Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: To make sure all of the facts are organized properly we are providing our response to Lang Pools, Incsubmission of 11/26/where [redacted] Lang outlined why the pool and spa were built in accordance with the pool and spa codesFor some reason our Revdex.com response was not uploaded properly to the Revdex.com website and we followed up with [redacted] *** to correct the error, however, we never heard back from herTherefore, below is our original response as to why we are rejecting Lang Pools, Incoriginal response: Our response to Lang Pools, Inc dated 11/28/needs to be updated with the following: The business owner, [redacted] Lang, is well aware of the violations with respect to the pool and spa built by Lang Pools, Inc(Lang)On several occasions we sent letters to him and his attorney, [redacted] , in reference to this matter in the hope of coming up with a resolutionUnfortunately, *** Lang did not want to address these issues and referred this matter to his insurance company (***) and claim number [redacted] was assigned on August 29, It is unfortunate that *** Lang has built our pool and spa in violation of the building code provisions recognized by the State of Connecticut and the Town of [redacted] as wellIn my initial contact with [redacted] , the sales person who sold and supervised the construction of the pool and spa, he stated the " [redacted] ***" ( [redacted] - 2003) and the " [redacted] ***" ( [redacted] - 1999) did not apply to vinyl liner pools, however, the pool drawings submitted to the Town of [redacted] and approved on August 21, clearly indicated the following: "In-ground Pool shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 2003, Section [redacted] ***, CT State BldgCode." and "Permanently installed Spas and Hot Tubs shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 3, - S [redacted] ***, CT State BldgCode." On August 24, the following was provided to my attorney, [redacted] , who forwarded such information to Lang's attorney in reference to the violations brought to the attention of *** Lang on numerous occasions in an attempt to settle the matter, however, Lang's attorney has failed to respondWhen Sections have been referenced in this response for Pool Violations, refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved April 22, (See [redacted] - 2011) and for Spa Violations, refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] *** approved December 20, (See [redacted] -2014)We would also like to point out that all of the sections referenced below use the term "shall." Chapter 2, Section of the [redacted] *** ( [redacted] Public Version 1.0) states the following; "SHALLThe term, when used in the code, is construed as mandatory." Pool Violations: Treads of Pool Steps - the treads of the full entry pool steps are not slip-resistant Section Definitions states: "slip resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to significantly reduce the chance of a user slippingThe surface shall not be an abrasion hazard." Section Exit/Entry states: "All treads shall have slip resisting surfaces." In response to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section that states a surface that shall be used for footing by a user shall be slip-resistingTread Height to Pool Coping - the vertical distance from the pool coping to the centerline of the uppermost tread is greater than inches; it is approximately and 1/inches Section Entry/Exit states: "The vertical distance from the pool coping, deck or step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum of in(mm)." Section Pool Dimensions and Tolerances states: "Construction tolerancesThere shall be construction tolerances allowed on dimensional designsThe length, width, and depth shall be limited to a tolerance of plus or minus in(+/- 76mm)All other dimensions shall be limited to a tolerance of +/- in(+/- 51mm), unless otherwise specified." In response to **Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section in reference to construction tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2" but he failed to document that Section does not apply when a section is otherwise specified, as is the case with Section in reference to a maximum height of inchesRisers of Pool Steps - the risers of the pool steps are not uniform in height and vary from approximately and 7/inches to and 1/ inches Section Exit/Entry states: "All risers shall have a maximum uniform height of in( mm), except the top riser, which may vary but shall not exceed in(mm)." In response to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section in the proper context since the steps according to Section shall be uniform in heightBottom Riser of Pool Steps - the bottom riser of the pool step is sloped to the pool floor and is not slip-resistant Sections Exit/Entry states: "On shallow end of stairs, the bottom riser height is allowed to vary to the floorThe bottom riser shall not exceed in(mm) to the floor for the width of the walking surface." Section Exit/Entry states: "Sloping entries used as a pool entrance shall not exceed a 1:incline (see Figure C)." Section Exit/Entry states: "When benches are used in conjunction with sloping entries, the vertical riser distance shall not exceed in(cm)For steps used in conjunction with sloping entries, all requirements of para shall apply." Section Materials for Construction and Finishes states: "SurfacesThe surfaces within the pool intended to provide footing for bathers shall have a slip resisting surface The roughness or irregularity of such surfaces shall not cause injury or be an abrasion hazard during use." In response to *** Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to the pool code Section in reference to sloping entries in the proper context, as sloping entries shall not exceed a 1:incline as mentioned aboveWe point out that the incline in our pool exceeds this 1:incline as the slope change at the last step drops approximately 9” in only 13” across the pool floorSafety Features - a rope and float have not been installed Section Safety Features states: "Rope and floatIn pools where the point of first slope change (see Figure 5, Point D) occurs in water depths less than ftin(mm), a rope and float assembly shall be installed across the width of the pool generally parallel to, and at a minimum of ft (mm) and a maximum of ft (cm) on the shallow side of the change in the floor slope." Section Safety Features states: "The rope anchor devices shall be permanently attached to the pool wall, coping, or deck in a manner which provides for their reinstallation should they be required to be removed for maintenance or repair." In response to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, a rope and float was to be installed as part of our contract but was never installedPool is Leaking Water - the pool is leaking water Section Materials for Construction and Finishes states: "The interior surfaces of the pool shall be watertight." *** Lang failed to install a pool that was watertightSpa Violations: Spa Entry Step - the tread of the spa step is not slip-resistant Section Definitions states: "Slip-Resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to significantly reduce the chance of a user slippingThe surface shall not be an abrasion hazard." Section Structure and Design states: "The surfaces within the spa or swim spa intended to provide footing for users shall be slip-resistingThe texture of such surfaces shall not cause injury during use." *** Lang failed to address this violation in his rebuttal responsesTread Height to Spa Coping - the vertical distance from the spa coping to the centerline of the tread is greater than inches; it is approximately and 3/inches Section Dimensional designs and tolerances states: "StepsThe design and construction of steps into the spa or swim spa in either shallow or deep water, including recessed stairs and seat benches, where used, shall conform to Section through 5.6.2.8." Section Dimensional designs and tolerances states: "All risers at the centerline, except for the bottom riser, shall have a maximum uniform height of in(mm)." Section Dimensional designs and tolerances states: “The vertical distance from the spa or swim spa coping, deck, or step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum of in(mm)." In response to *** Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section in reference to construction tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2," and he failed to document that Section does not apply when a section is otherwise specified, as is the case with Section in reference to a maximum height of inchesSpa Skimmer or Spillover - the spa shall have a skimming device or spillover to serve as the function of a skimmer installed; no skimming device was installed nor was a spillover constructed to serve as a function of a skimming device Section Surface skimmer systems states: "Design and constructionSkimming devices shall be provided on all residential spas or swim spas, and shall be designed and constructed to skim the spa or swim spa surface when the water level is maintained within the operational parameters of the system's rim or weir deviceThe weir of a spa or swim spa which spills into a pool serves the function of a skimmer." Section Surface skimmer systems states: "Safe operationsSkimming devices shall be designed and installed so as not to constitute a hazard to the user." The lack of a spillover or skimmer is a health hazard and [redacted] Lang failed to address this violation in his responseBased on the aforementioned outlined violations we have not remitted the final payment as requested by Lang on the construction of the pool and spa of $3,We point out that this payment is not due since Lang has failed to provide us with a pool and spa fit for use in accordance with the Town of [redacted] building codes and has not complied with his contractual obligationsLang has been paid $59,to date and failed to address the numerous violations as we and several other pools companies have pointed out and as a result we were not able to use our pool for its intended purpose during the summer of With regard to Lang's comment that he never intended to get into shouting match with us, that is a statement as several individuals from his staff were on the telephone with us when we questioned MrLang about some of the issues and he used language that was inappropriate and slammed the telephone down on us during the callWe find him to be intolerable to deal with and unwilling to negotiate in good faith and his actions have led us to terminate all ties with him and his organizationThe facts of the case remain, Lang did not comply with the building codes of the Town of [redacted] and is entrusted to build pools according to certain standards, whether the town inspects some of the items or not My response to Lang Pools, Inc (Lang) response dated 12/1/is as follows: Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang never addresses the issues at hand and continues to sidetrack the issues raisedThe pool and spa are not built within the building codes of the Town of [redacted] (the “Town”) and the Town acknowledged to my attorney on July 2, 2014, that they do not inspect every pool or spa code to ensure they are built in accordance with the pool and spa codes as required by the TownIn fact, when my attorney questioned the Town on the slippery steps the Town advised him that according to “ [redacted] -2003, Section All steps shall have slip resisting surfaces.” [redacted] Lang is well aware that the Town only inspects certain codes and leaves the rest to the pool builder that they entrustIn fact, [redacted] , the [redacted] for Lang, advised me on June 24, that the Town does not inspect the violations that we raised and that no one cares [redacted] Lang and [redacted] do what they want without any regard to building a pool or spa in conformity with [redacted] – or [redacted] – 1999, respectively, as required by the Town since the Town does not inspect all of the design or construction work performed during their inspection processAdditionally, we were advised by our insurance company that if we knew of violations in the design and construction of our pool or spa and we allowed users to use the pool or spa that we would be negligent if an accident or injury resulted from such use and any claim submitted as a result of use would be deniedGiven the fact that we have documented the numerous code violations to Lang we felt that use of the pool or spa for any guest would be negligent on our partIt is with deep regret that [redacted] Lang does not feel the same wayOur mission, is to ensure Lang Pools, Incbuilds pools and spas in accordance with the building codes within the town they workSafety should never be overlooked by a contractor just because a town does not inspect a certain code provision in the design or construction of a pool or spa as required by a townThe contractor should be just as concerned as the pool or spa owner to make sure the pool or spa built by them is safe for use and not a hazard to usersWe feel it would be negligent to only be concerned with safety in hindsight of a serious injury or accident by either the contractor or the pool or spa owner Sincerely, [redacted] [redacted]
With all due respect there is nothing I can do to please Mr [redacted] At this point he has removed the pool from his backyard He had us install an inground vinyl liner swimming pool and he had it removed and is now building a concrete swimming pool All of his charges are not relevant as the pool is gone! What can I possibly do to please him at this point? He can make all the claims he wants but the pool is gone How can we attempt to address something that is gone? He has made demands for a substantial amount of money from Lang Pool from the very first letter from his attorney I believe that is where he stands Why else would he use the pool all season and wait until the end to remove it and now file a complaint with the Revdex.com In addition on a side note [redacted] no longer works at Lang Pool He cannot be questioned about allegations Mr [redacted] says he made We only informed our insurance carrier since Mr [redacted] s lawyer was threatening a lawsuit That is standard policy for us to inform the carrier It in no way implies anything else We built Mr [redacted] a beautiful pool and spa that he used last season and it was approved and CO by the town of [redacted] He never made his final payment on pool and now it is no longer in his yard.The facts are the facts Nothing I do or say will resolve his complaint I have been in business over years I do not build unsafe swimming pools ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
To make sure all of the facts are
organized properly we are providing our response to Lang Pools, Inc. submission
of 11/26/2014 where [redacted] Lang outlined why the pool and spa were built in accordance
with the pool and spa codes. For some reason our Revdex.com response was not uploaded
properly to the Revdex.com website and we followed up with [redacted] to correct
the error, however, we never heard back from her. Therefore, below is our
original response as to why we are rejecting Lang Pools, Inc. original response:
Our response to Lang Pools, Inc.
dated 11/28/2014 needs to be updated with the following:
The business owner, [redacted] Lang, is
well aware of the violations with respect to the pool and spa built by Lang
Pools, Inc. (Lang). On several occasions we sent letters to him and his
attorney, [redacted], in reference to this matter in the hope of coming up
with a resolution. Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang did not want to address these issues
and referred this matter to his insurance company ([redacted]) and claim number [redacted] was assigned on August 29, 2014. It is unfortunate that [redacted] Lang has
built our pool and spa in violation of the building code provisions recognized by
the State of Connecticut and the Town of [redacted] as well. In my initial
contact with [redacted], the sales person who sold and supervised the
construction of the pool and spa, he stated the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 5 2003) and
the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 3 1999) did not apply to vinyl liner pools,
however, the pool drawings submitted to the Town of [redacted] and approved on
August 21, 2013 clearly indicated the following:
"In-ground Pool shall be
designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 5 2003, Section [redacted], CT State Bldg. Code." and "Permanently installed Spas and Hot
Tubs shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 3, 1999
- S[redacted], CT State Bldg. Code."
On August 24, 2014 the following was
provided to my attorney, [redacted], who forwarded such information to
Lang's attorney in reference to the violations brought to the attention of [redacted] Lang on numerous occasions in an attempt to settle the matter, however, Lang's
attorney has failed to respond.
When Sections have been referenced
in this response for Pool Violations,
refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved April 22, 2011 (See [redacted]-5
2011) and for Spa Violations, refer
to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved December 20, 2013 (See [redacted]-3 2014).
We would also like to point out that
all of the sections referenced below use the term "shall." Chapter 2, Section 201 of
the [redacted] ([redacted] Public Version 1.0) states
the following; "SHALL. The
term, when used in the code, is construed as mandatory."
Pool Violations:
Treads of Pool Steps - the treads of the full entry pool
steps are not slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states: "slip
resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 6.1.5 Exit/Entry states: "All
treads shall have slip resisting surfaces."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 6.1.5 that states a
surface that shall be used for footing by a user shall be slip-resisting.
Tread Height to Pool Coping - the vertical distance from the
pool coping to the centerline of the uppermost tread is greater than 12 inches;
it is approximately 12 and 1/2 inches.
Section 6.2.2.1 Entry/Exit states: "The
vertical distance from the pool coping, deck or step surface to the
uppermost tread shall be a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.1.1 Pool Dimensions and Tolerances states:
"Construction tolerances. There shall be construction
tolerances allowed on dimensional designs. The length, width, and depth shall
be limited to a tolerance of plus or minus 3 in. (+/- 76mm). All other
dimensions shall be limited to a tolerance of +/- 2 in. (+/-
51mm), unless otherwise specified."
In response
to **. Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2" but he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 6.2.2.1 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Risers of Pool Steps - the risers of the pool steps are not
uniform in height and vary from approximately 10 and 7/8 inches to 11 and 1/4
inches.
Section 6.2.2 Exit/Entry states: "All
risers shall have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305
mm), except the top riser, which may vary but shall not exceed
12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 5.1.1 in the proper
context since the steps according to Section 6.2.2 shall be uniform
in height.
Bottom Riser of Pool Steps - the bottom riser of the pool
step is sloped to the pool floor and is not slip-resistant.
Sections 6.2.1.1.1 Exit/Entry states: "On
shallow end of stairs, the bottom riser height is allowed to vary to the
floor. The bottom riser shall not exceed 12 in. (305 mm) to the
floor for the width of the walking surface."
Section 6.3.1 Exit/Entry states: "Sloping
entries used as a pool entrance shall not exceed a 1:7 incline
(see Figure 6 C)."
Section 6.3.2.1 Exit/Entry states: "When
benches are used in conjunction with sloping entries, the vertical riser
distance shall not exceed 12 in. (30.5 cm). For steps used in conjunction
with sloping entries, all requirements of para 6.2 shall apply."
Section 8.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "Surfaces. The surfaces within the pool intended to provide
footing for bathers shall have a slip resisting surface.
The roughness or irregularity of such surfaces shall not cause
injury or be an abrasion hazard during normal use."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to the pool code Section 6.3.2 in
reference to sloping entries in the proper context, as sloping entries shall
not exceed a 1:7 incline as mentioned above.
We point out
that the incline in our pool exceeds this 1:7 incline as the slope change at
the last step drops approximately 9” in only 13” across the pool floor.
Safety Features - a rope and float have not been installed.
Section 17.2 Safety Features states: "Rope
and float. In pools where the point of first slope change (see Figure 5,
Point D) occurs in water depths less than 4 ft. 6 in. (1372 mm), a rope
and float assembly shall
be installed across the width of the pool generally parallel to, and at a
minimum of 1 ft (305 mm) and a maximum of 2 ft (61 cm) on the shallow
side of the change in the floor slope."
Section 17.2.1 Safety Features states:
"The rope anchor devices shall
be permanently attached to the pool wall, coping, or deck in a manner
which provides for their reinstallation should they be required to be
removed for maintenance or repair."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, a rope and float was to be installed as part of our
contract but was never installed.
Pool is Leaking Water - the pool is leaking water.
Section 8.1.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "The interior surfaces of the pool shall be
watertight."
[redacted] Lang
failed to install a pool that was watertight.
Spa Violations:
Spa Entry Step - the tread of the spa step is not
slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states:
"Slip-Resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 4.6 Structure and Design states:
"The surfaces within the spa or swim spa intended to provide footing
for users shall be slip-resisting. The texture of such
surfaces shall not cause injury during normal use."
[redacted] Lang
failed to address this violation in his rebuttal responses.
Tread Height to Spa Coping - the vertical distance from the
spa coping to the centerline of the tread is greater than 12 inches; it is
approximately 12 and 3/4 inches.
Section 5.6.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "Steps. The design and construction of steps into the spa or
swim spa in either shallow or deep water, including recessed stairs and
seat benches, where used, shall conform to Section 5.6.2.1 through
5.6.2.8."
Section 5.6.2.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "All risers at the centerline, except for the bottom riser, shall
have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.6.2.5 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: “The vertical distance from the spa or swim spa coping, deck, or
step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum
of 12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2," and he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 4.6 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Spa Skimmer or Spillover - the spa shall have a skimming
device or spillover to serve as the function of a skimmer installed; no
skimming device was installed nor was a spillover constructed to serve as a
function of a skimming device.
Section 11.1 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Design and construction. Skimming devices shall be
provided on all residential spas or swim spas, and shall be
designed and constructed to skim the spa or swim spa surface when the
water level is maintained within the operational parameters of the
system's rim or weir device. The weir of a spa or swim spa which spills
into a pool serves the function of a skimmer."
Section 11.2 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Safe operations. Skimming devices shall be designed
and installed so as not to constitute a hazard to the user."
The lack of
a spillover or skimmer is a health hazard and [redacted] Lang failed to address this
violation in his response.
Based on the aforementioned outlined
violations we have not remitted the final payment as requested by Lang on the construction
of the pool and spa of $3,400. We point out that this payment is not due since
Lang has failed to provide us with a pool and spa fit for use in accordance
with the Town of [redacted] building codes and has not complied with his
contractual obligations. Lang has been paid $59,040 to date and failed to
address the numerous violations as we and several other pools companies have
pointed out and as a result we were not able to use our pool for its intended purpose
during the summer of 2014.
With regard to Lang's comment that
he never intended to get into shouting match with us, that is a false statement
as several individuals from his staff were on the telephone with us when we
questioned Mr. Lang about some of the issues and he used language that was
inappropriate and slammed the telephone down on us during the call. We find him
to be intolerable to deal with and unwilling to negotiate in good faith and his
actions have led us to terminate all ties with him and his organization. The
facts of the case remain, Lang did not comply with the building codes of the Town
of [redacted] and is entrusted to build pools according to certain standards,
whether the town inspects some of the items or not.
My response to Lang Pools, Inc.
(Lang) response dated 12/1/2014 is as follows:
Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang never
addresses the issues at hand and continues to sidetrack the issues raised. The
pool and spa are not built within the building codes of the Town of [redacted] (the
“Town”) and the Town acknowledged to my attorney on July 2, 2014, that they do
not inspect every pool or spa code to ensure they are built in accordance with
the pool and spa codes as required by the Town. In fact, when my attorney
questioned the Town on the slippery steps the Town advised him that according
to “[redacted]-5 2003, Section 6.1.5 All steps shall have slip resisting
surfaces.”
[redacted] Lang is well aware that the
Town only inspects certain codes and leaves the rest to the pool builder that
they entrust. In fact, [redacted], the [redacted] for
Lang, advised me on June 24, 2014 that the Town does not inspect the violations
that we raised and that no one cares. [redacted] Lang and [redacted] do what they
want without any regard to building a pool or spa in conformity with [redacted] –
5 2003 or [redacted] – 1999, respectively, as required by the Town since the
Town does not inspect all of the design or construction work performed during
their inspection process.
Additionally, we were advised by our
insurance company that if we knew of violations in the design and construction
of our pool or spa and we allowed users to use the pool or spa that we would be
negligent if an accident or injury resulted from such use and any claim
submitted as a result of use would be denied. Given the fact that we have
documented the numerous code violations to Lang we felt that use of the pool or
spa for any guest would be negligent on our part. It is with deep regret that
[redacted] Lang does not feel the same way.
Our mission, is to ensure Lang Pools,
Inc. builds pools and spas in accordance with the building codes within the
town they work. Safety should never be overlooked by a contractor just because
a town does not inspect a certain code provision in the design or construction
of a pool or spa as required by a town. The contractor should be just as
concerned as the pool or spa owner to make sure the pool or spa built by them
is safe for use and not a hazard to users. We feel it would be negligent to
only be concerned with safety in hindsight of a serious injury or accident by
either the contractor or the pool or spa owner.
Sincerely,[redacted]
With all due respect there is nothing I can do to please Mr. [redacted]. At this point he has removed the pool from his backyard. He had us install an inground vinyl liner swimming pool and he had it removed and is now building a concrete swimming pool. All of his charges are not relevant as the pool is gone! What can I possibly do to please him at this point? He can make all the claims he wants but the pool is gone. How can we attempt to address something that is gone? He has made demands for a substantial amount of money from Lang Pool from the very first letter from his attorney. I believe that is where he stands. Why else would he use the pool all season and wait until the end to remove it and now file a complaint with the Revdex.com. In addition on a side note [redacted] no longer works at Lang Pool. He cannot be questioned about allegations Mr. [redacted] says he made.
We only informed our insurance carrier since Mr [redacted]s lawyer was threatening a lawsuit. That is standard policy for us to inform the carrier. It in no way implies anything else.
We built Mr [redacted] a beautiful pool and spa that he used last season and it was approved and CO by the town of [redacted]. He never made his final payment on pool and now it is no longer in his yard.
The facts are the facts. Nothing I do or say will resolve his complaint. I have been in business over 20 years I do not build unsafe swimming pools.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
To make sure all of the facts are
organized properly we are providing our response to Lang Pools, Inc. submission
of 11/26/2014 where [redacted] Lang outlined why the pool and spa were built in accordance
with the pool and spa codes. For some reason our Revdex.com response was not uploaded
properly to the Revdex.com website and we followed up with [redacted] to correct
the error, however, we never heard back from her. Therefore, below is our
original response as to why we are rejecting Lang Pools, Inc. original response:
Our response to Lang Pools, Inc.
dated 11/28/2014 needs to be updated with the following:
The business owner, [redacted] Lang, is
well aware of the violations with respect to the pool and spa built by Lang
Pools, Inc. (Lang). On several occasions we sent letters to him and his
attorney, [redacted], in reference to this matter in the hope of coming up
with a resolution. Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang did not want to address these issues
and referred this matter to his insurance company ([redacted]) and claim number [redacted] was assigned on August 29, 2014. It is unfortunate that [redacted] Lang has
built our pool and spa in violation of the building code provisions recognized by
the State of Connecticut and the Town of [redacted] as well. In my initial
contact with [redacted], the sales person who sold and supervised the
construction of the pool and spa, he stated the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 5 2003) and
the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 3 1999) did not apply to vinyl liner pools,
however, the pool drawings submitted to the Town of [redacted] and approved on
August 21, 2013 clearly indicated the following:
"In-ground Pool shall be
designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 5 2003, Section [redacted], CT State Bldg. Code." and "Permanently installed Spas and Hot
Tubs shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 3, 1999
- S[redacted], CT State Bldg. Code."
On August 24, 2014 the following was
provided to my attorney, [redacted], who forwarded such information to
Lang's attorney in reference to the violations brought to the attention of [redacted] Lang on numerous occasions in an attempt to settle the matter, however, Lang's
attorney has failed to respond.
When Sections have been referenced
in this response for Pool Violations,
refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved April 22, 2011 (See [redacted]-5
2011) and for Spa Violations, refer
to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved December 20, 2013 (See [redacted]-3 2014).
We would also like to point out that
all of the sections referenced below use the term "shall." Chapter 2, Section 201 of
the [redacted] Public Version 1.0) states
the following; "SHALL. The
term, when used in the code, is construed as mandatory."
Pool Violations:
Treads of Pool Steps - the treads of the full entry pool
steps are not slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states: "slip
resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 6.1.5 Exit/Entry states: "All
treads shall have slip resisting surfaces."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 6.1.5 that states a
surface that shall be used for footing by a user shall be slip-resisting.
Tread Height to Pool Coping - the vertical distance from the
pool coping to the centerline of the uppermost tread is greater than 12 inches;
it is approximately 12 and 1/2 inches.
Section 6.2.2.1 Entry/Exit states: "The
vertical distance from the pool coping, deck or step surface to the
uppermost tread shall be a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.1.1 Pool Dimensions and Tolerances states:
"Construction tolerances. There shall be construction
tolerances allowed on dimensional designs. The length, width, and depth shall
be limited to a tolerance of plus or minus 3 in. (+/- 76mm). All other
dimensions shall be limited to a tolerance of +/- 2 in. (+/-
51mm), unless otherwise specified."
In response
to **. Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2" but he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 6.2.2.1 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Risers of Pool Steps - the risers of the pool steps are not
uniform in height and vary from approximately 10 and 7/8 inches to 11 and 1/4
inches.
Section 6.2.2 Exit/Entry states: "All
risers shall have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305
mm), except the top riser, which may vary but shall not exceed
12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 5.1.1 in the proper
context since the steps according to Section 6.2.2 shall be uniform
in height.
Bottom Riser of Pool Steps - the bottom riser of the pool
step is sloped to the pool floor and is not slip-resistant.
Sections 6.2.1.1.1 Exit/Entry states: "On
shallow end of stairs, the bottom riser height is allowed to vary to the
floor. The bottom riser shall not exceed 12 in. (305 mm) to the
floor for the width of the walking surface."
Section 6.3.1 Exit/Entry states: "Sloping
entries used as a pool entrance shall not exceed a 1:7 incline
(see Figure 6 C)."
Section 6.3.2.1 Exit/Entry states: "When
benches are used in conjunction with sloping entries, the vertical riser
distance shall not exceed 12 in. (30.5 cm). For steps used in conjunction
with sloping entries, all requirements of para 6.2 shall apply."
Section 8.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "Surfaces. The surfaces within the pool intended to provide
footing for bathers shall have a slip resisting surface.
The roughness or irregularity of such surfaces shall not cause
injury or be an abrasion hazard during normal use."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to the pool code Section 6.3.2 in
reference to sloping entries in the proper context, as sloping entries shall
not exceed a 1:7 incline as mentioned above.
We point out
that the incline in our pool exceeds this 1:7 incline as the slope change at
the last step drops approximately 9” in only 13” across the pool floor.
Safety Features - a rope and float have not been installed.
Section 17.2 Safety Features states: "Rope
and float. In pools where the point of first slope change (see Figure 5,
Point D) occurs in water depths less than 4 ft. 6 in. (1372 mm), a rope
and float assembly shall
be installed across the width of the pool generally parallel to, and at a
minimum of 1 ft (305 mm) and a maximum of 2 ft (61 cm) on the shallow
side of the change in the floor slope."
Section 17.2.1 Safety Features states:
"The rope anchor devices shall
be permanently attached to the pool wall, coping, or deck in a manner
which provides for their reinstallation should they be required to be
removed for maintenance or repair."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, a rope and float was to be installed as part of our
contract but was never installed.
Pool is Leaking Water - the pool is leaking water.
Section 8.1.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "The interior surfaces of the pool shall be
watertight."
[redacted] Lang
failed to install a pool that was watertight.
Spa Violations:
Spa Entry Step - the tread of the spa step is not
slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states:
"Slip-Resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 4.6 Structure and Design states:
"The surfaces within the spa or swim spa intended to provide footing
for users shall be slip-resisting. The texture of such
surfaces shall not cause injury during normal use."
[redacted] Lang
failed to address this violation in his rebuttal responses.
Tread Height to Spa Coping - the vertical distance from the
spa coping to the centerline of the tread is greater than 12 inches; it is
approximately 12 and 3/4 inches.
Section 5.6.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "Steps. The design and construction of steps into the spa or
swim spa in either shallow or deep water, including recessed stairs and
seat benches, where used, shall conform to Section 5.6.2.1 through
5.6.2.8."
Section 5.6.2.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "All risers at the centerline, except for the bottom riser, shall
have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.6.2.5 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: “The vertical distance from the spa or swim spa coping, deck, or
step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum
of 12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2," and he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 4.6 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Spa Skimmer or Spillover - the spa shall have a skimming
device or spillover to serve as the function of a skimmer installed; no
skimming device was installed nor was a spillover constructed to serve as a
function of a skimming device.
Section 11.1 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Design and construction. Skimming devices shall be
provided on all residential spas or swim spas, and shall be
designed and constructed to skim the spa or swim spa surface when the
water level is maintained within the operational parameters of the
system's rim or weir device. The weir of a spa or swim spa which spills
into a pool serves the function of a skimmer."
Section 11.2 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Safe operations. Skimming devices shall be designed
and installed so as not to constitute a hazard to the user."
The lack of
a spillover or skimmer is a health hazard and [redacted] Lang failed to address this
violation in his response.
Based on the aforementioned outlined
violations we have not remitted the final payment as requested by Lang on the construction
of the pool and spa of $3,400. We point out that this payment is not due since
Lang has failed to provide us with a pool and spa fit for use in accordance
with the Town of [redacted] building codes and has not complied with his
contractual obligations. Lang has been paid $59,040 to date and failed to
address the numerous violations as we and several other pools companies have
pointed out and as a result we were not able to use our pool for its intended purpose
during the summer of 2014.
With regard to Lang's comment that
he never intended to get into shouting match with us, that is a false statement
as several individuals from his staff were on the telephone with us when we
questioned Mr. Lang about some of the issues and he used language that was
inappropriate and slammed the telephone down on us during the call. We find him
to be intolerable to deal with and unwilling to negotiate in good faith and his
actions have led us to terminate all ties with him and his organization. The
facts of the case remain, Lang did not comply with the building codes of the Town
of [redacted] and is entrusted to build pools according to certain standards,
whether the town inspects some of the items or not.
My response to Lang Pools, Inc.
(Lang) response dated 12/1/2014 is as follows:
Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang never
addresses the issues at hand and continues to sidetrack the issues raised. The
pool and spa are not built within the building codes of the Town of [redacted] (the
“Town”) and the Town acknowledged to my attorney on July 2, 2014, that they do
not inspect every pool or spa code to ensure they are built in accordance with
the pool and spa codes as required by the Town. In fact, when my attorney
questioned the Town on the slippery steps the Town advised him that according
to “[redacted]-5 2003, Section 6.1.5 All steps shall have slip resisting
surfaces.”
[redacted] Lang is well aware that the
Town only inspects certain codes and leaves the rest to the pool builder that
they entrust. In fact, [redacted], the [redacted] for
Lang, advised me on June 24, 2014 that the Town does not inspect the violations
that we raised and that no one cares. [redacted] Lang and [redacted] do what they
want without any regard to building a pool or spa in conformity with [redacted] –
5 2003 or [redacted] – 1999, respectively, as required by the Town since the
Town does not inspect all of the design or construction work performed during
their inspection process.
Additionally, we were advised by our
insurance company that if we knew of violations in the design and construction
of our pool or spa and we allowed users to use the pool or spa that we would be
negligent if an accident or injury resulted from such use and any claim
submitted as a result of use would be denied. Given the fact that we have
documented the numerous code violations to Lang we felt that use of the pool or
spa for any guest would be negligent on our part. It is with deep regret that
[redacted] Lang does not feel the same way.
Our mission, is to ensure Lang Pools,
Inc. builds pools and spas in accordance with the building codes within the
town they work. Safety should never be overlooked by a contractor just because
a town does not inspect a certain code provision in the design or construction
of a pool or spa as required by a town. The contractor should be just as
concerned as the pool or spa owner to make sure the pool or spa built by them
is safe for use and not a hazard to users. We feel it would be negligent to
only be concerned with safety in hindsight of a serious injury or accident by
either the contractor or the pool or spa owner.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
With all due respect there is nothing I can do to please Mr. [redacted]. At this point he has removed the pool from his backyard. He had us install an inground vinyl liner swimming pool and he had it removed and is now building a concrete swimming pool. All of his charges are not relevant as the pool is gone! What can I possibly do to please him at this point? He can make all the claims he wants but the pool is gone. How can we attempt to address something that is gone? He has made demands for a substantial amount of money from Lang Pool from the very first letter from his attorney. I believe that is where he stands. Why else would he use the pool all season and wait until the end to remove it and now file a complaint with the Revdex.com. In addition on a side note [redacted] no longer works at Lang Pool. He cannot be questioned about allegations Mr. [redacted] says he made. We only informed our insurance carrier since Mr [redacted]s lawyer was threatening a lawsuit. That is standard policy for us to inform the carrier. It in no way implies anything else. We built Mr [redacted] a beautiful pool and spa that he used last season and it was approved and CO by the town of [redacted]. He never made his final payment on pool and now it is no longer in his yard.The facts are the facts. Nothing I do or say will resolve his complaint. I have been in business over 20 years I do not build unsafe swimming pools. [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: To make sure all of the facts are organized properly we are providing our response to Lang Pools, Incsubmission of 11/26/where [redacted] Lang outlined why the pool and spa were built in accordance with the pool and spa codesFor some reason our Revdex.com response was not uploaded properly to the Revdex.com website and we followed up with [redacted] *** to correct the error, however, we never heard back from herTherefore, below is our original response as to why we are rejecting Lang Pools, Incoriginal response: Our response to Lang Pools, Inc dated 11/28/needs to be updated with the following: The business owner, [redacted] Lang, is well aware of the violations with respect to the pool and spa built by Lang Pools, Inc(Lang)On several occasions we sent letters to him and his attorney, [redacted] , in reference to this matter in the hope of coming up with a resolutionUnfortunately, *** Lang did not want to address these issues and referred this matter to his insurance company (***) and claim number [redacted] was assigned on August 29, It is unfortunate that *** Lang has built our pool and spa in violation of the building code provisions recognized by the State of Connecticut and the Town of [redacted] as wellIn my initial contact with [redacted] , the sales person who sold and supervised the construction of the pool and spa, he stated the " [redacted] ***" ( [redacted] - 2003) and the " [redacted] ***" ( [redacted] - 1999) did not apply to vinyl liner pools, however, the pool drawings submitted to the Town of [redacted] and approved on August 21, clearly indicated the following: "In-ground Pool shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 2003, Section [redacted] ***, CT State BldgCode." and "Permanently installed Spas and Hot Tubs shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 3, - S [redacted] ***, CT State BldgCode." On August 24, the following was provided to my attorney, [redacted] , who forwarded such information to Lang's attorney in reference to the violations brought to the attention of *** Lang on numerous occasions in an attempt to settle the matter, however, Lang's attorney has failed to respondWhen Sections have been referenced in this response for Pool Violations, refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved April 22, (See [redacted] - 2011) and for Spa Violations, refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] *** approved December 20, (See [redacted] -2014)We would also like to point out that all of the sections referenced below use the term "shall." Chapter 2, Section of the [redacted] *** ( [redacted] Public Version 1.0) states the following; "SHALLThe term, when used in the code, is construed as mandatory." Pool Violations: Treads of Pool Steps - the treads of the full entry pool steps are not slip-resistant Section Definitions states: "slip resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to significantly reduce the chance of a user slippingThe surface shall not be an abrasion hazard." Section Exit/Entry states: "All treads shall have slip resisting surfaces." In response to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section that states a surface that shall be used for footing by a user shall be slip-resistingTread Height to Pool Coping - the vertical distance from the pool coping to the centerline of the uppermost tread is greater than inches; it is approximately and 1/inches Section Entry/Exit states: "The vertical distance from the pool coping, deck or step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum of in(mm)." Section Pool Dimensions and Tolerances states: "Construction tolerancesThere shall be construction tolerances allowed on dimensional designsThe length, width, and depth shall be limited to a tolerance of plus or minus in(+/- 76mm)All other dimensions shall be limited to a tolerance of +/- in(+/- 51mm), unless otherwise specified." In response to **Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section in reference to construction tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2" but he failed to document that Section does not apply when a section is otherwise specified, as is the case with Section in reference to a maximum height of inchesRisers of Pool Steps - the risers of the pool steps are not uniform in height and vary from approximately and 7/inches to and 1/ inches Section Exit/Entry states: "All risers shall have a maximum uniform height of in( mm), except the top riser, which may vary but shall not exceed in(mm)." In response to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section in the proper context since the steps according to Section shall be uniform in heightBottom Riser of Pool Steps - the bottom riser of the pool step is sloped to the pool floor and is not slip-resistant Sections Exit/Entry states: "On shallow end of stairs, the bottom riser height is allowed to vary to the floorThe bottom riser shall not exceed in(mm) to the floor for the width of the walking surface." Section Exit/Entry states: "Sloping entries used as a pool entrance shall not exceed a 1:incline (see Figure C)." Section Exit/Entry states: "When benches are used in conjunction with sloping entries, the vertical riser distance shall not exceed in(cm)For steps used in conjunction with sloping entries, all requirements of para shall apply." Section Materials for Construction and Finishes states: "SurfacesThe surfaces within the pool intended to provide footing for bathers shall have a slip resisting surface The roughness or irregularity of such surfaces shall not cause injury or be an abrasion hazard during use." In response to *** Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to the pool code Section in reference to sloping entries in the proper context, as sloping entries shall not exceed a 1:incline as mentioned aboveWe point out that the incline in our pool exceeds this 1:incline as the slope change at the last step drops approximately 9” in only 13” across the pool floorSafety Features - a rope and float have not been installed Section Safety Features states: "Rope and floatIn pools where the point of first slope change (see Figure 5, Point D) occurs in water depths less than ftin(mm), a rope and float assembly shall be installed across the width of the pool generally parallel to, and at a minimum of ft (mm) and a maximum of ft (cm) on the shallow side of the change in the floor slope." Section Safety Features states: "The rope anchor devices shall be permanently attached to the pool wall, coping, or deck in a manner which provides for their reinstallation should they be required to be removed for maintenance or repair." In response to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, a rope and float was to be installed as part of our contract but was never installedPool is Leaking Water - the pool is leaking water Section Materials for Construction and Finishes states: "The interior surfaces of the pool shall be watertight." *** Lang failed to install a pool that was watertightSpa Violations: Spa Entry Step - the tread of the spa step is not slip-resistant Section Definitions states: "Slip-Resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to significantly reduce the chance of a user slippingThe surface shall not be an abrasion hazard." Section Structure and Design states: "The surfaces within the spa or swim spa intended to provide footing for users shall be slip-resistingThe texture of such surfaces shall not cause injury during use." *** Lang failed to address this violation in his rebuttal responsesTread Height to Spa Coping - the vertical distance from the spa coping to the centerline of the tread is greater than inches; it is approximately and 3/inches Section Dimensional designs and tolerances states: "StepsThe design and construction of steps into the spa or swim spa in either shallow or deep water, including recessed stairs and seat benches, where used, shall conform to Section through 5.6.2.8." Section Dimensional designs and tolerances states: "All risers at the centerline, except for the bottom riser, shall have a maximum uniform height of in(mm)." Section Dimensional designs and tolerances states: “The vertical distance from the spa or swim spa coping, deck, or step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum of in(mm)." In response to *** Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section in reference to construction tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2," and he failed to document that Section does not apply when a section is otherwise specified, as is the case with Section in reference to a maximum height of inchesSpa Skimmer or Spillover - the spa shall have a skimming device or spillover to serve as the function of a skimmer installed; no skimming device was installed nor was a spillover constructed to serve as a function of a skimming device Section Surface skimmer systems states: "Design and constructionSkimming devices shall be provided on all residential spas or swim spas, and shall be designed and constructed to skim the spa or swim spa surface when the water level is maintained within the operational parameters of the system's rim or weir deviceThe weir of a spa or swim spa which spills into a pool serves the function of a skimmer." Section Surface skimmer systems states: "Safe operationsSkimming devices shall be designed and installed so as not to constitute a hazard to the user." The lack of a spillover or skimmer is a health hazard and [redacted] Lang failed to address this violation in his responseBased on the aforementioned outlined violations we have not remitted the final payment as requested by Lang on the construction of the pool and spa of $3,We point out that this payment is not due since Lang has failed to provide us with a pool and spa fit for use in accordance with the Town of [redacted] building codes and has not complied with his contractual obligationsLang has been paid $59,to date and failed to address the numerous violations as we and several other pools companies have pointed out and as a result we were not able to use our pool for its intended purpose during the summer of With regard to Lang's comment that he never intended to get into shouting match with us, that is a statement as several individuals from his staff were on the telephone with us when we questioned MrLang about some of the issues and he used language that was inappropriate and slammed the telephone down on us during the callWe find him to be intolerable to deal with and unwilling to negotiate in good faith and his actions have led us to terminate all ties with him and his organizationThe facts of the case remain, Lang did not comply with the building codes of the Town of [redacted] and is entrusted to build pools according to certain standards, whether the town inspects some of the items or not My response to Lang Pools, Inc (Lang) response dated 12/1/is as follows: Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang never addresses the issues at hand and continues to sidetrack the issues raisedThe pool and spa are not built within the building codes of the Town of [redacted] (the “Town”) and the Town acknowledged to my attorney on July 2, 2014, that they do not inspect every pool or spa code to ensure they are built in accordance with the pool and spa codes as required by the TownIn fact, when my attorney questioned the Town on the slippery steps the Town advised him that according to “ [redacted] -2003, Section All steps shall have slip resisting surfaces.” [redacted] Lang is well aware that the Town only inspects certain codes and leaves the rest to the pool builder that they entrustIn fact, [redacted] , the [redacted] for Lang, advised me on June 24, that the Town does not inspect the violations that we raised and that no one cares [redacted] Lang and [redacted] do what they want without any regard to building a pool or spa in conformity with [redacted] – or [redacted] – 1999, respectively, as required by the Town since the Town does not inspect all of the design or construction work performed during their inspection processAdditionally, we were advised by our insurance company that if we knew of violations in the design and construction of our pool or spa and we allowed users to use the pool or spa that we would be negligent if an accident or injury resulted from such use and any claim submitted as a result of use would be deniedGiven the fact that we have documented the numerous code violations to Lang we felt that use of the pool or spa for any guest would be negligent on our partIt is with deep regret that [redacted] Lang does not feel the same wayOur mission, is to ensure Lang Pools, Incbuilds pools and spas in accordance with the building codes within the town they workSafety should never be overlooked by a contractor just because a town does not inspect a certain code provision in the design or construction of a pool or spa as required by a townThe contractor should be just as concerned as the pool or spa owner to make sure the pool or spa built by them is safe for use and not a hazard to usersWe feel it would be negligent to only be concerned with safety in hindsight of a serious injury or accident by either the contractor or the pool or spa owner Sincerely, [redacted] [redacted]
With all due respect there is nothing I can do to please Mr [redacted] At this point he has removed the pool from his backyard He had us install an inground vinyl liner swimming pool and he had it removed and is now building a concrete swimming pool All of his charges are not relevant as the pool is gone! What can I possibly do to please him at this point? He can make all the claims he wants but the pool is gone How can we attempt to address something that is gone? He has made demands for a substantial amount of money from Lang Pool from the very first letter from his attorney I believe that is where he stands Why else would he use the pool all season and wait until the end to remove it and now file a complaint with the Revdex.com In addition on a side note [redacted] no longer works at Lang Pool He cannot be questioned about allegations Mr [redacted] says he made We only informed our insurance carrier since Mr [redacted] s lawyer was threatening a lawsuit That is standard policy for us to inform the carrier It in no way implies anything else We built Mr [redacted] a beautiful pool and spa that he used last season and it was approved and CO by the town of [redacted] He never made his final payment on pool and now it is no longer in his yard.The facts are the facts Nothing I do or say will resolve his complaint I have been in business over years I do not build unsafe swimming pools ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
To make sure all of the facts are
organized properly we are providing our response to Lang Pools, Inc. submission
of 11/26/2014 where [redacted] Lang outlined why the pool and spa were built in accordance
with the pool and spa codes. For some reason our Revdex.com response was not uploaded
properly to the Revdex.com website and we followed up with [redacted] to correct
the error, however, we never heard back from her. Therefore, below is our
original response as to why we are rejecting Lang Pools, Inc. original response:
Our response to Lang Pools, Inc.
dated 11/28/2014 needs to be updated with the following:
The business owner, [redacted] Lang, is
well aware of the violations with respect to the pool and spa built by Lang
Pools, Inc. (Lang). On several occasions we sent letters to him and his
attorney, [redacted], in reference to this matter in the hope of coming up
with a resolution. Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang did not want to address these issues
and referred this matter to his insurance company ([redacted]) and claim number [redacted] was assigned on August 29, 2014. It is unfortunate that [redacted] Lang has
built our pool and spa in violation of the building code provisions recognized by
the State of Connecticut and the Town of [redacted] as well. In my initial
contact with [redacted], the sales person who sold and supervised the
construction of the pool and spa, he stated the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 5 2003) and
the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 3 1999) did not apply to vinyl liner pools,
however, the pool drawings submitted to the Town of [redacted] and approved on
August 21, 2013 clearly indicated the following:
"In-ground Pool shall be
designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 5 2003, Section [redacted], CT State Bldg. Code." and "Permanently installed Spas and Hot
Tubs shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 3, 1999
- S[redacted], CT State Bldg. Code."
On August 24, 2014 the following was
provided to my attorney, [redacted], who forwarded such information to
Lang's attorney in reference to the violations brought to the attention of [redacted] Lang on numerous occasions in an attempt to settle the matter, however, Lang's
attorney has failed to respond.
When Sections have been referenced
in this response for Pool Violations,
refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved April 22, 2011 (See [redacted]-5
2011) and for Spa Violations, refer
to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved December 20, 2013 (See [redacted]-3 2014).
We would also like to point out that
all of the sections referenced below use the term "shall." Chapter 2, Section 201 of
the [redacted] ([redacted] Public Version 1.0) states
the following; "SHALL. The
term, when used in the code, is construed as mandatory."
Pool Violations:
Treads of Pool Steps - the treads of the full entry pool
steps are not slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states: "slip
resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 6.1.5 Exit/Entry states: "All
treads shall have slip resisting surfaces."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 6.1.5 that states a
surface that shall be used for footing by a user shall be slip-resisting.
Tread Height to Pool Coping - the vertical distance from the
pool coping to the centerline of the uppermost tread is greater than 12 inches;
it is approximately 12 and 1/2 inches.
Section 6.2.2.1 Entry/Exit states: "The
vertical distance from the pool coping, deck or step surface to the
uppermost tread shall be a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.1.1 Pool Dimensions and Tolerances states:
"Construction tolerances. There shall be construction
tolerances allowed on dimensional designs. The length, width, and depth shall
be limited to a tolerance of plus or minus 3 in. (+/- 76mm). All other
dimensions shall be limited to a tolerance of +/- 2 in. (+/-
51mm), unless otherwise specified."
In response
to **. Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2" but he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 6.2.2.1 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Risers of Pool Steps - the risers of the pool steps are not
uniform in height and vary from approximately 10 and 7/8 inches to 11 and 1/4
inches.
Section 6.2.2 Exit/Entry states: "All
risers shall have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305
mm), except the top riser, which may vary but shall not exceed
12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 5.1.1 in the proper
context since the steps according to Section 6.2.2 shall be uniform
in height.
Bottom Riser of Pool Steps - the bottom riser of the pool
step is sloped to the pool floor and is not slip-resistant.
Sections 6.2.1.1.1 Exit/Entry states: "On
shallow end of stairs, the bottom riser height is allowed to vary to the
floor. The bottom riser shall not exceed 12 in. (305 mm) to the
floor for the width of the walking surface."
Section 6.3.1 Exit/Entry states: "Sloping
entries used as a pool entrance shall not exceed a 1:7 incline
(see Figure 6 C)."
Section 6.3.2.1 Exit/Entry states: "When
benches are used in conjunction with sloping entries, the vertical riser
distance shall not exceed 12 in. (30.5 cm). For steps used in conjunction
with sloping entries, all requirements of para 6.2 shall apply."
Section 8.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "Surfaces. The surfaces within the pool intended to provide
footing for bathers shall have a slip resisting surface.
The roughness or irregularity of such surfaces shall not cause
injury or be an abrasion hazard during normal use."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to the pool code Section 6.3.2 in
reference to sloping entries in the proper context, as sloping entries shall
not exceed a 1:7 incline as mentioned above.
We point out
that the incline in our pool exceeds this 1:7 incline as the slope change at
the last step drops approximately 9” in only 13” across the pool floor.
Safety Features - a rope and float have not been installed.
Section 17.2 Safety Features states: "Rope
and float. In pools where the point of first slope change (see Figure 5,
Point D) occurs in water depths less than 4 ft. 6 in. (1372 mm), a rope
and float assembly shall
be installed across the width of the pool generally parallel to, and at a
minimum of 1 ft (305 mm) and a maximum of 2 ft (61 cm) on the shallow
side of the change in the floor slope."
Section 17.2.1 Safety Features states:
"The rope anchor devices shall
be permanently attached to the pool wall, coping, or deck in a manner
which provides for their reinstallation should they be required to be
removed for maintenance or repair."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, a rope and float was to be installed as part of our
contract but was never installed.
Pool is Leaking Water - the pool is leaking water.
Section 8.1.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "The interior surfaces of the pool shall be
watertight."
[redacted] Lang
failed to install a pool that was watertight.
Spa Violations:
Spa Entry Step - the tread of the spa step is not
slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states:
"Slip-Resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 4.6 Structure and Design states:
"The surfaces within the spa or swim spa intended to provide footing
for users shall be slip-resisting. The texture of such
surfaces shall not cause injury during normal use."
[redacted] Lang
failed to address this violation in his rebuttal responses.
Tread Height to Spa Coping - the vertical distance from the
spa coping to the centerline of the tread is greater than 12 inches; it is
approximately 12 and 3/4 inches.
Section 5.6.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "Steps. The design and construction of steps into the spa or
swim spa in either shallow or deep water, including recessed stairs and
seat benches, where used, shall conform to Section 5.6.2.1 through
5.6.2.8."
Section 5.6.2.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "All risers at the centerline, except for the bottom riser, shall
have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.6.2.5 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: “The vertical distance from the spa or swim spa coping, deck, or
step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum
of 12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2," and he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 4.6 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Spa Skimmer or Spillover - the spa shall have a skimming
device or spillover to serve as the function of a skimmer installed; no
skimming device was installed nor was a spillover constructed to serve as a
function of a skimming device.
Section 11.1 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Design and construction. Skimming devices shall be
provided on all residential spas or swim spas, and shall be
designed and constructed to skim the spa or swim spa surface when the
water level is maintained within the operational parameters of the
system's rim or weir device. The weir of a spa or swim spa which spills
into a pool serves the function of a skimmer."
Section 11.2 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Safe operations. Skimming devices shall be designed
and installed so as not to constitute a hazard to the user."
The lack of
a spillover or skimmer is a health hazard and [redacted] Lang failed to address this
violation in his response.
Based on the aforementioned outlined
violations we have not remitted the final payment as requested by Lang on the construction
of the pool and spa of $3,400. We point out that this payment is not due since
Lang has failed to provide us with a pool and spa fit for use in accordance
with the Town of [redacted] building codes and has not complied with his
contractual obligations. Lang has been paid $59,040 to date and failed to
address the numerous violations as we and several other pools companies have
pointed out and as a result we were not able to use our pool for its intended purpose
during the summer of 2014.
With regard to Lang's comment that
he never intended to get into shouting match with us, that is a false statement
as several individuals from his staff were on the telephone with us when we
questioned Mr. Lang about some of the issues and he used language that was
inappropriate and slammed the telephone down on us during the call. We find him
to be intolerable to deal with and unwilling to negotiate in good faith and his
actions have led us to terminate all ties with him and his organization. The
facts of the case remain, Lang did not comply with the building codes of the Town
of [redacted] and is entrusted to build pools according to certain standards,
whether the town inspects some of the items or not.
My response to Lang Pools, Inc.
(Lang) response dated 12/1/2014 is as follows:
Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang never
addresses the issues at hand and continues to sidetrack the issues raised. The
pool and spa are not built within the building codes of the Town of [redacted] (the
“Town”) and the Town acknowledged to my attorney on July 2, 2014, that they do
not inspect every pool or spa code to ensure they are built in accordance with
the pool and spa codes as required by the Town. In fact, when my attorney
questioned the Town on the slippery steps the Town advised him that according
to “[redacted]-5 2003, Section 6.1.5 All steps shall have slip resisting
surfaces.”
[redacted] Lang is well aware that the
Town only inspects certain codes and leaves the rest to the pool builder that
they entrust. In fact, [redacted], the [redacted] for
Lang, advised me on June 24, 2014 that the Town does not inspect the violations
that we raised and that no one cares. [redacted] Lang and [redacted] do what they
want without any regard to building a pool or spa in conformity with [redacted] –
5 2003 or [redacted] – 1999, respectively, as required by the Town since the
Town does not inspect all of the design or construction work performed during
their inspection process.
Additionally, we were advised by our
insurance company that if we knew of violations in the design and construction
of our pool or spa and we allowed users to use the pool or spa that we would be
negligent if an accident or injury resulted from such use and any claim
submitted as a result of use would be denied. Given the fact that we have
documented the numerous code violations to Lang we felt that use of the pool or
spa for any guest would be negligent on our part. It is with deep regret that
[redacted] Lang does not feel the same way.
Our mission, is to ensure Lang Pools,
Inc. builds pools and spas in accordance with the building codes within the
town they work. Safety should never be overlooked by a contractor just because
a town does not inspect a certain code provision in the design or construction
of a pool or spa as required by a town. The contractor should be just as
concerned as the pool or spa owner to make sure the pool or spa built by them
is safe for use and not a hazard to users. We feel it would be negligent to
only be concerned with safety in hindsight of a serious injury or accident by
either the contractor or the pool or spa owner.
Sincerely,[redacted]
With all due respect there is nothing I can do to please Mr. [redacted]. At this point he has removed the pool from his backyard. He had us install an inground vinyl liner swimming pool and he had it removed and is now building a concrete swimming pool. All of his charges are not relevant as the pool is gone! What can I possibly do to please him at this point? He can make all the claims he wants but the pool is gone. How can we attempt to address something that is gone? He has made demands for a substantial amount of money from Lang Pool from the very first letter from his attorney. I believe that is where he stands. Why else would he use the pool all season and wait until the end to remove it and now file a complaint with the Revdex.com. In addition on a side note [redacted] no longer works at Lang Pool. He cannot be questioned about allegations Mr. [redacted] says he made.
We only informed our insurance carrier since Mr [redacted]s lawyer was threatening a lawsuit. That is standard policy for us to inform the carrier. It in no way implies anything else.
We built Mr [redacted] a beautiful pool and spa that he used last season and it was approved and CO by the town of [redacted]. He never made his final payment on pool and now it is no longer in his yard.
The facts are the facts. Nothing I do or say will resolve his complaint. I have been in business over 20 years I do not build unsafe swimming pools.
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
To make sure all of the facts are
organized properly we are providing our response to Lang Pools, Inc. submission
of 11/26/2014 where [redacted] Lang outlined why the pool and spa were built in accordance
with the pool and spa codes. For some reason our Revdex.com response was not uploaded
properly to the Revdex.com website and we followed up with [redacted] to correct
the error, however, we never heard back from her. Therefore, below is our
original response as to why we are rejecting Lang Pools, Inc. original response:
Our response to Lang Pools, Inc.
dated 11/28/2014 needs to be updated with the following:
The business owner, [redacted] Lang, is
well aware of the violations with respect to the pool and spa built by Lang
Pools, Inc. (Lang). On several occasions we sent letters to him and his
attorney, [redacted], in reference to this matter in the hope of coming up
with a resolution. Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang did not want to address these issues
and referred this matter to his insurance company ([redacted]) and claim number [redacted] was assigned on August 29, 2014. It is unfortunate that [redacted] Lang has
built our pool and spa in violation of the building code provisions recognized by
the State of Connecticut and the Town of [redacted] as well. In my initial
contact with [redacted], the sales person who sold and supervised the
construction of the pool and spa, he stated the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 5 2003) and
the "[redacted]" ([redacted] - 3 1999) did not apply to vinyl liner pools,
however, the pool drawings submitted to the Town of [redacted] and approved on
August 21, 2013 clearly indicated the following:
"In-ground Pool shall be
designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 5 2003, Section [redacted], CT State Bldg. Code." and "Permanently installed Spas and Hot
Tubs shall be designed and constructed in conformance with [redacted] - 3, 1999
- S[redacted], CT State Bldg. Code."
On August 24, 2014 the following was
provided to my attorney, [redacted], who forwarded such information to
Lang's attorney in reference to the violations brought to the attention of [redacted] Lang on numerous occasions in an attempt to settle the matter, however, Lang's
attorney has failed to respond.
When Sections have been referenced
in this response for Pool Violations,
refer to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved April 22, 2011 (See [redacted]-5
2011) and for Spa Violations, refer
to those certain sections of the [redacted] approved December 20, 2013 (See [redacted]-3 2014).
We would also like to point out that
all of the sections referenced below use the term "shall." Chapter 2, Section 201 of
the [redacted] Public Version 1.0) states
the following; "SHALL. The
term, when used in the code, is construed as mandatory."
Pool Violations:
Treads of Pool Steps - the treads of the full entry pool
steps are not slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states: "slip
resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 6.1.5 Exit/Entry states: "All
treads shall have slip resisting surfaces."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 6.1.5 that states a
surface that shall be used for footing by a user shall be slip-resisting.
Tread Height to Pool Coping - the vertical distance from the
pool coping to the centerline of the uppermost tread is greater than 12 inches;
it is approximately 12 and 1/2 inches.
Section 6.2.2.1 Entry/Exit states: "The
vertical distance from the pool coping, deck or step surface to the
uppermost tread shall be a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.1.1 Pool Dimensions and Tolerances states:
"Construction tolerances. There shall be construction
tolerances allowed on dimensional designs. The length, width, and depth shall
be limited to a tolerance of plus or minus 3 in. (+/- 76mm). All other
dimensions shall be limited to a tolerance of +/- 2 in. (+/-
51mm), unless otherwise specified."
In response
to **. Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2" but he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 6.2.2.1 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Risers of Pool Steps - the risers of the pool steps are not
uniform in height and vary from approximately 10 and 7/8 inches to 11 and 1/4
inches.
Section 6.2.2 Exit/Entry states: "All
risers shall have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305
mm), except the top riser, which may vary but shall not exceed
12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to Section 5.1.1 in the proper
context since the steps according to Section 6.2.2 shall be uniform
in height.
Bottom Riser of Pool Steps - the bottom riser of the pool
step is sloped to the pool floor and is not slip-resistant.
Sections 6.2.1.1.1 Exit/Entry states: "On
shallow end of stairs, the bottom riser height is allowed to vary to the
floor. The bottom riser shall not exceed 12 in. (305 mm) to the
floor for the width of the walking surface."
Section 6.3.1 Exit/Entry states: "Sloping
entries used as a pool entrance shall not exceed a 1:7 incline
(see Figure 6 C)."
Section 6.3.2.1 Exit/Entry states: "When
benches are used in conjunction with sloping entries, the vertical riser
distance shall not exceed 12 in. (30.5 cm). For steps used in conjunction
with sloping entries, all requirements of para 6.2 shall apply."
Section 8.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "Surfaces. The surfaces within the pool intended to provide
footing for bathers shall have a slip resisting surface.
The roughness or irregularity of such surfaces shall not cause
injury or be an abrasion hazard during normal use."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he fails to refer to the pool code Section 6.3.2 in
reference to sloping entries in the proper context, as sloping entries shall
not exceed a 1:7 incline as mentioned above.
We point out
that the incline in our pool exceeds this 1:7 incline as the slope change at
the last step drops approximately 9” in only 13” across the pool floor.
Safety Features - a rope and float have not been installed.
Section 17.2 Safety Features states: "Rope
and float. In pools where the point of first slope change (see Figure 5,
Point D) occurs in water depths less than 4 ft. 6 in. (1372 mm), a rope
and float assembly shall
be installed across the width of the pool generally parallel to, and at a
minimum of 1 ft (305 mm) and a maximum of 2 ft (61 cm) on the shallow
side of the change in the floor slope."
Section 17.2.1 Safety Features states:
"The rope anchor devices shall
be permanently attached to the pool wall, coping, or deck in a manner
which provides for their reinstallation should they be required to be
removed for maintenance or repair."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, a rope and float was to be installed as part of our
contract but was never installed.
Pool is Leaking Water - the pool is leaking water.
Section 8.1.1 Materials for Construction and Finishes
states: "The interior surfaces of the pool shall be
watertight."
[redacted] Lang
failed to install a pool that was watertight.
Spa Violations:
Spa Entry Step - the tread of the spa step is not
slip-resistant.
Section 1.8 Definitions states:
"Slip-Resisting: A surface that has been treated or constructed to
significantly reduce the chance of a user slipping. The surface shall
not be an abrasion hazard."
Section 4.6 Structure and Design states:
"The surfaces within the spa or swim spa intended to provide footing
for users shall be slip-resisting. The texture of such
surfaces shall not cause injury during normal use."
[redacted] Lang
failed to address this violation in his rebuttal responses.
Tread Height to Spa Coping - the vertical distance from the
spa coping to the centerline of the tread is greater than 12 inches; it is
approximately 12 and 3/4 inches.
Section 5.6.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "Steps. The design and construction of steps into the spa or
swim spa in either shallow or deep water, including recessed stairs and
seat benches, where used, shall conform to Section 5.6.2.1 through
5.6.2.8."
Section 5.6.2.2 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: "All risers at the centerline, except for the bottom riser, shall
have a maximum uniform height of 12 in. (305 mm)."
Section 5.6.2.5 Dimensional designs and tolerances
states: “The vertical distance from the spa or swim spa coping, deck, or
step surface to the uppermost tread shall be a maximum
of 12 in. (305 mm)."
In response
to [redacted] Lang's rebuttal, he mentions Section 5.1.1 in reference to construction
tolerances being permitted of plus or minus 2," and he failed to document
that Section 5.1.1 does not apply when a section is otherwise specified,
as is the case with Section 4.6 in reference to a maximum height of 12 inches.
Spa Skimmer or Spillover - the spa shall have a skimming
device or spillover to serve as the function of a skimmer installed; no
skimming device was installed nor was a spillover constructed to serve as a
function of a skimming device.
Section 11.1 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Design and construction. Skimming devices shall be
provided on all residential spas or swim spas, and shall be
designed and constructed to skim the spa or swim spa surface when the
water level is maintained within the operational parameters of the
system's rim or weir device. The weir of a spa or swim spa which spills
into a pool serves the function of a skimmer."
Section 11.2 Surface skimmer systems states:
"Safe operations. Skimming devices shall be designed
and installed so as not to constitute a hazard to the user."
The lack of
a spillover or skimmer is a health hazard and [redacted] Lang failed to address this
violation in his response.
Based on the aforementioned outlined
violations we have not remitted the final payment as requested by Lang on the construction
of the pool and spa of $3,400. We point out that this payment is not due since
Lang has failed to provide us with a pool and spa fit for use in accordance
with the Town of [redacted] building codes and has not complied with his
contractual obligations. Lang has been paid $59,040 to date and failed to
address the numerous violations as we and several other pools companies have
pointed out and as a result we were not able to use our pool for its intended purpose
during the summer of 2014.
With regard to Lang's comment that
he never intended to get into shouting match with us, that is a false statement
as several individuals from his staff were on the telephone with us when we
questioned Mr. Lang about some of the issues and he used language that was
inappropriate and slammed the telephone down on us during the call. We find him
to be intolerable to deal with and unwilling to negotiate in good faith and his
actions have led us to terminate all ties with him and his organization. The
facts of the case remain, Lang did not comply with the building codes of the Town
of [redacted] and is entrusted to build pools according to certain standards,
whether the town inspects some of the items or not.
My response to Lang Pools, Inc.
(Lang) response dated 12/1/2014 is as follows:
Unfortunately, [redacted] Lang never
addresses the issues at hand and continues to sidetrack the issues raised. The
pool and spa are not built within the building codes of the Town of [redacted] (the
“Town”) and the Town acknowledged to my attorney on July 2, 2014, that they do
not inspect every pool or spa code to ensure they are built in accordance with
the pool and spa codes as required by the Town. In fact, when my attorney
questioned the Town on the slippery steps the Town advised him that according
to “[redacted]-5 2003, Section 6.1.5 All steps shall have slip resisting
surfaces.”
[redacted] Lang is well aware that the
Town only inspects certain codes and leaves the rest to the pool builder that
they entrust. In fact, [redacted], the [redacted] for
Lang, advised me on June 24, 2014 that the Town does not inspect the violations
that we raised and that no one cares. [redacted] Lang and [redacted] do what they
want without any regard to building a pool or spa in conformity with [redacted] –
5 2003 or [redacted] – 1999, respectively, as required by the Town since the
Town does not inspect all of the design or construction work performed during
their inspection process.
Additionally, we were advised by our
insurance company that if we knew of violations in the design and construction
of our pool or spa and we allowed users to use the pool or spa that we would be
negligent if an accident or injury resulted from such use and any claim
submitted as a result of use would be denied. Given the fact that we have
documented the numerous code violations to Lang we felt that use of the pool or
spa for any guest would be negligent on our part. It is with deep regret that
[redacted] Lang does not feel the same way.
Our mission, is to ensure Lang Pools,
Inc. builds pools and spas in accordance with the building codes within the
town they work. Safety should never be overlooked by a contractor just because
a town does not inspect a certain code provision in the design or construction
of a pool or spa as required by a town. The contractor should be just as
concerned as the pool or spa owner to make sure the pool or spa built by them
is safe for use and not a hazard to users. We feel it would be negligent to
only be concerned with safety in hindsight of a serious injury or accident by
either the contractor or the pool or spa owner.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
With all due respect there is nothing I can do to please Mr. [redacted]. At this point he has removed the pool from his backyard. He had us install an inground vinyl liner swimming pool and he had it removed and is now building a concrete swimming pool. All of his charges are not relevant as the pool is gone! What can I possibly do to please him at this point? He can make all the claims he wants but the pool is gone. How can we attempt to address something that is gone? He has made demands for a substantial amount of money from Lang Pool from the very first letter from his attorney. I believe that is where he stands. Why else would he use the pool all season and wait until the end to remove it and now file a complaint with the Revdex.com. In addition on a side note [redacted] no longer works at Lang Pool. He cannot be questioned about allegations Mr. [redacted] says he made. We only informed our insurance carrier since Mr [redacted]s lawyer was threatening a lawsuit. That is standard policy for us to inform the carrier. It in no way implies anything else. We built Mr [redacted] a beautiful pool and spa that he used last season and it was approved and CO by the town of [redacted]. He never made his final payment on pool and now it is no longer in his yard.The facts are the facts. Nothing I do or say will resolve his complaint. I have been in business over 20 years I do not build unsafe swimming pools. [redacted]