HINES POOL & SPA INC

"The Member is an employee of a commercial pool that is a cleaning customer of ours. Our best guess is that he is referring to a time in June 2009 when our service technician inspected the heater at Davis Place and determined that it needed to be replaced. We could not fix the heater due to it not being compliant with current Texas Boiler Code Commission requirements. We had informed the property of this issue when we first started to maintain their pool. The maintenance logs for the last 2 years indicate there were no irregularities with the chemistry that would cause the heater to become damaged. Though we can appreciate the frustration caused by the law not allowing us to fix the heater, thus forcing the company to replace it, its damage was not caused by us. The property the Member works for still uses us for their pool service needs, which I highly doubt would be the case were we truly responsible for the damage or had our service guys actually quit coming."

"As soon as our tech was made aware of the leakage problem he came back out to assess the situation. He determined that the customer needed a new O-ring. However, the customer refused to believe the tech’s conclusion and accused him of putting it back improperly. Had he attempted to fix the problem himself as he states he could have, he would have realized this was not the case. But in a sincere effort to satisfy the customer made out of good faith, the tech endeavored to position the O-ring in such a way as to temporarily stop the leak. This was done for no additional cost to the customer in accordance with our policy of providing outstanding service and unwillingness to charge for patches we know can’t possibly last long. Normally we avoid doing such work at all to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings where the customer does not wish to pay for a new part they need and choose to believe the problem is fixed when a tech is able to create a temporary solution. In the short run a patch may be cheaper, but in the long run it will cost more money. As can be read on an earlier report on this site, less scrupulous pool companies have no problem charging for doing such work. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to have created a patch at all, as it clearly led the customer to believe he really didn’t need the O-ring and that telling him he did was both arrogant and incorrect on our part."

"The Member called our technician out to diagnose a problem. Our technician determined that the pump could be temporarily fixed for a lower cost, but that in its condition the fix would only last a few months at most before the pump broke again and needed replacing. Given that it is our policy to ensure quality repairs that will ultimately save the customer money, our technician told the customer that his pump needed replacing. The offer was made in good faith, and we are sorry if we failed to make clear to the Member the reasons for which we believed his pump needed replacing instead of patching up. But since he went with another company without consulting us first about his financial concerns, all we could do was give him a 90 dollar credit towards the invoice we sent him for diagnosing the problem. His final bill was only 90 dollars for a service charge, not the 160 he has put in his complaint. Given that he did not decide to go with us, he could not access our quality nor was the price for diagnosing his problem as much as he stated due to our credit to him given out of responsiveness to his concerns. Our tech’s assessment that his pump needed replacing and not patching up was made because of his experience and professional knowledge of the equipment. The other company may have been cheaper, but in the long run his faulty pump will cost him more money than we would have charged to replace it. Though we understand occasionally that mistakes may be made and unhappy customers will be the result, we feel strongly that this was not such a case and being given an overall grade of D is exceedingly undeserved."

"The Member was not charged for any leak detection. The Member speaks as if a singular valve had to be replaced and that its replacement was done incorrectly, but three separate valves were replaced. It took multiple visits as a result of subsequent valves’ failures not being obvious until the previous valves had been fixed. Had the tech taken more time to check each individual valve in the first place there is no guarantee the problem could have been spotted, and such a method certainly would have taken more hours of labor and thus a greater expense to the customer. We regret that the Member did not appreciate having to call in again to update us on there being further problems, however it was an honest effort on the technician’s part to keep her costs down. In addition, when one of the valves our tech put in proved inadequate, which we were made aware of only after this review was posted, we made a good faith effort through replacing the valve for free."

"The Member called Hines for a one time clean and to teach her how to vacuum the pool. Our cleaner was instructed to call the day before going and that the customer only wanted him to arrive between 10 and 3, which he did. The first day the cleaner disassembled and cleaned four cartridges, reassembled and shocked. The next day he returned to demonstrate the vacuum procedure for the customer per the original agreement. The Member asked us to send the cleaner back to vacuum for free. This was not in the original agreement and we informed the Member that we would have to charge for additional cleaning services. She declined to pay for further cleaning services. We do not feel it is fair to be penalized for not agreeing to give out free service after we have met the customer's initial request."