Jade Pools
Be prepared for extra charges

Along one side of an avenue at West Hoxton, every house being built or planned to be built is having a swimming pool constructed.

The swimming pools are of approximately identical sizes contracted to be built for similar basic costs.

At the moment, the highest extra charges are being made by Jade Swimming Pools — Jade Pools, for short — of Baulkham Hills, which raises interesting questions.

When all the swimming pools on this particular street are completed, a factual comparison of costs is planned to be made.

Piering charges	Disposal of excavated soil	Lopsided lights
This refers to extra charges for piering and additional reenforcement. Upon excavation of the pool area and without prior advice to the customer, the Jade Pools site supervisor said they had done piering on the site. The customer was not consulted about this work and was simply presented with a fait accompli. Jade Pools then called in an engineer to say the piering was necessary and that the pool needed extra reenforcement. Jade Pools promised that an engineer's certification to this effect would be furnished the customer. When the engineer's certification arrived, it said nothing about piering nor extra reenforcements. The Jade Pools charge for this work was $7712. Together with the extra charge for disposal of excavated material (see next section), these two charges totalled $13,712 — or more than 50% of the basic quoted price for building the pool. It should be noted that the owner of an adjoining property with a swimming pool being built had said he was not charged a cent for piering or extra reenforcements. Only when the customer pointed out the deficiency in the engineer's certification did Jade Pools secure a second certification when the first certification should have been correct in every respect in the first instance.	This refers to the disposal of the soil excavated from the pool and refers to what they call "overburden" and the "disposal" of excavated material. According to the contract, overburden removed from site carried a charge of $60 per cubic metre. Removal of the excavated soil was to be charged at $120 per kilometre after the first 5 kilometres irrespective of quantity of excavated material or number of trips made. Tipping fees would be extra. Upon checking with Liverpool Council the customer was informed that there were two sites within 15 kilometres of the pool's location where the soil could be tipped. The tip sites were 10.4 and 14.5 kilometres, respectively, from the pool excavation site. INFORMATION ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THESE NEARBY TIPS WAS PASSED ON TO THE JADE POOLS SITE SUPERVISOR BEFORE THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL WAS REMOVED FROM SITE. The customer agreed to the extra charges subject to the terms of the contract. The handwritten form prepared by the site supervisor was clearly marked SUBJECT TO CONTRACT above the customer's signature. The Jade Pools site supervisor declared several times that Jade Pools was not making any money on this transaction and whatever the subcontractor(s) charged would be the charge to the customer, which seemed hardly a realistic claim in the world of business. What happened? In an invoice sent to the customer and said to be covering tipping fees, Jade Pools or its subcontractors appeared to have trucked the soil to be tipped all the way to Londonderry at a greater distance than the tips Liverpool Council suggested. The distance to the nearest tip was less than 11 kilometres and if a maximum of 6 kilometres was allowed, the cost would have been no more than $720. The invoice forwarded by Jade Pools to the customer was for tipping fees of $1936. In the total charges for the removal of excavated soil, the overburden was charged at $70 per cubic metre when the contract specifically quoted $60 per cubic metre removed from site. Based on the customer's previous payments, all prices quoted in the contract were inclusive of GST. Jade Pool's charge for disposal of the excavated material, including tipping fees, totalled $6000. With lack of specific detail on the cost being charged, the customer requested copies of invoices and/or receipts in order that the quantity removed could be better assessed and prompt payment made. This request was made several times. The site supervisor had said the work was subcontracted, so there should have been no problem with providing proper documentation. Instead of providing helpful information, Jade Swimming Pools mananging director John Daniel finally replied to the customer's request as follows: "In answer to your request that invoices/receipts be issued for Variation 525, your request is denied. These accounts are internal private company figures and you have no business asking for them. Variation 525 was legally signed for by you (NOTE: The variation was specifically agreed to SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT) and I ask that you refer to Page 15 SC11 in relation to variations in the swimming pool contract. You cannot withhold the $6,000 outstanding and you are also in contravention of the Security of Payments Act 1999. We respectfully ask that you forward our payment immediately. Please refer to the swimming pool contract (Page 9, Clause 6) reads progress payments not received on completion of the work will attract a rate of %. (If nothing is listed then the rate applicable to unpaid judgements by the NSW Supreme Court from time to time). Yours truly John Daniel Managing Director Jade Swimming Pools In comparison, it is interesting to note that the owner of the pool in a nearby property declared he was charged just over $800 for the removal of the excavated soil. Later developments are planned to be included in succeeding updates.	A touch of humour emerged when the pool builder's representative suggested a deviation from the approved plans. Instead of submerged lights at each end of the pool, he suggested the two lights be on one side of the pool. It seemed not a bad idea until the customer discovered the provision for the lights were at different depths when they should have been symmetrical and balanced. For all the seemingly good intentions, the side of the pool with provisions for the pair of lights did, on examination, look like a woman with one breast lower than the other. Jade Pools rectified the problem.