that it was not properly grounded. I am
willing to
go to Mr. [redacted]' home with a meter, take the covers off the equipment and show him that it is properly grounded and
discuss any other “code compliance” issues that might come under
the scope of work in either of our contracts.
Tell us why here...In response to Mr. [redacted]' last
letter, my response is below.I will forward the letter from the
engineer directly to Mr. [redacted]' email. The engineer stated that
“there was not much that could be done to repair the pool.” He
also stated that “any repairs done at that time would most likely
only reappear when the soils became wet again.” He also mentioned
during our meeting with him that “the pool had moved and would
continue to move.” The pool was constructed on clay soils
without any buffer between the pool and the soils. We add 6” of
washed rock between the pool shell and the dirt in every new pool
that we build. The cost of doing something like that to an old pool
would be prohibitive and no guarantee could be given that it would
work because of other unknown factors like rebar reinforcement and
placement and gunite application.I will not warrant any repairs made on
the cracks because the repair does not solve the problem of a pool
that moves. As the engineer stated in his letter “we felt the soils
conditions would not allow a permanent repair solution.” Boulder Pools made a recommendation
that the filter be replaced, Mr. [redacted] chose not to replace it. I
do not try to coerce or scare people into doing additional work on
their pool. To check the pool equipment, we would have had to
dismantle the valve and plumbing to the filter, remove all of the
sand media, inspect the laterals and replace the sand. If Mr.
[redacted] had contracted this additional work with us it would have
been done. We did absolutely no work that would have caused the
lateral failure. It was a very old piece of equipment. An analogy: a
man takes a car to a shop for repair work. They put on a new
headlight and the brakes fail after the owner picks up the car. Would
the mechanic be responsible for the brakes?I suggested a fix (recommended by the
plaster company) for the sand in the pool at the time it happened by
having an acid wash done. The cost was $400 and I even offered to pay
half to help defray the cost. Mr. [redacted] chose not to pursue this
avenue. I have now spent more money than that on a lawyer defending
his complaints. This is not my company's fault and I will not
warranty it.The offer is still open for me to meet
Mr. [redacted] and discuss the code compliance issues. Please
understand that I will only warrant the work we actually did. I will
not warrant any other items.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:RE: Response to Boulder Pools denial via Revdex.com[redacted]November 5, 2015I am rejecting Boulder Pools response because of the following:Cracking and Shifting GroundOne issue that we keep bringing up is that a large crack has formed in a place that was repaired by Boulder Pools. We can understand that other cracks could form in other places, but this crack reappeared in the same place about four to five months after the remodel. The plaster company (Centex) has verified this saying that their pictures taken before and during the work done to repair the cracks show that this area was one of the areas that had cracked before the remodel. Boulder Pools’ fix for this crack appears to have not held.Boulder Pools has claimed that the ground shifting has caused this issue and they take no responsibility even though the main reason we hired them was to specifically address the cracking inside our pool. However, the ground shifting theory is only one possible explanation. Boulder Pools did not take measurements before, during, or after the pool/deck remodel. I do not believe that the structural engineer that owner [redacted] recommended and brought in took measurements either as I was present during his entire assessment. If he did, I would like to view those and obtain the letter that Boulder Pools claims to have seen as we did not receive a copy of this information for some reason. It seems to us that just because Boulder Pools claims that this is the absolute truth, there are many other possible explanations, including material failure for one.Boulder Pools has implied that it is very difficult to keep clay soils from causing a pool to shift and crack. We were under the impression after talking to owner [redacted] multiple times prior to the remodel that his company would perform work that would help mitigate this. Now they are claiming that the pool was built incorrectly (which they did not mention before or during construction) and that our land shifts too much. Owner [redacted] saw the previous cracking deck, saw numerous cracks inside the pool (even if he did not see them all due to the cloudy water), and even saw our cracking driveway, and still took the job claiming that he could fix the existing issues. He even went as far as saying that we would never have the kind of issues that we were seeing in our previous deck in our new deck.To quote Boulder Pools’ last reply:“Pools are successfully built in clay soils, but there are construction methods that can mitigate this situation. It can be deduced that perhaps these methods were not used when the pool was built and/or the extreme drought that has been plaguing this area caused a situation that resulted in the cracks.” If the pool was built incorrectly, why didn’t Boulder Pools tell us this during the remodel? How is it that Boulder Pools could not diagnose this with the information that they had prior to or during the remodel? They dug up a couple feet of dirt on the outside wall of the pool. They cut a hole out of the gunite at the bottom of the pool. They saw indicators of the problems in both the cracks inside the pool and the deterioration of the previous deck. Yet, they went through with the project and now at this later date claim all these issues were due to something that they were not able to identify at the time.If the answer to these questions is that we didn’t pay them to determine the condition of the pool, deck, and the ground below before the remodel, I would say that it would be difficult to propose a solution to the problem without an assessment of the problem itself. If the answer is that they were trying to keep costs down to [redacted]efit us, I can say without a doubt that my wife and I would have gladly paid extra money to save the heartache and have the job done correctly.Sand Stains / EquipmentBoulder Pools says that we should have checked our own equipment to make sure that there wasn’t a broken lateral that would shoot sand into the pool. That seems like a job for a pool professional/expert. It is true that Boulder Pools suggested at the very beginning of the process that we replace our equipment because it was old. However, they never once mentioned the consequences of improperly functioning filtering equipment. Additionally, Boulder Pools neither offered to check the equipment nor suggested that we pay either their company or another to check the filtering equipment prior to filling the pool. Perhaps this is incorrect thinking, but I assume if you hire a reputable company for work, you are paying for their expertise as well as the work performed. If we had been fully apprised of the situation before it was too late, we would have gone ahead and replaced the filter, bypassing the issue altogether.The fact is that the equipment seemed to be working fine before the remodel. I’m not sure where Boulder Pools gathered that I was “confident” about this as I am not a pool expert nor do I work on pool equipment. Prior to the remodel, the pool filter was keeping the water clear and not blowing sand into the pool. We did not touch the pool equipment at all during the remodel. When everything was put back together, the filter was then blowing sand into the pool, staining the brand new white plaster.Boulder Pools states:“Before Boulder Pools was engaged to replace the old equipment, NONE of the work my crew did had any impact on Mr. [redacted]' existing filter, heater or pump.”I’m not sure how Boulder Pools can positively claim this as several small things were done incorrectly during the full job they performed, including problems with our sprinkler lines and leaks in different areas to name a few. After a brief Internet search, it appears that many things can cause a broken lateral, including moving a filter, which could definitely happen while trying to attach new pool lines to said filter. We are not accusing anyone of anything, but it is clear that in a project this size, mistakes can happen. There is no way that Boulder Pools can state without a doubt that they did not cause this. Regarding the “brackish” water, all Boulder Pools had to do was ask us to clean up the water before work was to begin so that they could get a good estimate of the issues, including the equipment. They did not do this. Again, we are not pool experts. We paid Boulder Pools to provide their expertise, but several things that should have been ironed out before the remodel did not happen.Finally, Boulder Pools states that a pumice stone may have removed the sand staining. We tried several of the recommendations in an attempt to remedy this issue but were unable to remove the staining.City of Austin Code Compliance“I am willing to go to Mr. [redacted]' home with a meter, take the covers off the equipment and show him that it is properly grounded and discuss any other “code compliance” issues that might come under the scope of work in either of our contracts.”With all due respect, the only person that can prove that all of Boulder Pools’ work is up to City of Austin building code is a code compliance person from the City. If at that time, Boulder Pools is still willing to stand behind their work and correct anything that might get flagged by the city as incorrect or insufficient, then we would welcome the offer. However, we remain skeptical regarding promises made by Boulder Pools as they have not followed through on their most recent offers, including fixing a poorly done paint retouch and sanding concrete stains from the pool bottom (see attached email).
Regards,
[redacted]
The Original ContractThe original contract stating the
scope of work that I entered into with [redacted] did not include
any equipment work, because according to Mr. [redacted] as he stated
in his letter, the equipment was in working order. Before extending
my bid proposal to him, I did only a visual assessment. The pool was
partly full of brackish water when I first inspected it and I had
only Mr. [redacted]' description of the operational condition of the
equipment. Because of the appearance of the equipment at that time I
told him I could give him an estimate for new equipment. He chose
not to replace any of the equipment at that time. Our contract dealt only with deck
work, repair of
existing cracks inside the pool vessel,
tile and coping replacement, coring the pool for a future cleaner
line and auto fill, and replacing the white pool light with a color
light. (see attached “Bid Proposal). Replacement lights
come attached to the electrical line that is installed with them. It
is manufactured to national codes. After Mr. [redacted] consulted with
the engineer, he decided to go ahead with the work as laid out in
the Bid Proposal.My original
contract did not include going through
his equipment to evaluate, repair or replace any items. Mr.
[redacted] was confident the equipment was in working order. Before
Boulder Pools was engaged to replace the old equipment, NONE of the
work my crew did had any impact on Mr. [redacted]' existing filter,
heater or pump. I cannot warranty something that was
not in my scope of work. Mr. [redacted] even mentioned in item #3 in his letter that he “is not asking for a warranty on anything
we did not touch”. We did not do any work on his filter prior to
the sand getting into his pool. The sand entered the pool because the
filter was defective. The
bid proposal signed by Mr.
[redacted] and myself called
for 50' of crack repair using epoxy
material.
Being partially full of
water, it was impossible to measure the linear feet of existing
cracks in the pool before
taking on the job. A price per foot was included in the bid to
account for this. Once the
pool was drained and cleaned out, there were 122' of cracks that we
repaired. We charged him for only 100' of repairs and did not
charge him the additional $525 for the additional 22 feet of repairs.
Mr. [redacted] did not request this extra work for free. It was a
courtesy on my part. Mr. [redacted] paid for all the deck work and
crack repair for which he was billed.The Plaster Once my work repairing the existing cracks was done the pool was
plastered by Cen-Tex Plaster, Inc. via a DIRECT contract with Mr. [redacted]. Cen-Tex was
not our subcontractor. Please
note there is no provision for plaster in our contract with the
homeowner. Mr. [redacted] accomplished
the start-up of the pump and the filter under
his own volition once he had filled the pool with
water (Attached [redacted]
Email 5/6/13). Also on
5-06-13 Cen-Tex
sent Mr. [redacted] an email with a list of recommendations from
the National Plasterers Council concerning what to do following his plaster job.It included steps for the homeowner to
take for start-up. The first item on
the list from the National Plasterers Council was “make sure the
filtration equipment is
operational”.The defective filter was
the sole cause of the plaster staining.
Mr. [redacted] mentioned
it to me in an email dated 6-12-13 (attached [redacted]
Email) and asked for my
recommendations. I talked with Cen-Tex,
the plaster company, and they said that an acid wash would be the best course of action. Mr. [redacted]
decided not to take this recommendation. An
alternate suggestion was to use a pumice stone to try to remove the
worst of the sand. I relayed these
suggestions from the plaster company to Mr. [redacted]. New plaster
needs to be brushed daily to keep the excess plaster dust from
embedding in the plaster. If this brushing did not move the sand that
was deposited into the pool from the filter, it is possible
that vacuuming would not have worked either. Wheeled
devices, such
as vacuums, in the pool, or
any other activity for
the first 7-10 days are not recommended
and
possibly would have voided his warranty -and
the ability of the plaster to contain water in the pool, its
most important function. It
takes plaster 28 days to cure completely. (NPC
recommendation) The
“stain”/sand embedded in his new plaster was in
no way my
responsibility.With
this issue taking place nearly 2 ½ years ago, I was mistaken in that
I thought that I had paid the engineer who
looked at the pool before any work began.
I did not. The
structural engineer who was consulted at the time wrote a letter
based on his notes of the meeting.
His letter states that “since the pool was in clay soils, any crack
repairs done at this time would most likely reappear when the soils
became wet again.” Pools are successfully built in clay
soils, but there are construction methods that can mitigate this
situation. It can be deduced that perhaps these methods were not used
when the pool was built and/or the extreme drought that has been
plaguing this area caused a situation that resulted in the cracks.
Epoxy repairs are just that – repairs; we could not repair future
cracks or guarantee that there would be no further cracking. When the
ground shrinks and expands as has been the case in central Texas, the
cracks may continue to form.The
Pool EquipmentWork
on the equipment was discussed and decided upon through emails. There
was no formal contract. When contracted
to replace the equipment (after the filter proved defective) my technician also replaced the indoor-rated Romex wire that supplied his equipment with power with
appropriate stranded wire encased in conduit. (The existing wire
would definitely NOT have passed any inspections and did not meet any code standards). He replaced the heater, along with a new section of hose from
the gas supply line to the heater itself (he did not run a new gas
supply line). He also replaced the pump,
and filter. All the work he did was properly grounded. Some items
addressed by “city code” include: proper fencing, proper gate
access with locks and self-closing springs, the pool bond, GFCI
breakers, alarms on doors and windows that provide access to the pool
from the house and proper gas-line installation. NONE of these items
entered into our scope of work that Mr. [redacted] was discussing that
did not meet city code. Our scope of work did not address any changes
to those items. We simply disconnected
the old equipment and replaced it
with new equipment - correctly. Even
to this day, he
has not indicated to me that the equipment
or the installation of
the equipment was
defective except
to imply that it was not properly grounded. I am
willing to
go to Mr. [redacted]' home with a meter, take the covers off the equipment and show him that it is properly grounded and
discuss any other “code compliance” issues that might come under
the scope of work in either of our contracts.
Tell us why here...In response to Mr. [redacted]' last
letter, my response is below.I will forward the letter from the
engineer directly to Mr. [redacted]' email. The engineer stated that
“there was not much that could be done to repair the pool.” He
also stated that “any repairs done at that time would most likely
only reappear when the soils became wet again.” He also mentioned
during our meeting with him that “the pool had moved and would
continue to move.” The pool was constructed on clay soils
without any buffer between the pool and the soils. We add 6” of
washed rock between the pool shell and the dirt in every new pool
that we build. The cost of doing something like that to an old pool
would be prohibitive and no guarantee could be given that it would
work because of other unknown factors like rebar reinforcement and
placement and gunite application.I will not warrant any repairs made on
the cracks because the repair does not solve the problem of a pool
that moves. As the engineer stated in his letter “we felt the soils
conditions would not allow a permanent repair solution.” Boulder Pools made a recommendation
that the filter be replaced, Mr. [redacted] chose not to replace it. I
do not try to coerce or scare people into doing additional work on
their pool. To check the pool equipment, we would have had to
dismantle the valve and plumbing to the filter, remove all of the
sand media, inspect the laterals and replace the sand. If Mr.
[redacted] had contracted this additional work with us it would have
been done. We did absolutely no work that would have caused the
lateral failure. It was a very old piece of equipment. An analogy: a
man takes a car to a shop for repair work. They put on a new
headlight and the brakes fail after the owner picks up the car. Would
the mechanic be responsible for the brakes?I suggested a fix (recommended by the
plaster company) for the sand in the pool at the time it happened by
having an acid wash done. The cost was $400 and I even offered to pay
half to help defray the cost. Mr. [redacted] chose not to pursue this
avenue. I have now spent more money than that on a lawyer defending
his complaints. This is not my company's fault and I will not
warranty it.The offer is still open for me to meet
Mr. [redacted] and discuss the code compliance issues. Please
understand that I will only warrant the work we actually did. I will
not warrant any other items.