New fiberglass pool is full of cracks... HELP!
- Thread starter mcaswell
- Start date
Ok, an update...
As I had indicated earlier in this thread, I'm a pretty reasonable person. Initially I was willing to accept a compromise that my wife came up with, which I offered to the builder... that he pull this shell out, repair the cracks, and re-set it properly. He flatly rejected this (unless I was willing to pay for it, of course).
When the drainage inspection failed and he was unable to get the cooperation of our neighbor for the setback variance (he deeply offended them in the process of trying to get them to sign a letter of non-objection), his tone changed significantly. He seemed to be coming to terms with the inevitability that the pool would have to be moved, and it appeared that his mistake would end up supplying the easy "shortcut" to us getting the pool re-set without us having to put a lot of effort and expense into the fight. But then we (he and I, separately) learned from the guy in the zoning department that since it was such a tiny variance being requested, it was almost certain to be approved by the board (which meets next on 6/5), regardless of whether or not the neighbor agreed.
Still, there was a small amount of progress. For the first time, the builder offered compensation for the completion delay... the balance of my contract (about $1700) along with about $2500 in equipment upgrades. That was very welcome, and strictly as compensation for the delay, was fair I think. But he was very specific in that this was only in response to the delay (his lawyer presumably instructed him to not say anything that could be perceived as an admission of fault on the installation).
But it did nothing for compensating me for the fact that I'd be receiving a damaged pool. And the written warranty assurances from the manufacturer that had long been promised had yet to materialize, and it was doubtful that they'd agree to what I was asking for.
Furthermore, I was hit with another significant red flag. The builder said that the cracks couldn't be fixed until the decking was poured, which did not sit well with us for obvious reasons. He followed up a day or two later by saying that the decking had to be poured first in order to "lock the shell in position" because it had to be drained first (he had previously insisted that they could do the repairs underwater). If the pool does indeed need to be drained, it makes sense that the decking would have to be done first, as the ends of the pool (which are 1.5" lower than the middle) would want to pop up as the shell tried to return to its original shape once the weight of the water was removed... the hope would be that the weight of the decking (rebarred into the previously-poured footer around the shell) would be enough to hold it down.
But then this revealed a fresh problem that I had not considered before. After seeing a thread here a few days ago about brick coping problems due to there being no expansion joint between the coping and the deck, I took a closer look at my pool.
You can clearly see the out-of-level condition, as the footer was poured level to the top of the shell, with a mortar bed built up as the shell slopes down from the middle towards the shallow end to the left of this photo.
The most obvious problem is that, if the decking has to be firmly joined with the existing footer around the shell (to prevent the ends of the shell from springing up), there can be no expansion joint... unless I'm missing something, the two concepts are completely incompatible. In addition, because the builder forgot to dig around the shell so that the footer pour would also go under the rim, he said he intended to dig under the footer so that the decking concrete would go under it and the rim, further locking the two together.
Maybe the fact that the bricks are attached to the footer precludes the need for an expansion joint (in other words, if the decking expands towards the pool, both the footer and the bricks would be pushed, so perhaps they'd stay together as a unit). But my gut tells me a full-depth expansion joint between the decking and the coping/footer unit is needed.
But still, there's another problem. The coping bricks are not full-thickness, but rather are shaped like a J turned on its side (with the bottom of the J facing into the pool, curving down to cover the top of the tile). So, the exposed outside thickness of the brick as it rests on the footer is only about 5/8". The footer was just loosely formed as opposed to following what would eventually be the outer contour of the coping, so in most areas it's wider than the length of the bricks. With the decking then having to be poured on top of that thin partial "ledge" behind the bricks, it would seem pretty much a near certainty that the decking would crack here (where the footer ends and the full-thickness of the decking would begin), probably all the way around the pool.
Lastly, I've talked to a few other builders in this region (one of whom will be serving as my expert witness if this goes to court). Both were of the clear opinion that this pool is a mess and needs to come out of the ground. One of them confirmed my wife's biggest fear about fixing the cracks, saying that he's seen several pools of this brand that have had gelcoat repairs done, and the repairs are far more conspicuous than the cracks themselves (in some cases, the repairs looks ok at first, but after 4 - 5 years, look horrible). He also confirmed one of my fears by noting that, unlike a pool that simply is a bit unlevel from one side to the other (but has still maintained its shape for the most part), this shell's shape is distorted and is thus "in stress" (meaning more cracks are likely). Indeed, I'm pretty sure the cracks have grown since I first noticed the problem and did that previously posted diagram.
So, after staying up until 3am talking about it the other night, my wife and I decided, although painful, we must aggressively pursue the replacement of this shell, so that's the path we've chosen. This morning I officially transitioned my relationship with the attorney from consulting to actual representation. She has notified the builder that all communication is to go through her from now, that any settlement offers made by me previously are hereby withdrawn, and that a formal demand letter will be forthcoming.
--Michael
As I had indicated earlier in this thread, I'm a pretty reasonable person. Initially I was willing to accept a compromise that my wife came up with, which I offered to the builder... that he pull this shell out, repair the cracks, and re-set it properly. He flatly rejected this (unless I was willing to pay for it, of course).
When the drainage inspection failed and he was unable to get the cooperation of our neighbor for the setback variance (he deeply offended them in the process of trying to get them to sign a letter of non-objection), his tone changed significantly. He seemed to be coming to terms with the inevitability that the pool would have to be moved, and it appeared that his mistake would end up supplying the easy "shortcut" to us getting the pool re-set without us having to put a lot of effort and expense into the fight. But then we (he and I, separately) learned from the guy in the zoning department that since it was such a tiny variance being requested, it was almost certain to be approved by the board (which meets next on 6/5), regardless of whether or not the neighbor agreed.
Still, there was a small amount of progress. For the first time, the builder offered compensation for the completion delay... the balance of my contract (about $1700) along with about $2500 in equipment upgrades. That was very welcome, and strictly as compensation for the delay, was fair I think. But he was very specific in that this was only in response to the delay (his lawyer presumably instructed him to not say anything that could be perceived as an admission of fault on the installation).
But it did nothing for compensating me for the fact that I'd be receiving a damaged pool. And the written warranty assurances from the manufacturer that had long been promised had yet to materialize, and it was doubtful that they'd agree to what I was asking for.
Furthermore, I was hit with another significant red flag. The builder said that the cracks couldn't be fixed until the decking was poured, which did not sit well with us for obvious reasons. He followed up a day or two later by saying that the decking had to be poured first in order to "lock the shell in position" because it had to be drained first (he had previously insisted that they could do the repairs underwater). If the pool does indeed need to be drained, it makes sense that the decking would have to be done first, as the ends of the pool (which are 1.5" lower than the middle) would want to pop up as the shell tried to return to its original shape once the weight of the water was removed... the hope would be that the weight of the decking (rebarred into the previously-poured footer around the shell) would be enough to hold it down.
But then this revealed a fresh problem that I had not considered before. After seeing a thread here a few days ago about brick coping problems due to there being no expansion joint between the coping and the deck, I took a closer look at my pool.
You can clearly see the out-of-level condition, as the footer was poured level to the top of the shell, with a mortar bed built up as the shell slopes down from the middle towards the shallow end to the left of this photo.
The most obvious problem is that, if the decking has to be firmly joined with the existing footer around the shell (to prevent the ends of the shell from springing up), there can be no expansion joint... unless I'm missing something, the two concepts are completely incompatible. In addition, because the builder forgot to dig around the shell so that the footer pour would also go under the rim, he said he intended to dig under the footer so that the decking concrete would go under it and the rim, further locking the two together.
Maybe the fact that the bricks are attached to the footer precludes the need for an expansion joint (in other words, if the decking expands towards the pool, both the footer and the bricks would be pushed, so perhaps they'd stay together as a unit). But my gut tells me a full-depth expansion joint between the decking and the coping/footer unit is needed.
But still, there's another problem. The coping bricks are not full-thickness, but rather are shaped like a J turned on its side (with the bottom of the J facing into the pool, curving down to cover the top of the tile). So, the exposed outside thickness of the brick as it rests on the footer is only about 5/8". The footer was just loosely formed as opposed to following what would eventually be the outer contour of the coping, so in most areas it's wider than the length of the bricks. With the decking then having to be poured on top of that thin partial "ledge" behind the bricks, it would seem pretty much a near certainty that the decking would crack here (where the footer ends and the full-thickness of the decking would begin), probably all the way around the pool.
Lastly, I've talked to a few other builders in this region (one of whom will be serving as my expert witness if this goes to court). Both were of the clear opinion that this pool is a mess and needs to come out of the ground. One of them confirmed my wife's biggest fear about fixing the cracks, saying that he's seen several pools of this brand that have had gelcoat repairs done, and the repairs are far more conspicuous than the cracks themselves (in some cases, the repairs looks ok at first, but after 4 - 5 years, look horrible). He also confirmed one of my fears by noting that, unlike a pool that simply is a bit unlevel from one side to the other (but has still maintained its shape for the most part), this shell's shape is distorted and is thus "in stress" (meaning more cracks are likely). Indeed, I'm pretty sure the cracks have grown since I first noticed the problem and did that previously posted diagram.
So, after staying up until 3am talking about it the other night, my wife and I decided, although painful, we must aggressively pursue the replacement of this shell, so that's the path we've chosen. This morning I officially transitioned my relationship with the attorney from consulting to actual representation. She has notified the builder that all communication is to go through her from now, that any settlement offers made by me previously are hereby withdrawn, and that a formal demand letter will be forthcoming.
--Michael
I have been following this interesting saga out of sick curiosity ... kind of like a car wreck.
More power to you and Good Luck!!!
It sucks that it has come to this, it will cost the builder far more than if he had just complied and done the right thing. Good luck!
march2012 said:
True, but the especially sad part is that he had the chance to fix it for a far lesser cost, starting with the day of the dig. Again, the shell arrived about 4 hours late, so by the time they were ready to lower it into the hole, it was dark and everyone was anxious to get out of there. At that point, he should have made the decision that it was too risky to try and set the pool with only the yard lights from my house to see what they were doing, and ponied up the $500 or so (just guessing) to have the crane come back the next morning to do it properly.
Then 2 weeks later, when I noticed it was badly out of level, he could have fixed it at that point for $thousands less than it will cost him now (since footer/tile/brick hadn't been done yet, tanning ledge wasn't in place, etc.).
--Michael
It stinks that it has come to this but I think you and your wife have made the right decision. You have paid for a new, undamaged pool that is installed properly and that what you are entitled to.
Dang. Im so sorry what should have been a wonderful experience for you and your family has turned into a nightmare... I really hope everything gets resolved quickly.
BadOleRoss said:
Yes, it was really painful to "officially" take this step, as it pretty much guarantees we won't have our pool until mid-summer at the absolute soonest, or possibly not even until closer to the end of the year if we end up going to court. If we had stayed on course to accept this pool, assuming the zoning variance was granted, we would have probably been in business just a few days after the hearing on 6/5 (I think the builder would have moved very quickly in order to get it finished before we changed our mind!).
But despite a lingering sense of sadness, I feel good about the decision.
I think at this point my biggest concern is that it's going to be very uncomfortable working with this builder now. You know, sort of like a fear that if you're at a restaurant and send your food back because it's not right, the chef is going to spit on it or something like that. Are these people going to be ethical enough to stand up and do the right thing on the re-installation, or are they intentionally going to do a crappy job just to spite me? I'll keep a close eye on them, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to catch everything.
I'm really disheartened that it came to this. Though I'm angry and disappointed at how he's handled the situation, and I think it represents a series of very poor business decisions that have cost my family dearly in the form of lost time that we can never get back, I don't personally hate the guy and I don't want him to lose a bunch of money. However, if it comes down to him losing money vs. us taking on a liability in the form of a poorly-installed pool, sorry... I'm going to protect myself and my family.
He lives around the corner from us, so I'm sure I'll still see him every now and then after this is all over.
--Michael
mcaswell said:
All the more reason to get it right this time, don't you think? Good for you, demanding what you paid for.
mcaswell said:
A lot of it depends on your attitude and his ethics. Assuming he is just incompetent not evil, then he probably wants to do a good job but might not be able to. If you can continue to be firm, but not condescending, compliment him when things go well, thank him for making things right, then he might do a great job.
march2012 said:
Tough to say. My wife thinks he's incompetent. And, she may be right. But I think it's probably the exact opposite... he's been in the business for a long time, and has become complacent. Perhaps he's never had a pool end up significantly out of level, so he saw no need to delay the setting of the pool until the next morning instead of having the crew do it in the dark, nor did he give any thought to the fact that they just plopped it into the hole in 5 minutes without pulling it out and checking the footprint and spending the time to make sure it was set as level as possible and uniformly supported on the bottom.
Similarly, his response to my early concerns over shell being too close to the property line. That's potentially a very major problem, and he brushed it off even though the dig hadn't even begun yet (to save his guys from having to re-spray the outline) by saying, "oh, don't worry about it, that's just overdig." The next day, when I measured and saw that it was definitely too close to the property line, he dismissed this by saying, "no big deal... the inspectors never look at that."
And that brings up what I think is this builder's biggest fault. At every stage, when a potential problem is noticed, rather than address it directly and correct it, he instead he chooses to take the path of saying whatever he needs to say to avoid having to do any additional work. I certainly understand how he wouldn't have been thrilled with having to re-set the pool back in the beginning of March when I first noticed it was unlevel, and I didn't take that thought lightly. But all he did was hit me with a blunt but unlikely explanation to explain how it happened (rain, not his fault), and the manufacturer's rep who was there at the time closed the deal by pointing out, "you know, if we lift this pool out it might get some cracks." I certainly didn't want cracks, so against my better judgement I believed them.
So, I'm faced with a situation of having a very hard time believing anything he says.
--Michael
I hope, in the end, that you and your family can enjoy the pool after all you have been through. I understand how hard it was to come to that decision but you and your wife made the right decision.
Good Luck with this and I can't wait til it's all said and done and we can see pics of your beautiful (level, uncracked) pool!
Good Luck with this and I can't wait til it's all said and done and we can see pics of your beautiful (level, uncracked) pool!
IMHO, the installer is just a stubborn man who's ego won't allow himself to admit his errors. I also think his bullying personality let him get away with it. I expect the judge to see that too. If there is a jury, I hope enough of them see that too. My fiberglass mentor would have chewed him a new one.
This site was started by people who got pool stored one too many times. I look forward to adding builders and installers getting their comeuppance too. I like the idea of those putting ethics and morals in the face of those without to make sure they know it isn't the way things are, Those without need to be slapped down and that that kind of shenanigans won't be tolerated.
mcaswell, I applaud you and your wife sir. You are doing the right thing. Not only will you, I predict, receive satisfaction, others buying pools will get better treatment too.
Scott
This site was started by people who got pool stored one too many times. I look forward to adding builders and installers getting their comeuppance too. I like the idea of those putting ethics and morals in the face of those without to make sure they know it isn't the way things are, Those without need to be slapped down and that that kind of shenanigans won't be tolerated.
mcaswell, I applaud you and your wife sir. You are doing the right thing. Not only will you, I predict, receive satisfaction, others buying pools will get better treatment too.
Scott
re: installing deck before draining for fiberglass repairs; the weight of a concrete deck barely overlapping the edge of the pool won't keep it from popping (what he's referring to in 'locking it in') when you drain it
This has been very educational.
Sorry you have to go through this, but I also think you made the right decision.
Sorry you have to go through this, but I also think you made the right decision.
Is there any reason why you need to have this same builder re-install your new replacement pool?
Yep, I think that's pretty much it.
It's interesting to look at how the potential expense of correcting this is snowballing, both in terms of money, and reputation (after all, they say the best way to judge a contractor is not with a job where everything goes perfectly, but in how he handles himself when things go wrong):
1) The day (well, night) the pool was set, he could have recognized that it was too risky to attempt this, and made the call to bring the crane back the next morning. Cost: $500? (it wasn't a very big crane). Result: none of this would have ever happened.
2) When I noticed the pool was unlevel 2 weeks later and implored him to re-set it, he could have done so at (relative to now) minimal expense, since the footer hadn't been poured, brick/tile wasn't done, etc. Chances are, there would have still been gelcoat cracks, but the way he and the manufacturer were double-teaming me, I probably would have come away thinking the cracks were my fault since I made them pull it out and re-set it, and probably would not have been smart enough to demand a new shell. Cost: $2,000? Result: impressed customer.
3) When this extensive network of cracks was discovered, he still could have turned this into a positive by saying, "I'm sorry, I didn't think the shell being unlevel would cause any problems, but I was wrong, and I'm going to make it right", and replacing the shell. It would have been expensive, but our relationship would still be intact. Cost: $12,000? (he could refurbish/sell the damaged shell to make up some of the expense) Result: impressed customer.
4) Even now, he has one last opportunity to step up and respond favorably to the demand letter. While I can't say at this point that this would make me an enthusiastic advocate of him as a builder, it's fair to say it would at least result in me being "neutral"... he resisted properly addressing the installation problems, but eventually came around without having to go to court. Cost: $15,000? (including "loss of use" compensation). Result: neutral customer.
5) If we go to court, we're not going to be suing to force him to come fix the pool (he will have already had his chance to do this by way of the demand letter), but rather to have him pay the expense of someone else doing it. Cost: $30,000? Result: very angry customer.
In short, his ego is indeed getting in the way of making sound business decisions. Perhaps he'll come to his senses.
--Michael