On 13 June 2019 the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal ordered the manufacturer of a specialist gel lining for swimming pools to rectify the applicants’ swimming pool to a usable condition rather than award compensation based on the alleged need of the applicants to completely replace the swimming pool.
In August 2014 the applicants had contracted to have a pool installed at their property. In early January 2015 the pool was installed by Pool Ezy. By January 2016 the applicants had noticed problems with the pool and on 3 February 2016 the respondent inspected the pool and noted problems with the gel coating, the crazing, and the internal deflection of the swimming pool wall. Around August 2016 the respondent sought to remedy the issues with the gel lining but by 14 November 2016 the applicants refused access to the respondent in relation to rectification works.
Relevantly the warranty documentation provided with the pool ran for 10 years from the date of installation and required the surface of the pool to meet AS/NZS1638-1994. The applicants’ expert gave evidence that it was not possible to obtain the same finish as an original pool with any rectification work and had concerns whether the faulty gel coat would rise through any re-applied gel coat. He also pointed to two previous experiences who had their pools repaired by the manufacturer. However, the respondent’s expert also concluded that there were no structural defects and the shell integrity of the pool had not been compromised. Therefore the Tribunal found that replacement of the shell would be unnecessary because recoating was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances.
This matter may have been avoided by better communication between the parties and the applicants allowing the manufacturer to attempt rectification.