New home owner wants $17,000 for leaking swimming pool

A couple bought a home and then complained they had to top up the swimming pool weekly because it was leaking. The previous owner asked if they'd put the bung in properly. Photo / 123RF

A couple who bought a home with a pool for those “hot sunny days” later claimed it was not in working order because they had to top it up with 40 centimetres of water each week.

The Disputes Tribunal has now dismissed their claim for almost $17,000 to cover the cost of having the pool prepped, a fibreglass laminate applied to the whole pool, and top-coated with gelcoat.

The previous homeowner, at whom the claim was directed, said in evidence to the tribunal if the new owners had asked why the pool was leaking he would have told them to put the bung in properly.

The applicants bought the property that included an in-ground swimming pool in June 2022, then later took the view the pool was “not in reasonable working order” as they had to top it up each week.

An initial hearing set for May last year was adjourned to give the unnamed couple the chance to provide evidence from an independent professional about any issues with the pool and what it might take to fix the problem.

The homeowners received a report in October 2022 from an expert who found the pool had “burst blisters” leading to what appeared to be cracks around the pool, but the report did not state that this made the pool unoperational or that it caused the water loss.

The applicants said they had asked this expert to provide evidence but that person was unwilling to have any further involvement.

They did not provide evidence detailing the issue with the pool, but had received a quote from a second expert to recoat the surface of the pool and also provided photos which showed cracks in the fibreglass liner.

The tribunal said it would be unjust to grant a further adjournment as the applicants had had adequate opportunity to provide information but had not taken the opportunity to do so.

In addition to the applicants not meeting the standard of proof, tribunal referee Leonie Thompson also considered the respondents’ view that as the pool never leaked before and due to the large quantity of water escaping it was likely that the bung was not properly inserted.

The previous homeowner said if he’d been told that water was escaping he would have visited the property to check this as there was “a knack to the bung”, but he was never given this opportunity.

“I am therefore unable to exclude this as a possibility for the water loss,” Thompson said.

In reaching her decision, Thompson also had to assess whether the real estate agent made any misrepresentation over the pool’s operating condition.

She found the agent’s marketing represented that the pool was in operating condition.

“This is because the advertisement clearly states … ‘beautiful homestead … complete with amazing gardens, tennis court and swimming pool for those hot summer days’ …

“A reasonable person would comprehend that the pool was in operating condition as it would be of little use on hot summer days if it were not,” Thompson said.

Her finding that there was no misrepresentation was also based on the fact that the purchasers had used the pool the previous summer and it was therefore in “operating” condition to some degree.

Thompson acknowledged the pool had needed to be topped up by around 40cm each week, but the reason had not been established to the standard required for the claim to succeed on the balance of probabilities and dismissed the claim.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.