Home Warranty of America

Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because: my technician Ian did NOT pay retail costHe paid wholesale through wholesale distributorAnd many area technicians do not believe and are willing to state that they do not believe anyone can replace an percent effecient furnace for $621.00.
Sincerely,
Ryan ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: My initial statement still stands, replacing the part does not fix a covered problemSystem changes should not negate their responsibility to fix a covered systemIf that were the case they would never need to actually fix issues, they could just give the customer any old widget and get off the hook saying it just doesn't work with your system you replace all these other things and then this widget will do the jobTotal scam, problem submitted no heat, problem after their repair no heatSome warranty
Sincerely,
KC ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I have had no reply or communication from the company The communication error was on their customer service's end, as well
Sincerely,
*** ***

June 26, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** IL-*** Dear Ms***: We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following
response. On June 4, 2017, the customer opened an Air conditioning claim, stating: “Covered Item Problem: Straight Air Conditioner - used in air conditioning season only When did you first notice the problem?: Yesterday Q & A: Q: Has the air conditioner ever worked properly for you A: No Q: Have you ever run the heat A: Yes Q: Please tell us how the heat worked for you A: No Problems Q: Please Tell Us The Nature Of The Problem You Are Experiencing A: There is no air coming out of the vents Q: Have you had maintenance performed on the system A: No Q: How many units do you have A: One Q: Please tell us which part of the home is not cooling A: Entire House Q: Please tell us how long the unit has been running properly for this seasonA: Never Problem Description: We went to turn on the air conditioner and it seemed to be workingWe could hear it running, however, no air was coming through the ventsWe bought/moved into this house in January and just now needed to turn the air on.” We immediately assigned a claim to a technician, per our contractual agreement, and per the agreement, the customer paid their trade service fee Per contract section III.E: “You will pay the Trade Call Fee or the actual cost of the Services covered under this Contract, whichever is lessThe Trade Call Fee is for each visit by an Authorized Repair Technician, except as noted below, and is payable to the Authorized Repair Technician at the time of each visitThe Trade Call Fee applies to each call dispatched and scheduled, including but not limited to those calls wherein coverage is deemed Excluded, or denied.” The customer has filed this complaint, though the contract clearly states the fee is due for every call dispatched and scheduled, which this claim was We deny the customer’s request for a refund, because the trade fee was due to the technician for their diagnosis, and properly paid by the customer Sincerely, *** *** Office of the President

*** ** *** *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** AL-*** Dear Ms***: As we stated, this happened on the same day. We are not charging the customer $30, nor are we paying the customer $30, after we have done nothing improper, or deserving of this complaint Sincerely, *** *** Claims Special Handling

January 30, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: *** : *** IL-*** Dear Ms***: We have reviewed the customer’s complaint, and provide the following
response. On November 30, 2016, the customer opened a warranty contract with our company. Per that contract, section I.A.1: “During the Coverage Period, HWA’s™ sole responsibility will be to arrange for an Authorized Repair Technician to provide Service(s) for Covered Systems and Components located on the Covered Property in accordance with the definitions, terms and conditions of this Contract.” On January 2, 2017, the customer opened a sump pump claim. We arranged a technician to investigate, who advised two days later, per online report: “ Primary pump was not working due to the dehumidifier hose pushed too far into pit sitting on top of float not allowing float to come up and operate main pump Remove hose and cycled the pump several times pump is working properly at this time Test operation of water back up they are both working as they should at this timeCollected $trade call fee in cash.” Per contract, section IV.A, the warranty provided coverage for: “Permanently installed interior sump pumps (used for storm water only)” As the dehumidifier drains into the sump pump pit, the sump pump is not only for storm water and would not be addressed under contract On January 17, 2017, the customer requested we send the tech back to re-evaluate On January 20, 2017, the technician again advised that the pump is not for storm water only, and the customer cancelled the claim The customer is now demanding damages, caused by a failed sump pump, that per diagnosis, is not covered under contract We decline their demand Sincerely, *** *** Escalated Special Handling

February 2, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** OH-*** Dear Ms***: We have reviewed the customer’s complaint, and provide the following
response We have received two separate independent diagnoses that there is no failure with the customer’s heat exchanger, and three (including his technician) that there is no CO leakage The warranty requires a mechanical failure to address a repair, and we will not reimburse the customer for a repairs arranged without our approval on a system that has not failed Sincerely, *** *** Escalated Special Handling

January 5, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** MO-*** Dear Ms***: We have received the customer’s inquiry, and apologize for
the delay in receiving the needed information from the technician We have addressed the situation with the customer directly Sincerely, *** *** Office of the President

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: the issue is with the air handler, not a component of the chiller. They should refund me my purchase price of the warranty if they are declining the claim.
Sincerely,
Edmond ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
I received a call from one of there respective he did not mention anything about my Revdex.com claim he just said he was calling about my claim with company for serviceI told him there representative are unprofessional and rude he just apologize for there behavior he did not seems to want to address my concern any furtherThanks for all your help but you can close this claim I am just taking my business elsewhere I no longer wish to to continue working with Hwa
Sincerely,
Fionia ***

September 1, Lucille *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** *** Dear Ms***: We received the customer’s complaint, and have ordered the equipment
for installation, after the technician provided us the location We are sorry for the delays that occurred in completing this repair. We are not liable for them, and will not pay the vendor’s not covered costs as compensation to the customer Sincerely, Carl *** DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

January 13, Lucille *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: 11082391: Ford WI-Dear Ms***: We have received the customer’s complaint and are providing the following responseThe Customer purchased our Contract at the closing of his property on December 23, 2015, and moved into the property on December 26, On January 6, 2016, the customer called and advised that two days prior, he noticed the hot water heater banging, a smell of gas in his laundry area, and sediment coming from faucetsA claim was processed for his Water Heater, and we were assigning a technician to diagnose the unitThe following afternoon, the customer called back to check on the status. At that time we offered him the ability to get his own technician, to expedite the claimHe declined and the cancellation of the contract was discussedThe next day, a technician was assigned and the customer provided him pictures of the unit. Per the technician, the unit was leaking and improperly installedThe technician scheduled the service for Monday, based off the customers availability On Monday, under a more in depth diagnosis, the technician reported that the year old, gallon gas water heater was leaking from the tank, due to ageAdditionally, the unit was improperly vented to the side of the house and not the roofPer the water stains on the floor from the leak, the tank had been leaking for longer than the weeks the contract hat been in place. Per our contract, Section I.A.2: “Malfunctions which existed on the Coverage Period Start Date will be covered only if the malfunction was unknown and could not have been detectable by visual inspection or simple mechanical test.” We had requested the customer’s inspection, to determine if an issue with the water heater was known or could have been detectable by visual inspection or mechanical testPer the partial document provided, the inspector advised that the water heater was a safety hazard, and references a note later in the inspection, which was not provided. We have requested the remainder of the document from the customer to confirm the unit was in proper working order, but the customer will not provide it. It would appear that the customer prefers to inappropriately discredit our service, rather than provide the documentation to allow us to review the issueAs the customer has made no demands with his complaint, they are not looking for anything further from us. To attempt to resolve the complaint, we request that the customer provide the remainder of the inspection document, or we offer a full refund of his Contract in the amount of $530.00, upon receipt of his written request to cancelSincerely, Carl *** Escalated Special Handling

May 18, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** OR *** Dear Ms***: We have reviewed the issue with the customer, and though this payment was made in March
2016, are reissuing the payment in question Sincerely, *** *** DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 21, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** IL-*** Dear Ms***: We have received the customer’s complaint, and spoke to him the day
this complaint was filed in reference to the repair of his washer The warranty will not pre-emptively replace an appliance that has not become inoperative Sincerely, *** *** DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

December 22, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: *** : *** TX-*** Dear Ms***: We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the
following response On October 20, 2016, the customer opened a warranty contract with our company On November 21, 2016, the customer moved into the property On November 29, 2016, the customer noticed a gas leak in their home On December 1, 2016, the customer reported the issue, and a claim was filedWe advised the customer that a trade service fee was due at the time of service On December 6, 2016, we received the technician’s diagnosis of a leaking attic regulator, and approved the repair(The customer did not pay their trade service fee) On December 8, 2016, the technician advised that they could not complete the repair, as the line was not grounded, which could make the technician liable for any electrical failure that occurs related to the line On December 9, we calculated our cash out of the cost of the repair, less the fee that was not paid On December 12, 2016, we advised the customer of our cash out ($135). The customer demanded $250, and stated that the pipes did not have to be grounded. Now, the customer is demanding to cancel their contract, wants $400.00, stating the line does not have to be grounded We do not dispute that statement, but we also do not expect any technician or our office to assume any liability for working on a non-grounded line. We are only liable for $135.00, as the customer paid no service fee, and that is all that will be paid for the repair. Additionally, if the customer wishes to cancel, that is his prerogative, but he will only receive a prorated refund less fees and paid services, per section VIII.E of our contract. This would include the $cash out, if accepted by the customer Sincerely, *** *** Escalated Special Handling

September 2, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** MN-*** Dear Ms***: We received the customer’s complaint, and per contract section
VIII.C.3: “This Contract does not automatically renew past the first Covered Period but may be renewed at the option of HWA and where permitted by state law.” Thus, it is not illegal, or unethical for us to select the option to not renew this contract As we have covered claims for the customer for a number of years, the former customer’s implication of our reasoning for not renewing this contract is totally untrue We have no other information for the customer, as we just ordered the equipment. The technician that installed the unit should have her warranty information Sincerely, *** *** DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:$is how much months of our service costs to refundWe are entitled to that amount minus the $fee as stated in our contract (please see attached photograph)Which would then be $We wanted January to be included (making it months), because we received zero service due to assigned vendors not showing up, refusing to do work, and doing improper repairThat month total (minus the $fee) would be $We want that amount refunded, in addition to the $service fee we paidHWA’s response included mention of the deduction of a “$Diagnostic Fee”, this is a service we never ordered or agreed to, they have no reason to add this fee.We received a refund check from HWA for $56.15.We request a month refund (at $41.53/month) minus the $fee according to contract, plus the $service call fe we paid (where no repair was performed), minus the $HWA refund we just receivedThe total we request to be refunded is $191.50Also, that quote he provided was absolutely incorrect.Update: Mike from ** *** *f St Louis just came to look at our dishwasher and it works perfectlyThe real problem was frozen pipes, this proves that both HWA vendors misdiagnosed the problem and clearly did not complete any repair on our dishwasher.
Sincerely,
Aaron ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

December 22, *** *** Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com North Wabash, Suite 2006 Chicago, IL Re: ***: *** TN-*** Dear Ms***: The customer has contacted us directly and approved the non covered costs We consider this issue closed Sincerely, *** *** Escalated Special Handling

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***