[Sidney Lanier]

It's a long story that I'll make as brief as I can, and I will not use names as my interactions were with the roles people occupy....

We bought a 3-1/2 year old resale last fall and left TV immediately following the closing, were back briefly over Christmas/New Year's, and didn't return till February, having spent the month of January in South America. By that point we had received two water bills--and something didn't look right. I took the two bills to the North Sumter Utility Company, where an employee took one look and said, more or less, 'Holy cow!' I said, 'Something didn't look right to me too; what's the story?' She explained that the bills showed that we were using 30,000 gallons of sprinkler water each month, in contrast to the typical usage for a property like ours which should have been 4-5,000 gallons. 'Holy cow!' indeed! She also checked back into the records and told me that although she couldn't give me copies of the previous owner's records for privacy reasons--understandable--she did assure me that astronomical sprinkler water bills on the account went back to the very first bill, at that point nearly 4 years earlier! She also immediately sent a serviceman to check the system, who examined everything and told us that the control box wasn't set for significant overwatering and that the meter was functioning properly.

I contacted TV to find out if I could get a diagram of the sprinkler system and learned that the company that had installed it at the time the house was built was still working in TV and that I should call them for further information. (I had nightmarish visions of tearing up the concrete driveway....) I reached a man who sounded extremely knowledgeable and made an appointment for him to come, figure out what was wrong, and repair it. It took him a few minutes to figure out where to dig, dug up I would say no more than 2 or 3 shovelfuls of soil, reached into the ground and pulled out a sprinkler line that had just ended in the ground, with no sprinkler head attached to it and obviously no remains of a sprinkler head broken off. It had just been left loose in the ground, apparently overlooked by the original installer of the system, meaning that whenever that sprinkler zone was on, the water simply ran as though from the end of a hose and allowed no pressure for the rest of the sprinkler heads on that zone!!! All that was needed was screwing in a sprinkler head and setting it at ground level where it belonged--and the problem was fixed! Our next-door neighbors, who are the original owners of their home and who do their own gardening, validated that there had NEVER been a sprinkler head in that location.

With the feeling that I was dealing with an original construction defect, I contacted the head of the Utility Company and, on principle, asked for an adjustment in our two months of water bill, more as an acknowledgment that the problem went back to the time that the house was built. My first email, though not returned to me, didn't elicit a response; my second one elicited an apology about not having received the first email, followed by an explanation that as far as the Utility Company was concerned, if the water had passed through our meter and the meter wasn't shown to be defective, then no adjustment was possible and the bill is mine. I did mention to her that I was troubled that no employee processing payments and/or nothing in their software would notice and kick out an exception when a house was using SIX TIMES the amount of water than it should have been.... She then suggested that I contact the Warranty Department, which I did.

Contacting the Warranty Department, I was assigned an examiner who was basically impossible to reach; other than leaving him a message, I had to wait for him to contact me, and he was polite to a fault. I made it clear that I had asked for an adjustment in the 2 months of irrigation water bills only because of a principle--that this was a defect that existed from the time of construction and had resulted from an error in construction, and that an acknowledgment of this would have been more than enough. Briefly put, he stuck to the 'party line' of the 1 year warranty, and our home was at that time nearly 4 years old. I attempted to explain to him that a defect created by a subcontractor of the developer hardly seemed to fall into the same category as a problem that first developed when the home was 4 years old, but it was pointless as he kept repeating the 1 year warranty 'mantra.' I finally said that although the previous owners were out of the picture, based on this construction defect created by the developer's subcontractor installing one line of the sprinkler system incorrectly, the developer's pockets were certainly much enriched by the astronomical water bills paid by the frail, less than competent, 90-year-old previous owners for 3-1/2 years.

Wow! Did the politeness disappear fast! For those who remember that part of U.S. history having to do with 'circling the wagons,' something the westward pioneers did when attacked by Native American warriors who objected to the settlers simply taking their land, this member of the Warranty Department jumped down my throat, making it clear that the developer had nothing to do with the utility company, that the latter is an independent autonomous organization with no relation to the developer, and that the developer is blameless and faultless. Not knowing whether this ownership question is true or not, I had no choice but to accept the statement--not that it changes anything from the original issue.

Around this time I received a phone call from the head of the Building Department for all of TV. He too was polite but with a real edge in his voice, telling me unequivocally--and essentially--'The original owners were told that they could get full instructions on the operations of the irrigation system and get all their questions answered during the first month of home ownership, and if they didn't do it, tough luck!' In other words, the 1 year warranty had now dropped to 1 month on the sprinkler system, and he assiduously defended the developer in this arrangement. The bottom line is that there does NOT exist anything along the lines of goodwill to a Villages resident and honesty in acknowledging the error made by the subcontractor. I asked him if it was still within the purview of the rep from the Warranty Department to make his own determination based on such goodwill factors, to which he replied 'of course,' that he didn't dictate to the Warranty Department reps. However, at the time of my final contact with the latter after this conversation, the rep told me that the head of the Building Department had already made the final decision. Hmmm....

Lest the question come up as to whether this was really an original construction defect rather than a problem that developed after the warranty period, this can be affirmed in 3 independent ways: (1) the utility company employee stated unequivocally that the irrigation water bills on the house had been astronomically high from the very first bill at the time the house had been built; (2) I watched the repair as it was done and plainly saw that the open line had been left in the ground; and (3) the neighbor affirmed that there had never been a sprinkler in that location after the repair was done.

Silly me, still feeling that there was an injustice done, I decided to write one more email to all parties concerned, but I could not find an email address for either the Building Department or the Warranty Department. I posted a thread on TOTV asking if anyone had email addresses for these two offices. One TOTV member known to be knowledgeable responded to me, suggesting that whatever I send, I should send a copy to the District Administrator for The Villages, explaining that this is an extremely conscientious individual who would surely have the courtesy and take the time to respond and perhaps offer suggestions. I did this, and though this email was never returned to me as 'undeliverable,' I never heard back from this individual.

Then, as a member of a neighborhood association, our email address is on a mass mailing list, and we received an email from our VHA representative asking if there were any issues that residents felt needed addressing. I decided to respond with this whole story, and I received a response back very quickly. Because it struck me as, well, I'm not sure how to describe it, I will copy portions from the response and paste them here:

"We are fortunate to have a developer that not only lives here, but is very concerned about the problems that arise and remains involved in its ongoing success. Because of this, I often hear that residents think the family should be our 'daddy' and take
care of all our problems and issues without any cost or responsibility to us. If you purchased a home in a Del Webb community or in any other development (whether a retirement community or not), do you honestly think that the parent company that developed the area would fix a problem discovered at the time of the resale of the home if it was no longer covered by the initial warranty?"

When I emailed back this this response seemed very strange in light of my explanation that this was NOT a warranty problem that evolved and became evident at the time of resale but was a issue that existed from the time of construction that unfortunately didn't come to light because of the confusion of the very elderly and shaky original owners until new owners realized that something was wrong. Here is the next response:

"Please understand that I constantly get the criticism about the owners of the development group. It quite often sounds like a teenager ranting that his parents would not
buy him a new car, even though they can afford it - hence my reference to 'daddy' since that appears to be the role many people in The Villages feel the Morse family should play. I have been told that they make too much money - well thank God for that! I don't know a corporation in this world who would continue to build, maintain and provide services if they were losing money!"

Then followed an apology from this VHA rep for such a strident response and an acknowledgment that our sprinkler problem going back to its original installation did not fall into the category of expecting 'daddy' to buy us a new car. The rep further explained that "My duties as a representative of our neighborhood for the VHA is to be a conduit of information from the CDD & developer and a voice to them of problems and concerns from the neighborhood." At that point I clearly understood that the VHA is a shill for the developer and is an organization that does many wonderful things for TV as a whole--those supported by the developer, that is--but in being "a representative of our neighborhood" [emphasis mine], there is a focus on the larger community but no support, for example, for individuals dealing with a problem such as ours. I will add that subsequently this individual did make an effort to follow through, but to no avail.

Maybe this is utterly naive on my part, but I come from the Harry S Truman philosophy of 'the buck stops here!' By this the president undertook and accepted responsibility for the errors committed by those under his authority. In our situation, what I mean is that the irrigation system subcontractor may have created the problem, but likely he reported to the house constructor, who in turn reported to the Building Department, who ultimately (however many levels of hierarchy there are) brings the responsibility to the head of the entire operation, that is, the developer. This is not to say that the developer literally overlooked installing a sprinkler head that resulted in long-term implications, but rather that the ultimate responsibility lies with him as he continues his efforts to develop this fine community.

Two things impress me: (1) There is not a job description within TV for those positions dealing with individual homeowner issues that has the latitude to include compassion, understanding, goodwill, exceptions based on, well, exceptional circumstances. (2) EVERY job description includes the requirement to participate in 'circling the wagons' as previously explained when issues such as ours arises. I am not one to knock the developer, nor am I one to be envious of his financial successes, and I have had occasion on other threads to say so. The developer took the vision of 'our founding father,' Harold Schwartz, was willing to invest his money and energies in furthering this vision, and the result is a uniquely marvelous community of which most of us are very happy to be members. (I say 'most' because there are always a small minority who are chronically and constantly unhappy no matter where they are because their unhappiness is from within....)

What do you think?

[diskman]

Sidney, That is one heck of a story. Curious how much in $ is a 3,000 gallon bill?
One would think that the water company acknowledging they knew there had to be a problem would illicit some type of discount from them! :dontknow:

[rshoffer]

Here's what I think: It appears that any problem identified AFTER the one year warrenty is up, no matter if it is a construction defect will not be repaired or compensated for. All the powers that be will hide behind contractual legaleese and caring /compassion/fairness will play NO role in the outcome.

[villages07]

Sidney,

Interesting tale....of course, it never should have gotten this far. The original owners should have known that their irrigation usage bills were way out of line. But, they didn't, and they grossly overpaid for years.

Yes, the irrigation system only has a 30 day warranty and this is in the documents given to a new home buyer. You might have gotten some satisfaction with an installation defect within the first year, but, 4 years later I can understand why they have to dig in their heels just on principle...or, people would be coming after them for all kinds of problems and even wear and tear items. Still, it would have been satisfying if the warranty department, original irrigation contractor, or water company had admitted that there was a problem but was now well beyond any responsibility on their part to remedy it.

The response of your VHA rep was pretty childish.... really the VHA should not get involved in these kind of individual disputes with the developer over building issues. But, he/she should have given you either an understanding ear and/or pointed you in another direction.

Thanks for sharing your tale....this, along with another recent thread about irrigation system walkthrough, should be a warning to new homeowners to pay attention to the system and their water usage early on.

[Russ_Boston]

SL - Good story for the rest of us who haven't bought yet. I don't think I'd ever check the previous water bills before I bought the house but maybe now I will.

As far as the warranty dept. being responsible for repair - I'd so no. There has to be some time limitation to repairs. What if you were the type that turned off your system to be 'green' on water use but 5 years from now you wanted to reinvent your green grass? Should it extend that long? What if the builder forgot a cable outlet in a room but you never noticed it until you went to use it 10 years later? I know you're not a Morse attacker like some others so your story has merit but this is my opinion.

My question would be: If you had hired a home inspector when you purchased and they missed this (which I would think they would), would their warranty apply?

Another question: Where was the water from the line going that it wouldn't be noticed? No soft ground or other noticebale effect?

[nitehawk]

Bldg./Warranty Depts./Utility Co./VHA/Dist. Admin - 1 Final Score
Sidney Lanier - 0

[JohnN]

Holy Cow is right. I'm amazed but unsurprised.
In the current world when there is a confusing issue, companies seldom stand up and take accountability on principle but tend to point fingers and pass the buck.

The utility company should have a means to monitor extreme usage. The developer should take responsibility for an obvious construction defect (ie: siding). Yet, they have the "law" on their side so to speak.

FYI, I had a similarly aggravating dealing with Southern Lifestyles (and I know the women love that place) which is owned by TV. Something was screwed up, they said "too bad" and contractually they were right, I guess *shrug*.

I'm glad you caught it pretty quickly. Good luck on getting action.

[collie1228]

Sidney, that's a well written description of a sad situation.

I'm no lawyer, but I do deal with legal issues on a daily basis. While my business is not real estate or construction, I do occasionally have to deal with "latent defects". Here is the first sentence of the definition of "latent defects" in Wikipedia:

"In the law of the sale of property (both real estate and personal property or chattels) a latent defect is a fault in the property that could not have been discovered by a reasonably thorough inspection before the sale."

You should Google "latent defects" to get a more thorough understanding, but generally, a latent defect is a defect that cannot be discovered by a reasonable inspection at the time of purchase (i.e., the defect is underground and you would have to destroy your lawn to gain access for the inspection). On its face, your situation looks an awful lot like a latent defect. To my knowledge, there is no general time limitation on when you must discover a latent defect, but obviously Florida law should be checked, and also obviously, you would need to get an attorney involved, but it seems to me that this situation could be resolved in your favor, depending on how Florida law covers latent defects. You might also have a problem with the fact that you weren't the original purchaser of the home. Quite possibly your complaint might have to be lodged against your seller, who would have to lodge a complaint against the developer. As I said, I'm not an attorney.

Good luck - it appears that you would have to be prepared to take this all the way to the courtroom to get the developer's attention. A time consuming and expensive proposition.

[JohnN]

or small claims court if not a large amount of $$$. I've had success using that venue.

[samhass]

Sid, I would pay the plumber and move on. I know it seems unfair, but to pursue litigation would be time and cost consuming. My carpets that are less than 2 years old are buckling up all over. I have had to pay to get them restretched. When I called the carpet installer I remarked on the "cheap" carpet. She got defensive and said the carpet in my home is quite expensive. It may be expensive, but it is stretching out in most rooms. When it gets dirty,(it is creamy white) I'll have it all ripped up and hardwood put down in its place. So..watch your carpets carefully and call before the year is out. Mine started to buckle in about 15 months.

[drdodge]

You should have done due diligence which you did not due. When buying property one should have an inspection done and if they missed it their insurance would cover the problem,also when buying property one should ask to see utility bills and tax bills to see if they look ok,if not thats the time to complain.
drd

[784caroline]

Sidney
I can understand your pain but you cannot let your emotions impact your reasoning and decision making. You have 2 things against you...you are out of warranty and you are not the original owner. Very few homes are perfect when first occupied and I believe the developer has a very good and commendable record of fixing anything identified as a problem within the first year AND will even come back and fix something that was identified during the first year but reoccurred after the warranty period expired. Add to this the fact that you never had a relationship with the builder, I would think you have a weak arguement. As others have said this could have eben identified during your home inspection or due dilligence on your part in simply asking for utility records prior to your purchase..and it would have been obvious if the bills were as outrageous as you have described.
NOW a friend of ours recently had a simialr situation as yours. They bought a Premiere home in 2005 and just sold it in August 2008 (Last month). The new buyer had a home inspector come through and they found that the home only had 4 inches of insulation in the attic rather than the required 8-10 inches. The new buyer placed the onus on the seller to get the problem fixed and the seller went back to TV Warranty to correct a "latent Defect" in the construction of the home even though the house was more than 3 years old. The Village inspector came by and agreed with the home insection report and had additional insulation blown in at no cost to the seller. SO these problems are resolved on a case by case basis (with my example comming out in favor of the original home buyer) but I think you not being the original buyer from the Developer does have an impact on the outcome.

[Don H]

If there is only a 30 day warranty on the irrigation system and YOU were the original owner you would still be out of luck. Look at it this way. You move into the new home and the clock starts ticking. You will probably not receive a water bill until well after that one month warranty has expired. Hence, even if you were the original owner you still would not realize there was a problem until after you got the bill and by then the warranty has expired. Man....nothing like catch 22! AND...only a 30 day warranty on something as big as an entire irrigation system for your property?? Sounds like it was "no win" from day one.

[graciegirl]

There should be a longer than 30 day warrenty on an irrigation system. The utility company here would have caught it and signaled the owner. Don't sue. You always lose money and what are you going to prove.

[Sidney Lanier]

Thanks for your thoughts and comments, everyone!

diskman:
It was 30,000, not 3,000 gallons. Actually the very first bill showed usage of 33,450 gallons and the total charge for irrigation water on that bill was $87.05 (which includes basic charges for having the account). By contrast, our most recent bill (several months after the repair) was $12.50 for 4,680 gallons. As I mentioned in my post, I was surprised--and told the head of the utility company--that there was nothing in place, whether human or computer software, to flag such out-of-line bills, but there wasn't.

rshoffer:
You're absolutely right! Given the choice of doing the decent thing or sticking to what I called 'the 1 year warranty mantra,' their job describes requires the latter. Too bad....

villages07:
Yes, it was really unfortunate for the previous owners who as I explained were 90 years old at the time they sold and moved into assisted living, he with several strokes and she asking us who we were every time we saw her. The house was actually owned by their 'family trust' which presumably also paid the bills routinely, and I can understand how it might not cross anyone's mind that there was anything wrong with the bill since those doing the paying would have had no basis for comparison. If you will look at what I wrote in the thread about the irrigation system walkthrough, you'll understand now why I wrote what I did....

Russ:
One of the reasons I've gone through all the trouble of writing this is to alert present and future homeowners here of this very remote possibility: a missing sprinkler head with a line running nonstop underground. I did not expect TV to pay for the repair; as I mentioned, the sellers did so honorably. More than anything I hoped for an acknowledgment of responsibility, silly thinking on my part, I guess, more a reflection of myself than TV management. The home inspector did note the diminished pressure in that zone but had no way to say what was causing it.

nitehawk:
Literally speaking, you're right: 1-0. But also as I explained, I was raised with--and I live by--a different ethic. I don't feel as though I've lost anything, though on the other hand I would guess that the Villages employees and management I dealt with may think that they've 'won.' I'm left with integrity; they're left with, well, I'm not sure what, maybe a couple hundred dollars.

JohnN:
I'm unsurprised too. Initially I was not cynical (I am not inherently cynical...) and actually thought that the outcome could have been different; it didn't take me long to realize how naive that thinking was. I'm not 'seeking action,' and for me small claims court would be a continuance of using my energies fruitlessly; I learned what I needed to from the experience and am sharing it with my fellow TOTVers, potential TOTVers, and others.

collie1228:
Same here; it just isn't worth my while in the greater scheme of things in my life to pursue an examination of 'latent defects.' Dollar-wise we're talking about maybe $200. My integrity is worth more than that, and their integrity, or lack of same, is not my business or my problem.

samhass:
We paid for the repair when it was done in February, and the sellers, having said that they would do so, reimbursed us (and not knowing about the egregious overbilling they had been victimized by for 3-1/2 years, nor would we tell them, especially at their age and in their poor health). As I explained above, we have long since moved on with our lives and are busy and happy. And again, one of the primary reasons I've written this is to alert fellow homeowners in TV of the possibility, though very remote, that the same mistake could have been made on another house.

drdodge:
You're right, I 'should have done due diligence' and didn't. We did have the house inspected, and the inspector did note that something was not right with that irrigation zone, though he couldn't be sure what it was. On top of this, we were away at the time the first water bill came, and we take responsibility for that too. However, I am not comfortable with a 'blame the victim' approach, and I'm disinclined to allow myself to be/feel like a victim. I know that I did what I could, and in the end I let go of the whole business. I can only hope that my experience can benefit even one other villager....