Hilltop Pools and Spas, Inc.

Our Mission Statement has governed our company since 1976. That Mission Statement is as follows:

"To have a positive impact on all people who come in contact with our company by providing the finest products, the best service, and an attitude of honesty, integrity, and appreciation"”

We are always sorry when our Mission Statement is not accomplished. However, the case cited in this review has no basis in fact and is an affront to our company and its many dedicated employees. This is a blatant Breach of Contract legal situation.

When we visit our potential customers' homes, we attempt to identify things that could alter or prevent a typical swimming pool installation so that we do not give unrealistic design ideas and expectations to our customers. In doing so, we must depend on the customer to provide us with a survey and/or septic system location plat of their property. With this customer, there was a septic system inside and drainage culvert adjacent to their desired swimming pool location. During our first appointment regarding the construction of a swimming pool, we informed the customer that they will need to provide an as-built property survey to locate the drainage easement, receive approval from Gwinnett Environmental Health Department for the new septic system location, and reroute their septic system before we could begin the process of obtaining a building permit from Gwinnett County Planning and Development. At that time, we also informed the customer that we do not handle the rerouting of septic lines or the permitting of septic relocation but any reputable septic contractor would handle such tasks.

Following the preliminary meetings and discussions, the customer entered into a binding contractual agreement with us for the construction of a vinyl liner swimming pool on 7/20/16. The agreement did not call for us to handle septic relocation or septic relocation permitting.

While initially discussing the relocation of the customer's septic system, we also advised the customer that it would be beneficial to submit the proposed swimming pool site plan to Gwinnett County and obtain an informal "approval" before rerouting the septic lines. We explained to the customer that Gwinnett County and Environmental Health do not work collectively and by taking this precaution they would avoid the risk and potential added expense of rerouting the septic lines to accommodate a pool drawing that is later rejected by Gwinnett County.

In subsequent email correspondence on 7/21/16 and 7/22/16, we again provided the customer with a detailed explanation as to why the septic system needed be moved before obtaining a building permit for the swimming pool. Also included in this correspondence were detailed steps necessary to accomplish this task as well as recommendations for reputable septic contractors. It must be noted, however, that the customer did not hire any of the recommended septic contractors and instead hired a septic contractor that refused to handle the planning and permitting of the septic relocation.

On 8/1/16, we were provided with the customer's newly completed as-built property survey from the survey company.

On 8/25/16, we notified the customer that an informal "approval" of the site plan had been obtained from Gwinnett County and that they could now begin the process of rerouting the septic lines. However, since the customer's septic contractor refused to handle the planning and permitting of the septic relocation, the customer attempted to obtain the septic relocation permit on their own. In doing so, the customer submitted one of our preliminary pool site plans/drawings that was not intended for septic relocation and thus, did not include appropriate septic system information. As a result, the customer's submission was rejected.

On 10/2/16, the customer notified us that her septic system had been rerouted. However, the customer believed that the septic system had been relocated incorrectly and contacted us to ask some very basic regulation information on the septic system reroute. We answered all of the customer's questions the next morning. A few days later, the customer informed us of their intent to breach their contractual agreement with us and that they expected to receive a refund of their deposit.

In email correspondence dated 10/6/16, we provided the customer with a timeline of events related to their project as well as a description of the work that we had already completed on their behalf. We also informed the customer that we had not breached the terms of our contractual agreement, had spent a considerable amount of time and company resources working on the project, and, as such, would not refund their deposit.

A review of the facts of this matter clearly indicates that we have adequately met the terms of the contractual agreement with the customer. Unfortunately, we were unable to move forward with the customer's project because the customer failed to obtain an approved Environmental Health septic plat. Once this task was accomplished, we fully intended to commence the work as described in the contract and abide by its terms. Unfortunately, this was not possible as the customer decided instead to terminate the contract.

To date, this customer has attempted to intimidate us into refunding their deposit by posting negative online reviews as well as sending threatening "legal" correspondence. We refuse to be bullied and will defend our position in any forum necessary.