Home Warranty of America

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: They (HWA) cannot "dispute the statement", because it is on their record, as serviced by their vendor (as HWA scheduled this particular contractor). Great company, should've read their reviews before purchasing.
Sincerely,
Matt [redacted]

August 10, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and have addressed the issue...

directly with the customer.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

February 9, 2018     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] WI-[redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry and...

provide the following response.   On the morning of December 29, 2017, the customer reported a failure with his heating system.  Per contract, we immediately assigned a local technician to diagnose the failure.  Unfortunately, the technician was under staffed for the day, and could not take the call.  Understanding the nature of the situation, we took steps to attempt to arrange a vendor for service that day.  Additionally, we approved the customer the option of contacting their own technician, requiring that technician call with a diagnosis prior to service, and that the warranty would reimburse, based on our costs.   The following morning, the customer called stating he got his own technician, and they completed the repair.  Though we did not approve the repair, as a courtesy to the customer, we offered our cost on the repair the technician performed, which would be our cost on the labor, part and tax, less trade fee.    Per the customer’s contract, section VII.O, “HWA reserves the right to offer cash back in lieu of repair or replacement in the amount of HWA’s actual cost, which may be less than retail, to repair or replace any covered system, component or appliance.”   Our cost on the quoted repair was offered to the customer, and a check for said amount was sent to them.  The referenced $75 trade service fee is required to be paid by the customer on every claim, and is deducted from our costs.    The offered and paid amount is correct, and we decline the customer’s request for an additional $75.00 reimbursement.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

July 15, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  ID-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and have approved...

the repair.      Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

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

December 23, 2015 Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: Irle IL-1589878 Dear Ms. [redacted]: We received the customer’s complaint and...

provide the following response. On December 4, 2015, the customer filed a claim on his dryer, reporting that it was not properly drying since the end of November.   On December 10, 2015, the technician went to the property and repaired the unit. Prior to leaving the property, they tested the unit and found it functioning properly On December 20, 2015, the customer called back, and reported that he returned from vacation and found the unit not drying. He was not sure if it had ever worked. Yesterday, the technician returned to the property and performed a new repair. As this failure was not related to the initial failure, a new fee was due. We advised the customer that a fee was due, he disagreed, and threatened to file this complaint. After they filed the complaint, but before it was received by our office, the customer called back, and the dispute was resolved. Sincerely, Carl [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

May 4, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response....

  On March 30, 2017, the customer; purchased a warranty with our company, moved into the property and noticed their  20+ year old [redacted] refrigerator not cooling.   The following day, they filed a claim on the unit, and, per contract,  a technician was sent to diagnose.   The technician found the unit leaking and low on R-12 refrigerant, which is no longer commercially available.  Per contract section VI.I:   “…for the first 30 days of the Home Owner’s Coverage Period, HWA is not liable for replacement of entire systems or appliances due to obsolete, discontinued or unavailability of one or more integral parts. However, HWA will provide reimbursement for the costs of those parts determined by reasonable allowance for the fair value of similar parts.”   We offered the customer the fair value of the refrigerant, per contract, and they are dissatisfied with the offer.  We acknowledge that the customer cannot repair the unit.  As, the warranty is not liable for the replacement, there is nothing more that can be done to address the issue.    Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

March 23, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  FL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   Per contract section VI.I:   “HWA has the sole right to determine whether a covered appliance, system or component will be repaired or replaced.”   When we were under the impression that the customer had a basic microwave, we offered him a cash out, or replacement basic microwave, based on the high cost of repair.   When we realized this was not an equivalent offer, as the customer has a microwave/oven combination and not just a basic unit, we moved forward with the repair, which occurred this morning.  Just because we offered a replacement, thinking the customer had a basic microwave, does not mean we must replace the customer’s existing system, nor does it mean we have deceived the customer.   This morning, the technician determined that the control board in the microwave/oven combination had failed.  We have approved the replacement board, which per the technician, will be in Monday.   Though the customer continues to insist that we replace his microwave/oven combination, we will not replace a repairable unit.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The supervisor is said, shewill pull the phone call and respond to me. I have not gotten a response on the pulled phone call. I have been in a hot home, with no air conditioner for almost 4 weeks. This company has no reason to deny my claim. They are putting myself and my family in unnecessary stress and unbearable living conditions. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:[redacted] diagnosed the problem as being a faulty dryer heating element and replaced the element.  The dryer shuts off when running for about 10 minutes.  I have captured a video of the faulty dryer to preserve as evidence.  [redacted] responded today that he notified HWA that the dryer was still not drying properly and that HWA were not dispatching any more technicians.Due to the length of time and many attempts, I have ordered a new dryer.  I am sending a certified letter in good faith for HWA as a last measure to resolve this issue, pursuant to filing suit in Harris County Precinct 4, per Section VIII. A. 1. of the contract.  Relief requested is to refund the $100 service fee, the $70 service fee that I was charged by a sales rep "to get a energy efficient dryer in case I needed a new one", and $962 to cover the cost of the new dryer that I placed on order from [redacted].My wife is 22 weeks pregnant and cannot do laundry.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

we do not Agee and should be refunded do to your representative failure to promperly labeling our claim as an emergency and allowing us to get a vendor to repair and fix the issue. Since all caps are recorded I would like to receive a transcript of the initial call detailing the error on the HWA representative part. 
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

July 3, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] OH-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s message, and provide the following timeline....

  On April 26, 2017, the customer advised our office that the bottom oven of their white Whirlpool electric double oven had never worked properly.  Per our contractual agreement, we assigned a technician  to diagnose the unit failure.   On May 1, 2017, we were advised that the control board for the oven in question had failed, and was no longer available.  We requested a copy of their home inspection to confirm the unit was in proper working order when the contract started over a year ago.    On May 10, 2017, we received the document, confirmed the unit was working properly, and moved forward with the replacement/cash out offer.    On May 11, 2017, we offered the customer a replacement double oven([redacted]) or a check for the cost of the unit ($729.00), but he refused to confirm that the unit offered would fit into the space for his double oven.  He then contacted the manufacturer, and requested an upgraded unit ([redacted])    On May 22, 2017, We advised him of the upgrade cost($201.00), which he paid, and the unit was ordered.   On June 7, 2017, the unit was delivered, but was damaged in transit.   At this time, the manufacturers delivery service, who was to install the unit, declined to do so in the future (as the unit was damaged in transit.)   On June 15, 2017, a second unit was delivered, but it was also refused by the customer, as the unit would not fit in the space allowed in their property for the unit.   As the customer accepted our replacement, but refuses to confirm that it (or any other unit )was the correct measurement, we are only offering the cash out for the replacement unit with a refund of their upgrade fee.   We are waiting for the acceptance of our offer.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

September 26, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] MO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and the fee was...

addressed the following day.  We have resent the technician to evaluate the issue.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

August 15, 2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:  Lankford TN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]   We received...

the customer’s complaint and would like to respond accordingly.    Per our contract, section VII.H:   “HWA IS NOT LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR ECONOMIC DAMAGES FOR LOSS OR DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON OR PROPERTY ARISING FROM THE LOSS OF USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE EQUIPMENT TO THE EXTENT SUCH MAY BE DISCLAIMED BY LAW, AND YOU EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ALL SUCH DAMAGES.   We are not liable for the customer’s costs, due to their inability to use their Air conditioning.   Sincerely,   Car[redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

August 18, 2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: Pearlman NJ-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and are moving forward...

with addressing the AC issue.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

August 22, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and provide the following response....

  The basic purpose of our warranty contract, is to provide a technician to diagnose a reported failure with the eligible appliances and systems in a customer’s home.   The diagnosis of the customer’s AC system was challenging, due to the placement of the system, which is, per the technicians assigned, somewhat hard to access.   We have received a technician’s diagnosis, which advised that the unit is improperly sized for the property, which is excluded from our coverage.   After receiving the customer’s complaint, we contacted another technician, to confirm if the unit is improperly sized based on the size of unit and reported square footage of the home.   We are looking to send a second opinion, at no cost to the customer, to confirm the diagnosis received, but the customer has contacted legal representation.  We have left her attorney a message and are waiting for their response.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

March 21, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following...

response.   The customer has had a contract with our company for a number of years with an expiration/renewal date of January 30.    On January 9, 2017, the customer renewed his contract and filed a claim for his dishwasher.   On January 13, 2017,  the technician assigned to the claim declined service, based on an unpleasant discussion with the customer, when he came to their shop.     Three days later, the customer contacted us, to cancel our contract, wanting same day approval.   At that time, the customer’s contract(January 30 2016-January 30, 2017) was cancelled, but the requested renewal was still in process.    We apologize for the clerical error, and have cancelled both contract and renewal.       Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

July 6, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s message, and though, per contract, we are not...

liable for the actions of a technician, we have arranged the repair.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  I simply requested the total amount to be reimbursed (per HWA is $2100) to be confirmed in writing.  HWA said that they can not email or mail verification that I will be reimbursed and that I will just have to take their word for it. They said that the only thing they can do is note it in my account and that they will send me a check once I submit a paid in full statement.  Their process of reimbursement is not mentioned in my contract at all.  This situation requires an addendum to the contract or a letter of confirmation as to the amount to be reimbursed.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Revdex.com Representative;   Thank you for your assistance.  I received an email today from the Revdex.com saying my complaint has been forwarded to Home Warranty of America for resolution.  I wanted to let you know that yesterday after...

I put in the complaint, Home Warranty of America did call me.    The conversation was with a supervisor.  She continued to tell me that the plumbing for my pool filtration system is not covered.  Her response is you have to go to the plumbing section and it states no plumbing is done outside.  I don’t have the contract in front of me so I can’t confirm.  However, I continue to argue that it is part of the pool and falls under that section of the contract.  And, with them putting in the pool section that they do not cover above ground piping encased in concrete, they are implying, or by default, they are saying they cover above ground piping that is not encased in concrete.  She continued to say no, I am wrong.  My argument back was, then if no plumbing is covered under the pool section, then the exclusion would have been “no plumbing” vice “above ground concrete encased plumbing” is excluded from coverage.    I did at least get her to agree that I should not have to pay the $100 for the visit as their employee should have known my issue was not covered if in fact no outside plumbing is included in the coverage.  My feeling is either it is a scam and by not telling me if it is covered, they get to charge me for the initial visit by a worker and then charge me again the time for the worker to return to do the repair ensuring a cost of $100, or they do cover outside plumbing for pools as the pool section implies.  Also, if they don’t do any outside plumbing, then it should have been an easy answer from the rep that what I was asking for was not covered.  Either way, it is a scam in my opinion.   Bottom line, I am not satisfied with the results so far.  I am glad I don’t have to pay the $100 to them but now I will have to pay someone $160 or more to do the repair.  They did not honor their warranty and that just is not right.  They know no one is going to sue over this because who has the time and money to do so.  They need to do the work they warranted.  I am speaking to a lawyer tonight on the issue to see what she thinks and if there is something that can be done.   Thanks, [redacted]