DOCUMENTS

 Structural & Mechanical 

Diagnostic Report 

Swimming Pool — Thalassa View Gardens 

Ref: PFX-2026-0129 | 29 January 2026 

PREPARED FOR 

Thalassa View Gardens Residents’ Committee 

Chloraka, Paphos 

PREPARED BY 

Akis Charalambous 

A Member of the Institute of Swimming Pool Engineers 

T: 99491650 / 26422239 

E: info@poolfix.net | W: www.poolfix.net 

Makryiannis 19, Emba 8250, Paphos 

1. Introduction 

PoolFix was engaged by the Thalassa View Gardens Residents’ Committee to conduct a structural and mechanical diagnostic assessment of the swimming pool facility at Thalassa View Gardens, Chloraka. The assessment was commissioned to investigate reported water loss and to evaluate the adequacy of remedial works previously carried out on the structure. This report presents our findings from the site visit conducted on 29 January 2026 and outlines our recommended scope of remedial works. 

Estimated pool volume: Approximately 180 m³ 

Pool classification: Overflow-type (subsequently converted to skimmer system) 

2. Background — Construction History 

The swimming pool was originally designed and constructed as a perimeter overflow system, incorporating a continuous overflow channel and decorative grids at the pool perimeter. This system relies on precise levelling of the overflow lip to ensure uniform water circulation. 

We are informed that the original pool structure experienced a structural crack across the floor — essentially splitting the floor slab from one side to the other — at some point after construction. This was likely caused by differential movement and imbalanced loading on the pool structure. The original developer repaired the floor crack and also raised and reconstructed a section of the pool walls at that time. It was at one of these wall sections that subsequent seepage was later identified. 

In 2025, another pool company was engaged and identified seepage at the wall section previously repaired by the original developer. They resealed and retiled the affected area. However, the pool continued to lose water following this work, and PoolFix was subsequently engaged to conduct this assessment. 

Over time, differential settlement of the pool structure and patio has resulted in a vertical displacement of approximately 100–150 mm on one side of the pool. This movement caused the overflow lip to become non-planar, resulting in uneven and eventually non-functional overflow operation. 

A remedial contractor was engaged to address this condition. The works carried out comprised: 

• Raising the pool walls and adjacent patio on the affected side by approximately 100–150 mm to restore the overflow lip and patio to a nominally level plane. The cementitious material was extended approximately 1.5 metres out onto the patio, rigidly connecting the pool wall and patio as a single structure. 

• Filling and closing off the perimeter overflow channel using cementitious material. 

• Installing skimmer units to replace the decommissioned overflow system. 

The adequacy of these works is evaluated in the sections below. 

3. PoolFix Site Assessment Findings 

Our site visit on 29 January 2026 identified the following concerns: 

Structural — Wall and Patio Raising Works 

• The raised section was not constructed monolithically with the existing pool shell. Regardless of what reinforcement or materials were used in the raised section itself, there is no structural continuity between the two structures. 

• The interface between the existing substrate and the raised section constitutes a cold joint with no tensile or shear continuity. 

• Under the combined effects of hydrostatic pressure, thermal cycling, and residual or ongoing ground movement, this joint is highly susceptible to cracking, delamination, and water ingress. 

• Assessment: The remedial wall and patio raising does not achieve monolithic construction with the existing pool shell. The work is not fit for purpose. 

Structural — Rigid Connection of Pool and Patio 

• The remedial works extended cementitious material approximately 1.5 metres out from the pool wall onto the patio, rigidly connecting the pool structure and patio as a single monolithic slab. 

• Pool structures and patio slabs should be constructed as separate structures with a movement joint between them. This allows each structure to move independently without transmitting stresses to the other. 

• By rigidly connecting the pool wall extension to the patio, any movement in the patio — whether from thermal expansion, ground settlement, or other causes — is transmitted directly to the pool wall. This movement opens the joint at the interface with the original pool structure, creating the leak path observed. 

• Assessment: The rigid connection between the pool wall extension and the patio is a fundamental design error. Any reconstruction must incorporate a proper movement joint to separate the pool structure from the patio. 

Structural — Water Ingress at Construction Joint 

• Active water ingress has been identified at the interface between the original pool wall and the raised section — in particular at and around the skimmer installations. This ingress is assessed as the primary source of water loss from the pool. 

• There is an open void between the existing pool wall and the raised section. Waterproofing treatments alone — even mesh-reinforced membranes — cannot bridge a structural joint between two independent structures. Under movement, such treatments will fail. 

• Ingress at skimmer penetrations further compounds this, as the skimmers are connected into the filled overflow channel and their housings were installed into the raised section rather than into a continuous, monolithic wall. 

• Assessment: The construction joint and skimmer penetrations represent active leak paths. Surface-applied sealants or patch repairs at these locations are not considered a reliable or durable remediation strategy. 

Structural — Overflow Channel 

• The original perimeter overflow channel has been filled with cementitious material. Visible seepage in the old ballast tank area confirms at least one active leak path via this channel. The full extent and routing of water loss has not been determined. 

Structural — Differential Settlement 

• The structural movement of the pool and patio — measured at approximately 100–150 mm of vertical displacement — was addressed superficially by raising the wall and patio elevation on the affected side. 

• We have not been informed of any investigation into the cause or mechanism of the settlement (e.g. subbase failure, inadequate founding conditions, ground movement, or drainage-related erosion), and no remedial measures appear to have been implemented to arrest further movement. 

• If the settlement is ongoing, all remedial work — whether previous or proposed — remains at risk of further deterioration. 

• Assessment: The root cause of the structural displacement has not been investigated or resolved. A geotechnical assessment of the founding conditions is advisable prior to or alongside any structural remediation works. 

Fill Test — Original Pool Shell Integrity 

• A controlled fill test was conducted using three (3) truckloads of water. The water level in the pool basin was monitored over the test period. 

• Result: No measurable water loss was detected attributable to the original pool shell. 

• Notwithstanding the reported history of earlier repairs to the floor crack and wall section, the fill test confirmed that the original pool structure — including all previous repairs — is currently watertight. 

• All observed water loss is localised to the areas of more recent remedial intervention — specifically the raised wall sections and skimmer installations. 

• Assessment: The original pool shell is structurally sound and hydraulically intact. Remediation works can be confined to the modified areas without requiring intervention on the primary pool structure. 

4. Key Concerns and Risk Factors 

The following concerns should be noted: 

1. Lack of monolithic construction — The raised wall and patio section was not constructed monolithically with the existing pool shell. This structural discontinuity is the root cause of all current water loss. 

2. Rigid pool-to-patio connection — The pool wall extension was rigidly connected to the patio slab. Any patio movement opens the joint at the pool wall, creating leak paths. This is a fundamental design error. 

3. Active leak paths — The construction joint between old and new work, the filled overflow channel, and the skimmer penetrations represent active points of water ingress that cannot be reliably patched. 

4. Evidence of water ingress — Visible seepage in the old ballast tank area confirms at least one active leak path. The full extent and routing of water loss has not been determined. 

5. Unresolved differential settlement — We have not been informed of any investigation into the cause of the original 100–150 mm structural movement. If settlement is ongoing, any new remedial work remains at risk. 

6. Original shell confirmed intact — The fill test confirmed the original reinforced concrete pool shell, including all earlier repairs, is currently watertight. All water loss originates from the areas of more recent remedial intervention. 

7. Patch repairs not viable — Given the nature and extent of the defects, surface-applied sealants, crack injection, or partial repairs are not considered technically viable solutions. 

5. Recommended Scope of Works 

It is the professional opinion of the assessing engineer that the remedial works on the raised pool wall sections must be fully demolished and reconstructed to an appropriate standard. The pool wall and patio must be separated by incorporating a movement joint between them. The following scope of works is recommended: 

1. Demolition — Remove all previously applied cementitious material associated with the pool wall raising works on the affected side. 

2. Structural wall extension — Reconstruct the pool wall using reinforced concrete incorporating properly designed and fixed steel reinforcement (rebar), mechanically and adhesively bonded to the existing pool shell to achieve a continuous, monolithic wall section. 

3. Movement joint — Separate the pool structure and patio by incorporating a proper movement joint between them to allow independent movement and prevent stress transfer. 

4. Skimmer reinstatement — Install skimmer units within the newly constructed wall section, using watertight mechanical connections and appropriate collar seals to prevent penetration leakage. 

5. Waterproofing — Apply a certified, pool-grade waterproofing system to the entire reconstructed zone in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification. 

6. Re-tiling — Supply and install matching pool tiles to all affected surfaces. 

7. Geotechnical review — A geotechnical review of the pool founding conditions is strongly recommended to determine whether active ground movement remains a risk to the long-term integrity of the structure. 

No alternative remediation approach — including crack injection, surface sealing, or partial repair — is considered technically viable given the scope and nature of the identified defects. 

6. Conclusions 

The remedial works previously carried out on this pool do not achieve monolithic construction with the existing pool shell. The structural discontinuity between the original structure and the raised sections, combined with the rigid connection to the patio slab, has resulted in active leak paths that cannot be reliably resolved through localised patching or sealant application. 

The original pool shell, including all earlier repairs, is confirmed to be in satisfactory structural and hydraulic condition. 

7. Next Step 

PoolFix is available to prepare a detailed scope of works and cost estimate for the corrective programme outlined above on request. We are also available to liaise with a geotechnical consultant regarding the investigation of founding conditions, should the client wish to proceed on that basis. 

Given the evidence of ongoing ground movement at this site, the client may wish to seek a second opinion from a structural engineer to advise on the wall extension design, bonding details, and whether any underpinning or ground stabilisation measures are warranted. This would be at the client’s discretion and the engineer’s fees would be payable directly by the client. 

Please note: PoolFix is fully committed on other projects until October 2026. Should the client wish to engage PoolFix for this work, the earliest commencement date would be post-October 2026. The client is welcome to engage any other qualified contractor if an earlier start is required. 

This report is provided as an independent assessment of the pool structure and prior remedial works. The client is under no obligation to engage PoolFix for any corrective work — the findings and recommendations may be actioned by any qualified contractor of the client’s choosing. 

8. Conditions and Prerequisites 

• This report is based on visible conditions only. The full extent of structural damage can only be confirmed once tiles, waterproofing, and cementitious material are removed to expose the original concrete substrate. 

• A geotechnical assessment is recommended before commencing structural works to confirm whether differential settlement is ongoing. 

Prepared by PoolFix — 29 January 2026