Guardian fences or fence posts

The reports, as CPSC published them

1. No one hurt

   Made Feb 20, 2015 · , sent to the company Apr 22, 2015 · , published by CPSC May 13, 2015

   The product, in the report: 50 ft. x 0.25 in. x 4 ft. Tan/Brown-Colored Removable Aluminum Self-Closing Gate

   AquaSafe Unlimited Inc. (Installing Company and Retailer) [REDACTED] (Owner) - [REDACTED] Aqua-Safe Unlimited Inc. US Patent No.: 5,664,769

   02/15/2015 The consumer’s 18-month-old nephew put his hand in the gate and all of a sudden, his hand went completely through the gate and created a hole in it. The baby did not cry because the consumer was in his proximity and was able to free her nephew from the gate. The consumer immediately locked the back door to the pool and no one has been able to go there because the gate is no longer functional and she is concerned for the smaller kid’s safety that visit her home on a regular basis.

   The consumer indicates that having a pool in the state of Nevada is a necessity and not a luxury due to the almost year-round hot weather.

   The consumer indicates that she started noticing the pool gate tattering on several places since the Summer of 2014 but did not look into it much because of the lifetime warranty the unit comes with and because it was still holding up.

   02/18/2015 - The consumer’s husband contacted AquaSafe Unlimited Inc. and explained to [REDACTED] what had happened with her pool gate. When [REDACTED] was informed that they own the tan/ brown colored pool gate, he informed the consumers that it was a known fact that this pool gate was not treated with UV protection, and thus this was the reason why the gate deteriorates over the year. [REDACTED] indicated that he would visit the consumer’s home the next day to explain what the process would be.

   02/19/2015 - [REDACTED] went to the consumer’s home in the morning. He inspected the unit. He verified that it was the tan/ brown colored pool gate. He informed the consumer’s once again that these pool gates did have that problem with the UV protection not having been in the fabric. He also informed the consumers that he had inspected numerous pool gates and he himself had to replace thirty of these same pool gates purchased around the same time and that they all had the same problem. [REDACTED] also said that he had pictures of those thirty pool gates he had to replace.

   [REDACTED] told the consumer’s that he would charge the consumer’s 400.00$ in order to replace and install the unit, or that he could contact the manufacturer since they were well-aware of the issue and that they would charge the consumer approximately 200.00$ one-way to ship it. Whichever way, the consumer would have to pay approximately the same amount of money to take care of the issue. The consumer did not make any decision at the moment.

   The consumer’s husband proceeded to contact the manufacturer, Guardian Pool Fence, later on in the day. The representative he spoke to informed her that they were aware of the issue. They also informed the consumer that they would replace the unit but that the consumers would indeed have to pay for the shipping.

   The consumer called the manufacturer again and spoke to the owner, [REDACTED]. The consumer then spoke to another one of the other owners, [REDACTED], because she was unsatisfied with how they were handling the issue. [REDACTED] told the consumer that they would send someone over to install the unit so that they would not be charged for shipping, though later on this did not happen and the consumer was informed that she would have to indeed pay for the shipping. [REDACTED] told the consumer that they informed their vendors to inform the consumers whenever they had these issues with that specific unit that the unit poses a safety hazard because the material of the gate was faulty. When the consumer contacted [REDACTED], he told the consumer that this was a lie and that he never received those instructions. The consumer contacted the manufacturer again and asked for their insurance information because they wanted to file a claim. They said they could not do that and that they could get this information from their vendor. Again, the consumer contacted [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] informed them that he did not have their insurance information. The consumer contacted the manufacturer again. [REDACTED] told her that he was being nice enough to give them a replacement. [REDACTED] later hung up the phone.

   The consumer refuses to pay for the shipping because it is a matter of principle. She is not only upset because her unit is defective, but those thousands of other people who also purchased the tan/ brown pool gate.

   The consumer believes that people should have been informed, especially when thousands of these units were sold worldwide as well, information that was given to the consumer by [REDACTED], whom also told her that they were “screwed over” with this specific unit. [REDACTED] informed the consumer that eventually, the whole gate would have tattered if purchased in this color.

   The consumer believes this product poses a safety hazard.

   Model

   Guardian

   UPC

   Unknown

   Serial number

   Unknown

   Bought from

   Aqua-Safe Unlimited Inc., Nevada

   Bought

   Nov 6, 2006

   Where

   Henderson, Nevada: Home/Apartment/Condominium

   Who was involved

   Age 1, Male

   The reporter’s relation to them

   Other Relative

   As this report names them

   Brand Guardian, made or sold by GUARDIAN POOL FENCE SYSTEMS, INC.

   How badly, in CPSC’s words

   Incident, No Injury

CPSC’s disclaimer

Sources