Hellopeter
Share Your Experience
CO
Candy O

1 reviews | Active since Jul 2012

19 Oct 2018, 10:45

MONEY WASTED ON POWER PLASTICS POOL COVER

Terribly disappointed in a 500 micron Sol plus Guard Geo Bubble pool cover purchased on 13 January 2015 at a cost of R2 202.48 for our holiday house in Langebaan. The pool is 5.5 x 3m and only maintained via a non stabilised pool floater and used at most 20 days per year .

Just over three years later their cover has torn and disintegrated to such a point that it cant be used and has to be dumped. The disintegration began with the broad middle seam where the two covers are joined - the top seam lifting from the bottom seam.

A complaint lodged with Power Plastics has been met with excuses of poor/incorrect chemical/ water management and statements of ''shock dosed'', ''chemical abuse - there is no point in arguing this matter',. ''please refrain from using so much chemicals and ensure chemical levels are as per industry recommendation'' and that ours is an ''isolated incident''.

A completed cover problem checklist which will help their policy of ''continuous improvement and development'' has been met with no response and ignored.

...BUT.... they stand with the quality of their products with a life expectancy of 4 - 6 years and can even last up to 10 years with good care.

*******!! Two cheap 300 micron pool blankets purchased in Table View from a local plastics shop have lasted well beyond the 500 micron/expensive pool cover purchased from Power Plastics .

MONEY WASTED!!!

0
Replies (2)
Power Plastics Pool Covers
Power Plastics Pool Covers's reply22 Oct 2018, 13:06
Official
 We regard this Hello Peter complaint as “unfair” and incorrect to post a message like this in the public space. This clients customer’s experience is not the same as the many thousands of other customers. We have supp**** many thousands of square metres of material all over the country over a long period of time and this is not experienced  by others who look after their pool water.  We have requested that this customer retract their comment until such time as we are both able to conclude that in fact our product is faulty. From the photo’s one can only assume chemical abuse as our experience shows that where there is considerable bleaching of the cover – this cover appears ‘white’ in the photo – the cause is chemical abuse. The client has not dismissed this as a possibility, however refuses to take any responsibility that a holiday house pool seen for 20 days a year could have considerable pool chemical abuse. We retain our contention that considerable chemical abuse has taken place within this pool which has and will cause premature disintegration of a cover.  This complaint as stated is in no way accurate nor does it reflect our product.  It points to a property where pool chemicals are not managed and a client who feels it appropriate to apportion blame to the supplier for their misuse. Hello Peter can also be held to task on allowing this falsification of facts. 
CO
Candy O's update05 Feb 2019, 17:28
Reviewer Update
I beg to differ on your response. We have TOTALLY refuted the possibility that chemical abuse is a factor - however you have insisted that it is to blame - without any proof whatsoever. The pool uses a non stabilised floater which is replaced every 4 - 6 weeks as necessary. The pool has never been shock treated. Your statement that the pool is ''seen'' for 20 days a year is incorrect. The pool is seen every day - however the pool is only USED for at most 20 days a year. Other than requesting us to remove this complaint and your statement above ''until such time as we are able to conclude that in fact our product is faulty'' , we have never heard from you again, so how do you intend to conclude anything other than by using the bully tactics with your statement of ''Hello Peter can also be held to task on allowing this falsification of facts.''