[Irishmen]

A homeowner on Little Mountain Loop in The Village of Duvall paid thousands to have natural grass removed and artificial grass and rock installed in front yard and now The Villages are making them take it out. They have lost thousands of dollars to Pooters. Company called Pooters who has a tent on The Square on Market nights deceived them that this was OK. Homeowner didn't verify Pooters was telling them the truth and collected money knowing it was against deed restrictions. How can The Villages allow this vendor to continue to operate on the Square in this manner? Taking advantage of Senior Citizens no matter should not be permitted. Yes it is ultimately the homeowners responsibility but How many other homeowners are being deceived by Pooters? Pooters operates on directly managed property by the Entertainment Division under the umbrella of The Villages Community District. According to a friend of the homeowner Pooters even had some official looking document from the State stating artificial grass is OK so I don't blame the homeowner I blame Pooters. It's a shame The Villages continue 100% blaming the homeowner. How can The Villages let this continue. Pooters was well
aware of the deed restrictions. It's up to us Villagers to watch our own backs. Any credible landscape company will advise the homeowner to get approval from Architectual Review.

[graciegirl]

They taught this to us in grade school....You can do anything with permission.

Here in The Villages it means..... Ask the Architectural Review Board first.

I feel for this homeowner and I do blame this company, but all this stress could have been averted if the homeowner had cleared it first.

[Virginians]

Always wondered if this had ever been done and if The Villages would approve it. For $8500.00 I bet it looked better than many of the weed infested yards that seem to be allowed. I saw one the other that had not been cut all year.

[Pturner]

Yes, it is the homeowner's responsibility. But shame on the company. Has the homeowner sought any relief from the company? If so and did not get satisfaction, Irishman, please ask the homeowner to report this to Seniors Against Crime, and to the Florida Attorney General- Consumer Protection Division.

It wouldn't hurt to share the info with the Sumter County Commissioners and inquire whether an investigation might be done with the possibly of not to renew the offending company's business license. At least make them aware. If nothing else, if they hear from more ripped off consumers, they might be compelled to run the company out of dodge.

Predator contractors do so much damage to so many people. We need to push back hard. We need to stop letting them get away with it.

Hey Irishman, get the homeowner to do this, and we'll make you an honorary member of the Girl's Posse.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Yes, it is the homeowner's responsibility. But shame on the company. Has the homeowner sought any relief from the company? If so and did not get satisfaction, Irishman, please ask the homeowner to report this to Seniors Against Crime, and to the Florida Attorney General- Consumer Protection Division.

It wouldn't hurt to share the info with the Sumter County Commissioners and inquire whether an investigation might be done with the possibly of not to renew the offending company's business license. At least make them aware. If nothing else, if they hear from more ripped off consumers, they might be compelled to run the company out of dodge.

Predator contractors do so much damage to so many people. We need to push back hard. We need to stop letting them get away with it.

Hey Irishman, get the homeowner to do this, and we'll make you an honorary member of the Girl's Posse.

What kinda name is Pooters anyway? Sounds nasty to me. I think we should round up the girls and make a little visit.

I feel bad for these folks being taken. I couldn't imagine losing $8500 so that's why I would have done alot of research before getting something like this done. Jees I put up a $300 flagpole but before I did I went thru the approval by the arc . Doesn't everyone know that anytime you're going to change the outside appearance of your house or property there are cahnnels you have to go through.Expensive lesson.

[renielarson]

I'd join your posse on that visit to Pooters.

I hold The Villages somewhat responsible because they are leasing the space to Pooters which, in my opinion, would condone what Pooters markets...Architectural Review Board or not. IMHO, if The Villages okays Pooters to sell their goods on The Square then that would be an endorsement of approval. At least that is what I'd think.

[Larry Wilson]

In a patio villa neighborhood I know, every kind of yard is being allowed. Ever since the water restrictions, they have allowed all kinds of maintenance free yards. Designer stones, cement, artificial turf and one guy I know even has shredded tires.
The Villages hasn't said anything about any of them. Course no one has complained either.

[Irishmen]

Originally Posted by Virginians

Always wondered if this had ever been done and if The Villages would approve it. For $8500.00 I bet it looked better than many of the weed infested yards that seem to be allowed. I saw one the other that had not been cut all year.

Actually drive by and see yourself. It's a disaster. Looks like it was rolled out and left. There are ridges where the pieces were just laid on top of each other causing ridges. Pooters told the homeowner the lines would eventually go away. What a scam!

[skip0358]

Maybe a peaceful protest in front of the pooters tent is in order. I'm sure that would get the point across and the word out!!

[ssmith]

Could this be taken to a local television station and posted there....or Seniors against Crime. It isn't exactly a crime, I guess. in terms of the law, but it sure is a crime morally!!!!

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by Irishmen

Actually drive by and see yourself. It's a disaster. Looks like it was rolled out and left. There are ridges where the pieces were just laid on top of each other causing ridges. Pooters told the homeowner the lines would eventually go away. What a scam!

Good morning Irishmen. I've seen the display and talked to the people at the booth on Market Night at the square. I am curious if the homeowner was told to take up the artificial turf because of what you describe above or if it isn't allowed under any circumstance?

Regardless, it is a shame that someone is going to lose money on something they thought was going to benefit them and their property.

[The Villager II]

what a mess. I would sure be horified to see my neighbor put in artificial grass, pink birds, purple shutters etc. etc. as I like the fact that we all blend into one similar look.

On the other hand, what a shame for a vendor to do what I am sure he knows gos against the rules of the villages.

I vote for taking it out and reinstalling grass or even weeds rather than artificial grass.

[Russ_Boston]

One thing is for sure. If that homeowner had been a member of TOTV they would have saved themselves a lot of headaches and money. Even before I lived there I knew EVERYTHING has to be approved by the ARC ahead of time.

[Freeda]

It is very sad to hear someone having such a loss as this. I suggest that the homeowner file a dispute with their bank or credit card company (since there may be time limits on making a claim), however the payment was made, and also with the vendor, if they haven't already (the first post made me think that talking with the seller had already been tried, but if not this should of course be done) asking for a refund based on the poor result as described above; plus the vendor's knowledge, if it can be proven, that the artificial turf would violate deed restrictions at the buyer's location. Even though the buyer should have checked and would have learned of the deed restriction, if the vendor actually had knowledge of it, they would have also realized that the buyer was acting without this knowledge, and under general contract law a contract can be void or voidable under a theory along the lines of 'impossibility (of the intended benefit, I.e., the artificial turf) for intended use', particularly where one of the parties was acting with knowledge of the 'impossibility'; or possibly under some type of a 'mistake' theory. I didn't specialize in contract law nor did I practice in Florida, but these general theories probably would apply in some form in most if not all states; and so lastly, I would also find an attorney if the dispute isn't resolved quickly. And take photos.