That Pond Guy Bewertungen 

Antwort von That Pond Guy

4. Aug. 2026

Hi Lee,

We’re sorry to hear that you were disappointed with your experience, although we would like to clarify a few points for anyone reading this review.

We contacted you shortly after your order was placed to explain that the ET40 was temporarily out of stock and offered to send the more powerful ET50 immediately at no additional cost. Unfortunately, that email wasn’t seen. When you contacted us, we responded the following morning and you confirmed that you preferred to wait for the ET40 rather than accept the free upgrade. The ET40 was delivered to you on 10 July, less than four days after your order was placed.

You subsequently asked to return the pump because its standard power cable was too short for your installation. In your email, you explained that you believed you had seen another listing online mentioning a five-metre cable. Our own listing did not state that the ET40 came with a five-metre cable, and the pump supplied was the correct model with its standard factory-fitted cable. Nevertheless, we were still happy to accept the return.

The returned item was received on 15 July and your refund was processed within our stated 14-day returns window. Unfortunately, the additional three days taken for the cleared funds to appear in your account was the payment provider’s processing time and outside our control.

We also responded to your emails throughout the order and return process, generally either the same day or the following morning. We’re therefore disappointed to see the suggestion that we became unresponsive, although we appreciate that waiting for a refund can be frustrating.

We’re sorry that the pump wasn’t suitable for your installation, but we do feel we did everything reasonably possible to help, including offering an upgraded pump at no extra cost and accepting the return despite our listing never stating that a five-metre cable was included.

Antwort von That Pond Guy

Aktualisiert am 4. Aug. 2026

This updated review is misleading and does not reflect the documented sequence of events.

The original enquiry was solely for a pond clean. We provided a quotation for that work, which was accepted. It was only after the pond clean had been quoted that the customer mentioned a separate concern about water loss when the system was running.

During our visit, the pond was cleaned and the system was inspected. Missing filter seals were identified and replaced because they were a possible cause of the water loss. Once the pond had been refilled and the issue remained, the investigation indicated that the water was being lost through the waterfall structure.

The customer then expected the complete dismantling and rebuilding of the waterfall to have been included within the original quotation for cleaning the pond. This was never included and could not reasonably have been included. Neither the customer nor ourselves knew that the waterfall was the source of the problem when the pond clean was quoted. Rebuilding it was substantial additional construction work, which is why a separate quotation was provided.

We did not refuse to return and complete agreed works. We offered to return and bypass the waterfall to help confirm the diagnosis. The additional amount referred to was for dismantling and rebuilding the waterfall, not for completing anything included within the original quotation.

The claim that our team was only at the property for 90 minutes is also incorrect. We have checked the vehicle tracking records from the appointment on 12 August. Our team arrived at the address at 12.04pm and left at 3.03pm, meaning they were on site for just under three hours, following the journey into London. The quotation was for the agreed work and was not based on an hourly labour rate in any event.

During the later dispute, the complete enquiry history, quotation and supporting correspondence were provided to the customer’s daughter. This evidence showed that the original request and accepted quotation were for a pond clean, and that the leak was only raised afterwards. Once the evidence had been presented, the outstanding invoice was paid.

We communicated extensively in writing so there was a clear and accurate record of what had been requested, quoted, completed and subsequently discussed. We strongly dispute the version of events now being presented.