Good question/point. Just took another look at the email. Says "cutout plaster at all transition points". So doesn't seem like a full chip out. I just emailed for him to "confirm" a full chip out.
New Pool - SE Pennsylvania
- Thread starter rccarps2
- Start date
Good question/point. Just took another look at the email. Says "cutout plaster at all transition points". So doesn't seem like a full chip out. I just emailed for him to "confirm" a full chip out.
i just did some quick reading. the BA has to do wit the LSI index. I tried reading it. it's all chemistry talk. but what i did take away is it talks about high and low numbers that can cause this number to be aggressive.
PH: 7.3-7.5 kinda hard to remain there with a SWG
TA: 80-120 ok that is doable.
CH: 250-400 ok that is doable too.
here is the kicker:
CYA: 0!!!!!-30!!!! only.
that is kinda nutty. . .
but that is just with some quick reading. it's a formula that uses PH and TA but takes in account the other factors. so i bet most of us here would have aggressive BA on the LSI index?
i'm just thinking out loud. i'm only 1 season into all this. . .
jim
PH: 7.3-7.5 kinda hard to remain there with a SWG
TA: 80-120 ok that is doable.
CH: 250-400 ok that is doable too.
here is the kicker:
CYA: 0!!!!!-30!!!! only.
that is kinda nutty. . .
but that is just with some quick reading. it's a formula that uses PH and TA but takes in account the other factors. so i bet most of us here would have aggressive BA on the LSI index?
i'm just thinking out loud. i'm only 1 season into all this. . .
jim
Jim,
He isn't a member here, that I know of. I figured OnBalance from this site (sorry if I am wrong) is who is mentioned here. http://www.poolhelp.com/why-calcium-nodules-form-in-pools/
The person I spoke with is on one side of that debate.
The wife and I always wanted to go with the PebbleTec product, just was not in the original pool budget. I guess the way we view it now, is that if we can leverage the defective plaster now for a better price on Pebbletec then it may be worth it. In a perfect world, I would have preferred to get more years out of my plaster. But the wife isn't very happy with how it looks, and a happy wife is a happy me. I also am not thrilled with having to explain to people who come over what all the marks are.
I feel like life is just a big game of holding people accountable to crappy service or products. Would just be nice to get what you pay for without a lot of BS.
I left my notes from how he got that 55 number at work. IMO it was just all about of BS to try and make me think its a water balancing issue. Carbonate Alkalinity is Measured TA – (CA x Cyanuric Acid Correction Factor) = Carbonate Alkalinity (Googled it). I am not a chemist. I trust this site and the pool calculator.
- - - Updated - - -
PB just wrote back that it is just a chip out from under tile line and around fittings.
- Nov 12, 2017
- 11,834
- Pool Size
- 12300
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-40
I thought I was following along, but can't now figure out what just happened. The heated exchange from the guy at NPC was completely unrelated to the OP's PB, right? Just an inquiry by the OP to the NPC that went south, yes? Nothing to do with the PB?
And the PB is offering a discount on replacing defective plaster with PebbleTec, as his idea of making things right?
My pool was destroyed by a contractor. He tried to blame someone else. I wasn't having it. I gave him two weeks to fix the problem (certified letter, blah, blah) and he did nothing. He did offer a partial settlement, less than half the cost to replace the plaster. I rejected that offer.
After the deadline expired, I had the plaster replaced with a PebbleTec knockoff: full chipout, drain and return work (at no additional cost), retain edge tile but replace step and bench markers ($900 add on) and CH removal from edge tile ($450 add on). Total = $9000 even. My pool is smaller than the OPs, but without the add ons that comes to $7650. If that helps the OP's math.
The cost of replacing the plaster (instead of the pebble) was $2000 less. I didn't seek that 2K from the contractor, just the cost of replacing the plaster he destroyed. But I added water, salt and startup expenses. That's what I ended up settling for: exactly what it would cost to replace the plaster, and "all the fixin's". My out-of-pocket was only the difference between new plaster and new pebble (the $2K). That's all the OP should pay, IMO.
rccarps2, if you want to settle for some amount less, and put this behind you, because you don't want to deal with the stress of a lawsuit (or even just threatening one), that's perfectly understandable. From my experience, that kind of stress is sometimes just not worth it. But in terms of what's right and wrong, I'm of the opinion that you are due the full cost of plaster replacement, and should only pay the difference for the PebbleTec upgrade. And that difference in cost can be confirmed by getting an estimate from one or more plaster contractors (other than your PB). Ask for the cost of plaster with full chipout. Along with the cost of PebbleTec with full chip out. Then you'll have your basis for comparison for what the PB is offering. If you're short on local PebbleTec authorized dealers, then see if you can go farther out. My plasterers were two hours away from my town.
If his offered discount is real, and confirmed by competing bids, then I suppose that is what's at stake if you pursue a legal recourse and lose. Your PB will certainly not honor that discount afterwards.
Just stating the obvious. Tough call. I made a similar one, and won without even going to court. Won it all. So that only means it's possible, not necessarily probable.
My contractor was willing to pony up way less than he should have, fairly early on in the process. Just as your is. That only indicated to me that he knew all along he was in the wrong, and was just seeking the least expensive way out. I didn't bite. But it cost me months of heavy duty stress. So yah, I got my due, eventually (took almost a year) but how many years did that take off my life?
By the way, has it been determined? Do plasterers normally walk around on new plaster after or during the troweling process? In bare feet, no less? I don't remember seeing them do that in my pool redo. They shot it from the top down, troweling as they went. The only stepping I saw was the very last part, at the bottom of the deep end, and he was stepping on cardboard pieces, then got hauled out by rope by his pals. He didn't walk across the new plaster to get out. They might have been on the just-shot plaster, to jockey into position, but not after they troweled it. The next day, when they were polishing and acid washing, they were walking all over it. But they wouldn't be polishing and acid washing plaster the next day, right? So how did the footprints get there? Even if unbalance had not already confirmed it, I just don't see how shoe and barefoot prints in plaster could be considered by anybody to be anything but a defect in workmanship. Even if the argument is made, even proven, that poor water maintenance brought the footprints to the surface (somehow!?!), it doesn't explain why the prints were there in the first place!!
If it were me, I wouldn't settle, and I'd take it to court if threats to do so did not resolve the issue. In CA, the cost of the repair was within small claims court amount. So no lawyers fees. It would have been just me, the contractor and the judge. I had already paid for the repair. It was done long before the contractor settled up. I had nothing to lose by going to court. I had saved large chucks of the plaster chip out, that clearly showed the damage. I was going to haul those in front of the judge. That would have been pretty compelling evidence... And I didn't have nearly the dramatic pictures that rccarps2 does.
And the PB is offering a discount on replacing defective plaster with PebbleTec, as his idea of making things right?
My pool was destroyed by a contractor. He tried to blame someone else. I wasn't having it. I gave him two weeks to fix the problem (certified letter, blah, blah) and he did nothing. He did offer a partial settlement, less than half the cost to replace the plaster. I rejected that offer.
After the deadline expired, I had the plaster replaced with a PebbleTec knockoff: full chipout, drain and return work (at no additional cost), retain edge tile but replace step and bench markers ($900 add on) and CH removal from edge tile ($450 add on). Total = $9000 even. My pool is smaller than the OPs, but without the add ons that comes to $7650. If that helps the OP's math.
The cost of replacing the plaster (instead of the pebble) was $2000 less. I didn't seek that 2K from the contractor, just the cost of replacing the plaster he destroyed. But I added water, salt and startup expenses. That's what I ended up settling for: exactly what it would cost to replace the plaster, and "all the fixin's". My out-of-pocket was only the difference between new plaster and new pebble (the $2K). That's all the OP should pay, IMO.
rccarps2, if you want to settle for some amount less, and put this behind you, because you don't want to deal with the stress of a lawsuit (or even just threatening one), that's perfectly understandable. From my experience, that kind of stress is sometimes just not worth it. But in terms of what's right and wrong, I'm of the opinion that you are due the full cost of plaster replacement, and should only pay the difference for the PebbleTec upgrade. And that difference in cost can be confirmed by getting an estimate from one or more plaster contractors (other than your PB). Ask for the cost of plaster with full chipout. Along with the cost of PebbleTec with full chip out. Then you'll have your basis for comparison for what the PB is offering. If you're short on local PebbleTec authorized dealers, then see if you can go farther out. My plasterers were two hours away from my town.
If his offered discount is real, and confirmed by competing bids, then I suppose that is what's at stake if you pursue a legal recourse and lose. Your PB will certainly not honor that discount afterwards.
Just stating the obvious. Tough call. I made a similar one, and won without even going to court. Won it all. So that only means it's possible, not necessarily probable.
My contractor was willing to pony up way less than he should have, fairly early on in the process. Just as your is. That only indicated to me that he knew all along he was in the wrong, and was just seeking the least expensive way out. I didn't bite. But it cost me months of heavy duty stress. So yah, I got my due, eventually (took almost a year) but how many years did that take off my life?
By the way, has it been determined? Do plasterers normally walk around on new plaster after or during the troweling process? In bare feet, no less? I don't remember seeing them do that in my pool redo. They shot it from the top down, troweling as they went. The only stepping I saw was the very last part, at the bottom of the deep end, and he was stepping on cardboard pieces, then got hauled out by rope by his pals. He didn't walk across the new plaster to get out. They might have been on the just-shot plaster, to jockey into position, but not after they troweled it. The next day, when they were polishing and acid washing, they were walking all over it. But they wouldn't be polishing and acid washing plaster the next day, right? So how did the footprints get there? Even if unbalance had not already confirmed it, I just don't see how shoe and barefoot prints in plaster could be considered by anybody to be anything but a defect in workmanship. Even if the argument is made, even proven, that poor water maintenance brought the footprints to the surface (somehow!?!), it doesn't explain why the prints were there in the first place!!
If it were me, I wouldn't settle, and I'd take it to court if threats to do so did not resolve the issue. In CA, the cost of the repair was within small claims court amount. So no lawyers fees. It would have been just me, the contractor and the judge. I had already paid for the repair. It was done long before the contractor settled up. I had nothing to lose by going to court. I had saved large chucks of the plaster chip out, that clearly showed the damage. I was going to haul those in front of the judge. That would have been pretty compelling evidence... And I didn't have nearly the dramatic pictures that rccarps2 does.
Absolutely! I learnt this very early on in our build. They all have each other’s backs. They will lie through their teeth to protect each other. It makes getting anywhere near impossible and hugely frustrating. I have never known an industry quite like it although I’m sure they exist.
Following up on the chip out...........some things to think about.
How long do you plan on being in the house? Is it your last home?
A transition chip out will work and there is nothing wrong with doing it. The reason to do a full chip out NOW is thinking about the future. If, in the future, you want to replaster again you will have to do a full chip out at that time. That will be on your wallet at that time instead of it being on the PB at this time.
How long do you plan on being in the house? Is it your last home?
A transition chip out will work and there is nothing wrong with doing it. The reason to do a full chip out NOW is thinking about the future. If, in the future, you want to replaster again you will have to do a full chip out at that time. That will be on your wallet at that time instead of it being on the PB at this time.
- Nov 12, 2017
- 11,834
- Pool Size
- 12300
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-40
Who has been maintaining the water? You? Or pool guy? Is there a record of the test results? That could be used to determine diligence in maintenance, or the opposite.
If this gets to court, there is a burden of proof that must be established in a reasonable way. The PB can't just show up and say "It's because of the water balance." He'd have to offer scientific proof that your pool was subjected to improper water. Or that white footprints are very common in pools that have low TA (or whatever). And not just some rantings by a crazy old man on the NPC hotline. How can the PB now prove anything? Otherwise, it's just your word against his about the care of the water. What is he going to do, pay for a core sample of your plaster and have it analyzed? For what? At what cost? Who would do that work? Meanwhile, you would be holding your handful of 8x10 images, and perhaps a chunk of plaster with a big ol' footprint in it. Pretty slam dunk, I would say... The judge would be asking himself "Have I ever seen a swimming pool with white footprints in it? Hmmm, why no I haven't."
Kim's right. Full chip out. You paid for a pool you didn't get. The PB needs to make that whole. Period. There's nothing to negotiate. His sub messed up. Replace the defective workmanship, back to like-new condition. If the subject of prorating comes up (for the one or two years you've owned it), then you counter with loss of use (you were not able to enjoy the pool the whole time). Again, sorry, I didn't read your entire thread. Don't you have a year or two of stories of shenanigans by this PB? That would be part of your testimony.
Good luck in whatever you decide. We're rooting for you!
PS. I acknowledge that I am more fired up about this than you might be. Sorry 'bout that. I was severely wronged by a pool contractor, not just by the damage he caused, but by the way he handled it afterwards. It was flat-out wrong. So I am more than a bit anti-contractor. And I tend to see red when I hear about others going through the same thing...
If this gets to court, there is a burden of proof that must be established in a reasonable way. The PB can't just show up and say "It's because of the water balance." He'd have to offer scientific proof that your pool was subjected to improper water. Or that white footprints are very common in pools that have low TA (or whatever). And not just some rantings by a crazy old man on the NPC hotline. How can the PB now prove anything? Otherwise, it's just your word against his about the care of the water. What is he going to do, pay for a core sample of your plaster and have it analyzed? For what? At what cost? Who would do that work? Meanwhile, you would be holding your handful of 8x10 images, and perhaps a chunk of plaster with a big ol' footprint in it. Pretty slam dunk, I would say... The judge would be asking himself "Have I ever seen a swimming pool with white footprints in it? Hmmm, why no I haven't."
Kim's right. Full chip out. You paid for a pool you didn't get. The PB needs to make that whole. Period. There's nothing to negotiate. His sub messed up. Replace the defective workmanship, back to like-new condition. If the subject of prorating comes up (for the one or two years you've owned it), then you counter with loss of use (you were not able to enjoy the pool the whole time). Again, sorry, I didn't read your entire thread. Don't you have a year or two of stories of shenanigans by this PB? That would be part of your testimony.
Good luck in whatever you decide. We're rooting for you!
PS. I acknowledge that I am more fired up about this than you might be. Sorry 'bout that. I was severely wronged by a pool contractor, not just by the damage he caused, but by the way he handled it afterwards. It was flat-out wrong. So I am more than a bit anti-contractor. And I tend to see red when I hear about others going through the same thing...
Good to know. I kinda feel the same way, especially for my area and the pool size. Not exactly flush with good builders like the southwest and Florida areas.
- - - Updated - - -
Wife and I don't have any plans on moving. We have been building up this house the exact was we want it. Plus my job is local and extremely long term/stable. I would venture to say that we would be in this home for 10-20+ more years.
I don't think it would be unrealistic to get a full chip out. I would want that for my own piece of mind.
Sorry for the confusing posts earlier. But that guy from the NPC was just a guy who called me after I filled out an online "ask the expert" from their website. It had nothing to do with this site, thread, my PB or plaster co. I still can't believe the hate the guy had for me after I questioned the possibility of workmanship defects. He only called me to "tell" me how it was a water balance issue. Could have given him the perfect water tests and he would have spun it somehow to blame me.
I need to sit down with the wife and look at the numbers. We plan on staying in the house a long time, so there is the feeling of just getting it done right and then not worrying about it for another 15-20 years. I am also not one to burn bridges with contractors/companies, if at all possible, but they do need to be held accountable for their work. A few of my neighbors have pools and they tell me nightmares about service work done by other companies.
The way I look at it is if I can get a pebble interior done for the incremental cost above what a plaster re-do would be, then it is a no brainer. That keeps relatively everyone happy, and I can maintain a relationship with my PB. After all I plan on being in the house for many years to come.
I will tell you that I am going to detail out some notes on the next contract I sign.
I have been maintaining the water since the PB turned it over to me a few weeks after the pool was built. They were responsible for the complete startup/brushing/chems for weeks after it was filled and only turned it over to me long after the salt was added and generator turned on. I have those dates in my phone from texts with the GC.
I have most of my test results from the first 2 years in a spreadsheet. The tests from this year are on post it notes in my test kit box. I just stack them in there after each test until the winter when I can get some time to transfer to the spreadsheet. At that point I toss the post it notes.
I really appreciate your insight and experience in this. While I think the chance/ability for court resolution should be maintained, I know the wife would highly prefer to handle directly with the PB if at all possible.
What I like is that you are going to be able to make the decision based on a solid base of knowledge. That is what TFP is all about.........providing facts and knowledge so you can make your decision with your head instead of heart. We will support your decision!
Kim
Kim
RC, I believe you have a very good case to get the plaster company and/or PB to agree to a more equitable resolution and do a complete and proper chip-out as part of the deal.
The white footprints, the white spotting and streaking (some of which follow troweling patterns), and the fact that there are other plaster areas that have not turned white, provides a reasonable and logical basis that unbalanced water was not the cause.
Further, I will provide you with petrographic reports that have determined that improper troweling techniques cause white spotting and streaking, which can be given to the PB and plaster company. Further, a forensic analysis of your plaster surface discoloration problem could also be performed by professional cement experts if you have to pursue with court action.
On the other side of the coin, let’s review the NPC advisor’s bogus claim that aggressive water caused the white discoloration problems.
First, the “55” number given to you by the NPC advisor is the “corrected” alkalinity number (80-25=55, one-third CYA subtraction) that is used to calculate the CSI or LSI. Although “55 ppm” of (carbonate) alkalinity is slightly on the low side, that is completely offset by the high calcium and pH levels which are also used for the CSI calculation.
Second, based on the pool water numbers you provided earlier, (Calcium 375 ppm, alkalinity 80 ppm, pH 8.0 CYA 75 ppm, and assuming water temp of 80 degrees), it appears your CSI (or LSI) is about a +0.4, meaning that your pool water is within the balanced range, and slightly on the scaling side. That is not even close to aggressive water. The NPC advisor on the phone misled you in more ways than one.
Third, even if the NPC advisor continues to claim that aggressive water caused the white discoloration problems and “muddies the water,” you can use the fact that the plaster guy told you to lower the pH down below 7.0 for the winter as a possible corrective measure. It is likely that with cold winter water, the CSI was very aggressive during that time. Therefore, the plaster company would be responsible for that. But of course, that is not what caused the white discoloration. Your pictures show that the discoloration occurred before that time, and some show that they were present in some fashion prior to filling.
Fourth, let’s also understand that the plaster company (and the NPC advisor) likely know that making the water aggressive with adding acid (which also lowers the alkalinity) does not cause colored plaster to turn white in random and isolated areas. I am sure that they have performed acid treatments many times. It is common practice to perform “acid baths” to remove mottling and to darken colored plaster to look new again. If aggressive water causes a whitening of colored pool, then why do they perform acid treatments and make the water aggressive to darken colored plaster? There is no legitimate basis to claim that aggressive water causes white discoloration.
Fifth, the PB and/or plaster company are responsible for the type of fill water used to fill your pool and the subsequent start-up program. As I see it, you are covered in all respects.
I would hope that the PB is not trying to make additional money in his proposal to you, or that the plaster company would get paid for the entire “at cost” re-plastering project. I am certain that all of the parties are fully aware of the facts, and that your plaster job is not acceptable.
I am also glad that you asked for the NPC’s help and received an initial consultation, although you were disappointed in the response. I suggest that you forward a few more pictures to the NPC advisor and see what transpires. If there isn’t a change of mind and an acknowledgement that the problem is improper workmanship related, and isn’t water chemistry related, then please allow me to help you pursue this.
Unfortunately, what you have gone through with your pool happens often. But I have found most pool companies want to avoid going to trial (including small claims), including the NPC consultant people. They simply hope that you can be fooled and acquiesce. I hope you can receive a just resolution and an aesthetic pleasing pool to enjoy. That is what you paid good money for.
The white footprints, the white spotting and streaking (some of which follow troweling patterns), and the fact that there are other plaster areas that have not turned white, provides a reasonable and logical basis that unbalanced water was not the cause.
Further, I will provide you with petrographic reports that have determined that improper troweling techniques cause white spotting and streaking, which can be given to the PB and plaster company. Further, a forensic analysis of your plaster surface discoloration problem could also be performed by professional cement experts if you have to pursue with court action.
On the other side of the coin, let’s review the NPC advisor’s bogus claim that aggressive water caused the white discoloration problems.
First, the “55” number given to you by the NPC advisor is the “corrected” alkalinity number (80-25=55, one-third CYA subtraction) that is used to calculate the CSI or LSI. Although “55 ppm” of (carbonate) alkalinity is slightly on the low side, that is completely offset by the high calcium and pH levels which are also used for the CSI calculation.
Second, based on the pool water numbers you provided earlier, (Calcium 375 ppm, alkalinity 80 ppm, pH 8.0 CYA 75 ppm, and assuming water temp of 80 degrees), it appears your CSI (or LSI) is about a +0.4, meaning that your pool water is within the balanced range, and slightly on the scaling side. That is not even close to aggressive water. The NPC advisor on the phone misled you in more ways than one.
Third, even if the NPC advisor continues to claim that aggressive water caused the white discoloration problems and “muddies the water,” you can use the fact that the plaster guy told you to lower the pH down below 7.0 for the winter as a possible corrective measure. It is likely that with cold winter water, the CSI was very aggressive during that time. Therefore, the plaster company would be responsible for that. But of course, that is not what caused the white discoloration. Your pictures show that the discoloration occurred before that time, and some show that they were present in some fashion prior to filling.
Fourth, let’s also understand that the plaster company (and the NPC advisor) likely know that making the water aggressive with adding acid (which also lowers the alkalinity) does not cause colored plaster to turn white in random and isolated areas. I am sure that they have performed acid treatments many times. It is common practice to perform “acid baths” to remove mottling and to darken colored plaster to look new again. If aggressive water causes a whitening of colored pool, then why do they perform acid treatments and make the water aggressive to darken colored plaster? There is no legitimate basis to claim that aggressive water causes white discoloration.
Fifth, the PB and/or plaster company are responsible for the type of fill water used to fill your pool and the subsequent start-up program. As I see it, you are covered in all respects.
I would hope that the PB is not trying to make additional money in his proposal to you, or that the plaster company would get paid for the entire “at cost” re-plastering project. I am certain that all of the parties are fully aware of the facts, and that your plaster job is not acceptable.
I am also glad that you asked for the NPC’s help and received an initial consultation, although you were disappointed in the response. I suggest that you forward a few more pictures to the NPC advisor and see what transpires. If there isn’t a change of mind and an acknowledgement that the problem is improper workmanship related, and isn’t water chemistry related, then please allow me to help you pursue this.
Unfortunately, what you have gone through with your pool happens often. But I have found most pool companies want to avoid going to trial (including small claims), including the NPC consultant people. They simply hope that you can be fooled and acquiesce. I hope you can receive a just resolution and an aesthetic pleasing pool to enjoy. That is what you paid good money for.
- Nov 12, 2017
- 11,834
- Pool Size
- 12300
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-40
This is exactly what the PBs initial proposal sounded like to me. Or at the very least the PB would break even on the redo, without any out of pocket. Him eating the profit on the redo is no kind of settlement. That's what my contractor pulled. I left that part of the tale out. His initial settlement wasn't a cash offer. He offered to waive what I owed him for an unrelated equipment installation. The bill for that was about $2800. So let's subtract his profit, the markup on the labor, and the markup on the equipment, and what he was really offering was probably closer to $1000, out of pocket.
And just to play devil's advocate... There seems to be this notion that if the PB eats the entire cost of the redo, resolving his own misdoing, and you end up with a pool that looks like it should have in the first place, but has undergone serious reconstruction (like a full chip out, etc), that somehow that is the pinnacle of what the PB should be liable for, and that him trying to negotiate that down is somehow acceptable. How did we get here? The PB repairing to 100% like-new, and absorbing all incidental expenses, should be the minimum he's responsible for, the rock bottom negotiating number, and some compensation for loss of use, stress, inconvenience, etc. should be added to that figure. And g-forbid any sort of apology would be offered (I'm still waiting for mine!!). As in, from day one, NOT after some long protracted battle: "Gee, this is entirely my fault. I am so sorry for this. Not only am I going to completely redo this for you, at no cost to you, but I'm going to upgrade your finish to PebbleTec for free, and throw in a free robot cleaner for the inconvenience I caused." That's what I do when I make a mistake on a client project.
This idea that the PB gets to start out by offering 1/4 of what is due, and must be begged or strong-armed or threatened to get him to capitulate to doing the right thing now seems to be the norm. How did that come to be?
I have mentioned to you before that all of this is clearly visible in your photos of the plaster before it was full. In comment #114 there is photographic evidence that these marks were all there prior to water going in.
Actually the northeast has a higher population of high end builders than the sunny states.
Fantastic post. I really appreciate the help. This will help immensely in discussions with the PB. I messaged the PB a short time ago asking for a face to face meeting at his office. The wife and I have decided to press harder and that the current offer isn't sufficient. I feel a face to face will accomplish far more than trading emails. As always, things would be put into writing, I have no trust in verbal agreements in situations like this.
I will shoot you a PM with my email address. Any test reports you could forward me would be great.
I also sent the NPC contact additional pictures a short time ago, including a few pictures I have that Riley00dog pointed out show the footprints/marks present before the pool was even filled with water.
- - - Updated - - -
Nice catch!!! I didn't even think I had pictures from the fill.
Pretty damming evidence to refute any water chemistry claim.
So to summarize. Again, i can't thank everyone enough for the professional opinions, help and advice.
Plan is to read up and educate myself more with much of what was said here, and specifically what OnBalance details. Going to meet with the PB face to face and present all of these pictures and have straightforward discussion about fixing this. No more "wait and it will clear" or "lower the PH" or "its normal for colored plasters to do this". Not going to sit there and threaten a lawsuit, but politely make it known that it is an option on the table.
My only concern is my contract states the following concerning plaster (which is only warrantied to 1 year). "Water chemistry should remain balanced to ensure maximum life expectancy of plaster. However, all plaster is susceptible to changes in appearance due to various metals, minerals, and organics in the water chemically interacting with the plaster on the pool surface. Such changes may be noticeable in the forms of calcification deposits (scale), hydration cracks, pitting or etching, staining, rusting (due to bleed-through from the reinforcing steel in the structure), and mottling (especially with grey plaster). Streaking and uneven hues should be expected with any plaster color, including white."
I made the problem known the first summer of the pool. Both in actual conversations with the PB and GC, and emails. Never in the last 2 years (past the first year) has the PB or plaster company ever mentioned warranty, so I feel comfortable with my position on that. But how does everyone feel with the wording in the contract that mentions changes in appearance and streaking/hues? I personally don't feel that footprints and the trowel marks coming from the deep end would count. Plus Looking back at the original photos from the fill, it seems that the large circular white section now present in my deep end matches up perfectly to the amount of water they got out of my house hose before the tankers arrived. You can see my hose in the fill pictures, above.
Plan is to read up and educate myself more with much of what was said here, and specifically what OnBalance details. Going to meet with the PB face to face and present all of these pictures and have straightforward discussion about fixing this. No more "wait and it will clear" or "lower the PH" or "its normal for colored plasters to do this". Not going to sit there and threaten a lawsuit, but politely make it known that it is an option on the table.
My only concern is my contract states the following concerning plaster (which is only warrantied to 1 year). "Water chemistry should remain balanced to ensure maximum life expectancy of plaster. However, all plaster is susceptible to changes in appearance due to various metals, minerals, and organics in the water chemically interacting with the plaster on the pool surface. Such changes may be noticeable in the forms of calcification deposits (scale), hydration cracks, pitting or etching, staining, rusting (due to bleed-through from the reinforcing steel in the structure), and mottling (especially with grey plaster). Streaking and uneven hues should be expected with any plaster color, including white."
I made the problem known the first summer of the pool. Both in actual conversations with the PB and GC, and emails. Never in the last 2 years (past the first year) has the PB or plaster company ever mentioned warranty, so I feel comfortable with my position on that. But how does everyone feel with the wording in the contract that mentions changes in appearance and streaking/hues? I personally don't feel that footprints and the trowel marks coming from the deep end would count. Plus Looking back at the original photos from the fill, it seems that the large circular white section now present in my deep end matches up perfectly to the amount of water they got out of my house hose before the tankers arrived. You can see my hose in the fill pictures, above.
- Nov 12, 2017
- 11,834
- Pool Size
- 12300
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-40
What's depicted in the images in post #177 has absolutely nothing to do with the disclaimers in that paragraph. That paragraph explicitly addresses "changes in appearance" once the pool is filled with water. It goes on to list all the things that might cause appearance issues. It in no way excuses the PB from the liability of defects in workmanship. This is not a case of defects in materials. Or anything remotely related to anything in that paragraph. No worries there, at all. Your plaster was damaged by the PB's crew, or by his subcontractor, before there was ever any water in the pool! Those images are the absolute smoking gun. It's indisputable that at least some of those white areas are boot prints. Whatever might have caused the other white areas is irrelevant. There's another image you have that clearly shows a barefoot print: toes, heal, arches. Case closed. Someone under the PBs employ walked on your freshly installed plaster. That's negligent. That's a defect in workmanship. No reasonable person could reasonably come to any other conclusion.
I believe the following are so well known in the industry as to be virtually indisputable. You NEVER stop a fill. You NEVER set foot on new plaster before there is water in it. Even the NPC makes this clear, in their own startup card, see Step 3 and Step 4 under the POOL FILLING DAY section:
https://mmgtx.com/docs/STARTUP-by-NPC.pdf
You have photographic evidence that both of those things happened. There is no negotiating to be done. The plaster was damaged by either the PB's crew, or his subcontractor. The PB is 100% liable to repair the damage, at no cost to you. Not pay for some of it. Not offer discounts for additional work. Not chip out just enough plaster to hide the damage with a partial redo. This is not a warranty issue. There is no prorating to be done. The damage occurred before the water was even in the pool, which by definition is before the contract was completed.
How you deal with the PB is at your discretion, of course. But I don't think you could be too matter of fact about it. The PB furnished unacceptable work by even the lowest of standards, he needs to do it over. You are not liable for any additional charges for the contracted work, because he has not yet fulfilled the contract. Whether you paid him in full or not is irrelevant. I think you could make a case that the warranty period hasn't even started yet, because the plaster has yet to be installed correctly.
The only thing that could possibly be negotiated is how the PB intends to make up for your loss of use and inconvenience. If it were me, I'd be polite, lay out the photos in front of him, and simply state "The plaster installation was not performed correctly. Here's the proof. The damage my pool sustained was caused by a defect in workmanship, by your crew, and it is unacceptable. We expect you to completely replace the plaster at no charge, starting with a full chipout, and including any and all incidental expenses. We'd like to discuss how you intend to make good on our loss of use and inconvenience. We have some ideas about that if you'd care to discuss it." Then if he asks, you can offer to settle this matter amicably if he'll upgrade your surface to pebble for free. That's your opening offer. I wouldn't even acknowledge or discuss his original offer. That wasn't even appropriate, let alone fair. Then, if you want, you can negotiate it down to something acceptable to you, like maybe you each split the additional cost of the pebble 50/50.
Sorry to go on. Just my thoughts about it...
I believe the following are so well known in the industry as to be virtually indisputable. You NEVER stop a fill. You NEVER set foot on new plaster before there is water in it. Even the NPC makes this clear, in their own startup card, see Step 3 and Step 4 under the POOL FILLING DAY section:
https://mmgtx.com/docs/STARTUP-by-NPC.pdf
You have photographic evidence that both of those things happened. There is no negotiating to be done. The plaster was damaged by either the PB's crew, or his subcontractor. The PB is 100% liable to repair the damage, at no cost to you. Not pay for some of it. Not offer discounts for additional work. Not chip out just enough plaster to hide the damage with a partial redo. This is not a warranty issue. There is no prorating to be done. The damage occurred before the water was even in the pool, which by definition is before the contract was completed.
How you deal with the PB is at your discretion, of course. But I don't think you could be too matter of fact about it. The PB furnished unacceptable work by even the lowest of standards, he needs to do it over. You are not liable for any additional charges for the contracted work, because he has not yet fulfilled the contract. Whether you paid him in full or not is irrelevant. I think you could make a case that the warranty period hasn't even started yet, because the plaster has yet to be installed correctly.
The only thing that could possibly be negotiated is how the PB intends to make up for your loss of use and inconvenience. If it were me, I'd be polite, lay out the photos in front of him, and simply state "The plaster installation was not performed correctly. Here's the proof. The damage my pool sustained was caused by a defect in workmanship, by your crew, and it is unacceptable. We expect you to completely replace the plaster at no charge, starting with a full chipout, and including any and all incidental expenses. We'd like to discuss how you intend to make good on our loss of use and inconvenience. We have some ideas about that if you'd care to discuss it." Then if he asks, you can offer to settle this matter amicably if he'll upgrade your surface to pebble for free. That's your opening offer. I wouldn't even acknowledge or discuss his original offer. That wasn't even appropriate, let alone fair. Then, if you want, you can negotiate it down to something acceptable to you, like maybe you each split the additional cost of the pebble 50/50.
Sorry to go on. Just my thoughts about it...
Ya water balance has nothing to do with what I see in that I filled pool. I think you are in a good position man. You cAn see all those foot prints and such right in the pics of the finished pool.
Good luck. I can’t wait to hear what he says. It seems pretty open and shut to me. I don’t know how u can say a footprint is molting or other spots. They just happen to be in the shape of a foot print?
Good luck. I can’t wait to hear what he says. It seems pretty open and shut to me. I don’t know how u can say a footprint is molting or other spots. They just happen to be in the shape of a foot print?