Lew Wolfe Pool Services Incorporated

I disagree with the customer claim that two charges from are not valid because “we did not perform the work adequately.” The explanation for each claim follows.The first is her claim that the $charge to repair the pool cover should be disputed because the work was not adequateI agree with that statement because we performed the repair during the summer, at our shop, and then stored the cover until the customer pool closing in October-assuming the repair to be adequate because we have no way to test it until it is on the poolWe put the repaired cover on the pool on the closing day, and the next day was contacted by the customer who said the patches didn't holdWe then returned to the pool and did the repair again, on site, free of chargeWe made good on the repair once we realized the initial patch did not holdTherefore the $repair charge on invoice # [redacted] dated 10/30/was not removed from her bill and is valid.The second is a $service charge from 7/7/on invoice # [redacted] for installing a new motherboard for the Easy Touch automation unitHer claim is that “the extra call was not necessary because the “service” person should have come on a regularly scheduled service visitI disagree with this statement because the “service' person who cleaned her pool weekly is not trained to do repairs on any equipment; therefore we had to send our main technician to install the motherboardThis is standard practice and is true for every repair on all equipmentWe dispatched the main technician as soon as we received the part because it was mid summer and the customer was anxious to have this job completedIt had been delayed because the part had to be ordered and took two weeks to arriveThe $was a service call to install the part and is a fair charge for a one hour job.The customer desired outcome for this dispute is for us to return her two actuators we stored for the winterMy response is, and has been during our communications this past week, that I will happily return the actuators once I am paid for the entire amount due on her account, now days past dueThat total is $which includes other charges accrued during the pool seasonPlease note that I have not applied late charges but am waiting in good faith for payment for services performed since July of 2015.Susan President and OwnerLew Wolfe Pool Service, Inc

The owner of the Lew Wolfe Pool Services Incclaims to have provided a service call for $and a repair of our pool cover (another $95) and I dispute that such services were performed adequately The pool cover repair didn't hold for more than one day and the extra service call wasn't necessary when the service person should have come on a regularly scheduled weekly visit In discussing with the owner, she refused to provide me with my pool parts (actuators) that her company had been holding during the winter In no uncertain terms, the owner is holding our items hostage until we pay this $for services that were not performed adequately

Claim #1- $charge for the pool cover repair-- Susan Wolfe claims in her May 6, letter that they performed the repair during the summer at their shop and then stored the cover until closing in OctoberThis raises an interesting issue as to how the hole got in the cover to begin with and whether storage in the shop caused the holeWe did not authorize or ever agree to the $charge to repair the hole in advanceSusan emailed us on 9/25/15-- "We had to repair several holes in your pool cover, it took us one hour at $per hour."
I do agree that after being notified of the poor work of patching the hole, they did come out to repair their shoddy work, and then the hole came back again so the repair was never completed satisfactory
Claim #2- the service charge of $We were paying for weekly pool maintenance and also paid for a separate install of a new motherboardThe main technician who installed the motherboard did not have the part when he came out to install so he had to return
Two emails in August from Susan states the following: "Because my distributor did not have it at any of their locations and it had to be ordered from the manufacturer, causing the delayIt took quite a while to arrive after I ordered itTherefore we did an additional trip for the installation."
Then we were charged for this additional trip to complete the jobAgain, we didn't authorize or agree to pay an additional $for an additional tripThe delay was caused by their ordering delay, not anything on our end
The performance of shoddy Work that is not authorized and then billed, poor and ineffective repairs, and untimely billing and generally lack of knowledge of pools and repairs-- this is the hallmark of the Lew Wolfe Pool Company

I disagree with the customer claim that two charges from 2015 are not valid because “we did not perform the work adequately.” The explanation for each claim follows.The first is her claim that the $95.00 charge to repair the pool cover should be disputed because the work was not adequate. I agree...

with that statement because we performed the repair during the summer, at our shop, and then stored the cover until the customer pool closing in October-assuming the repair to be adequate because we have no way to test it until it is on the pool. We put the repaired cover on the pool on the closing day, and the next day was contacted by the customer who said the patches didn't hold. We then returned to the pool and did the repair again, on site, free of charge. We made good on the repair once we realized the initial patch did not hold. Therefore the $95.00 repair charge on invoice #[redacted] dated 10/30/16 was not removed from her bill and is valid.The second is a $95.00 service charge from 7/7/15 on invoice #[redacted] for installing a new motherboard for the Easy Touch automation unit. Her claim is that “the extra call was not necessary because the “service” person should have come on a regularly scheduled service visit. I disagree with this statement because the “service' person who cleaned her pool weekly is not trained to do repairs on any equipment; therefore we had to send our main technician to install the motherboard. This is standard practice and is true for every repair on all equipment. We dispatched the main technician as soon as we received the part because it was mid summer and the customer was anxious to have this job completed. It had been delayed because the part had to be ordered and took two weeks to arrive. The $95.00 was a service call to install the part and is a fair charge for a one hour job.The customer desired outcome for this dispute is for us to return her two actuators we stored for the winter. My response is, and has been during our communications this past week, that I will happily return the actuators once I am paid for the entire amount due on her account, now 189 days past due. That total is $789.00 which includes other charges accrued during the 2015 pool season. Please note that I have not applied late charges but am waiting in good faith for payment for services performed since July of 2015.Susan President and OwnerLew Wolfe Pool Service, Inc