Home Warranty of America

February 21, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]            MO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have...

received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response.    The customer has made a number of unfounded judgments in his complaint, and rather than address them in detail here, we will state simply that we have waived the fee that he chose to not pay(against the terms of his contract).   We will also cancel his contract, as requested, per the cancelation terms of the coverage.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

June 22, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  MD-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the...

following response.   On July 1, 2015,  the customer began their current 12 month contract term with our company.   On April 12, 2016, they filed a plumbing claim, addressing a leak in her bathtub.  A technician was sent, and a repair approved.   On May 18, 2016, the claim was reopened, with the customer mentioning a failed toilet and a failed faucet.  (Please note: the customer has no coverage for the faucet on this contract)   On May 23, 2016, the customer opened an additional claim for a faucet, and a leaking sink. The customer had not heard from a technician in reference to the issues.    On June 3, 2016, the customer was advised that they did not have coverage for faucets.   On June 6, 2016, we received an e-mail from the customer, requesting that her contract be cancelled.     Per contract section XII.D:   “If contract is canceled, the Home Owner shall be entitled to a pro rata refund of the paid contract fee for the unexpired term, less service and administrative costs incurred by HWA™;”   The customer’s term goes from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016.  Since she requested to cancel on June 6, 2016, there would be no funds remaining for the unexpired term, less costs.     We decline the customer’s demand for a full reimbursement, as there are no remaining funds to reimburse.   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]

May 18, 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 complaint, and provide the following response....

  There is no conflict with a service company and a warranty company having the same parent company.  The customer’s implications of impropriety are unsubstantiated opinion.   The plumbing failure in question was caused by two pipes that were incorrectly installed  in direct contact.  This is not normal wear and tear, and excluded from our coverage.   The complaints filed by other parties on the Revdex.com website, have nothing to do with this customer’s claim.   We have spoken to the customer and resolved the issue with them directly.     Sincerely, [redacted] DE Services HWA Claims Handling Manager

June 26, 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 complaint, and  provide the following...

response.    On June 3, 2017,  the customer opened an Air conditioning claim, stating that one of their two AC systems were not cooling.  We immediately assigned a technician to diagnose the system.     On June 12, 2017, we were advised by the technician that the 32 year old condenser had failed due to age.  As we would have needed to address the upgrade to the 32 year old unit, the customer’s included modification coverage would have allowed for monies to go towards a replacement indoor coil.  The technician believed we were providing the correct coil, but wished to confirm.   On June 15, 2017, the customer requested a cash out and the technician advised he had not received the equipment.  As we were waiting for the information from the technician, we had not yet ordered the replacement equipment.   On June 18, 2017, the customer again requested her cash out (and filed the referenced complaint.)   On June 20, 2017, the vendor confirmed the coil would work, her cash out was confirmed.   On June 21, 2017, we contacted the customer, ad advised of the cash out.  The customer wanted model numbers e-mailed of what we were installing, which the rep could not provide, and the customer requested a supervisor.      A supervisor contacted the customer and left a message.  We have heard nothing back.   So, per their demand, we are waiting on the customer to accept the repair or cash out, we will not pay damages based on the customer’s lack of an air conditioning unit, and the AC systems in the home are eligible under the contract.  We will not take additional responsibility beyond the contractual coverage for their other unit.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

October 5, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] MD-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   Our contract has limitations, like all other contracts. We are not replacing the customer’s microwave that became inoperative, and cannot be repaired in the first 30 days.   If the customer considers that “egregious and unconscionable”, that is his prerogative, but we will not replace his cooktop downdraft fan, that was a known issue on his inspection, or his microwave that cannot be repaired  in the first 30 days.      We consider this issue closed.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The company is claiming that the unit failed before or during the alleged lapse of coverage.  They cannot provide me with the exact date the unit failed or started to fail.  They cannot provide me with a reason why it took two weeks to process payment and contribute to a "lapse" I didn't know existed.  They are making assumptions that the unit failed before or during the alleged lapse despite what the contractor they sent to my home told me and your company.  I have documented conversations with that contractor.  The company continues to treat me like a criminal, not a customer.   At this point I am moving forward with other means of resolving this claim.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

September 11, 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 explanation.   On July 5, 2017, the customer ‘s technician called our office, advising that the customer’s 8 SEER 20+ year old evaporator coil had failed.  As this is eligible under the warranty coverage, we offered the customer the quoted cost of the replacement coil, with labor and tax, less the required trade service fee.  (total $1,211.00)   At that time, the technician quoted our office $1,601.00 as the customer’s cost to replace the condenser, with labor, as well as sheet metal and line modifications. (total $1,601.00)   It would appear that the customer is taking the technician’s written invoice(approximately $3,700), deducting the quoted non covered costs, and  is stating the remainder is due from the warranty.   Per a review of the technician’s invoice, it would appear that the costs in question are approximately $900(with $70 in tax), for LNST, SHT MTL, MISC.  Per our discussion with the technician, the line and sheet metal modifications were non-covered costs under the contract.     The customer accepted our cash out on September 5, 2017, and their check is in process.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

October 10, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] FL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We received...

the customer’s complaint and would like to respond accordingly.    The warranty requires that we provide a technician to address a repair, and receive their diagnosis,  in order to approve them to perform the work.   We apologize if a technological issue prevented the customer from calling our office on the morning of October 4, 2016.  The customer could have filed a claim online, or called us later, as he did at 1:40 PM, on the same day.   We have requested the customer’s receipt for review, but this in no way guarantees that we will provide any reimbursement for work done outside the contract and without our approval.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Claims Special Handling

We did request for a supervisor, after the rep we were talking to had a rude attitude towards our questions. We were asking about the specific coverage of appliances, specifically regarding the hvac unit. We did ask specifically if the warranty covered replacement of units that were too small. To which the supervisor responded that no the company did not. We then asked if the company would be able to assist in any way at all if the unit was too small, again the supervisor stated that they would not. My wife did mention the rudeness of reps almost every time we have had to call in, what was not mentioned was that on at least 2 claims the rep did not completely listen to what our request was and only part of what we were asking for was actually looked at. Our request for reimbursement was in regards to the cancellation of the contract and the fact that we felt we were not getting what we thought was a fair purchase for our money. At that time, as the ride rep we talked to before the supervisor gave us the information on how to cancel, the supervisor stated that would be up to the cancellation dept. As for my review, the person who responded did not have all the information and only assumed a response. To which they also lied, and tried to publically discredit my review to the company. 
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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.   A Refund for the overcharge was issued to my credit card on June 30, 2016. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

August 3, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have approved the repair, and paid the technician.   The technician is acquiring the part and should contact the customer to install today.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response from the business as I have still have not received a promised phone call from a supervisor and I was informed that I would be charged for a second opinion even though the first opinion came...

from their selected technician. I have attached the email that was sent to HWA that I was copied on from that technician. As the email states "Flashing" not counter flashing and some tar paper failing. Per my conversation with Brooke at HWA I was told that the tar paper would fall under a category of approved but since it is due to the "Counter Flashing" they will not cover it. After speaking to their technician he informed me it was not the "Counter Flashing" I would like HWA to apply what their own technician has said, if they would like to send out a second technician at their own cost. I would be fine with that. Please see the email below from the technician. I have since received an email from HWA asking me if my "Covered roof leak repair has been repair and to rate the service". I am also curious as to why I am receiving an email from HWA with the title of the email saying "COVERED CLAIM" and referencing the claim numbered associated with this claim.
Email to HWA from Service Technician
The problem is water is leaking past the flashing caused by buildup of debris and some tar paper that is failing ( see picture) . we will be removing approximately 1 square of concrete roof tiles repairing roof and re installing same tiles
Labor approximately 6 hours 2 people, 95x6=$570
materials 65
sub total $635
Trade call fee $75 -$75 paid by owner
Total to complete work $560
Please send work authorization number
Charles [redacted]
REMODELING AND REPAIR, LLC.

February 5, 2018     Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] NJ-993630     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry and apologize...

for the delay in the technician contacting the vendor to schedule service.  We have confirmed the service has been scheduled with the technician and the customer.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] Office of the President

August 3, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:  [redacted] NC-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and are providing...

the following response.   The customer opened a warranty contract with us on July 17, 2016.   On August 11, 2015, the customer filed the following Refrigerator claim online, stating:   “Covered Item Problem: Ice Maker Brand: [redacted] Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: About a week ago Have you moved into the home?: Yes When did you move into the home?: 07/17/2015 Q & A: Q: Please tell us what the problem with the ice maker is A: Other Problem Description: The ice in the door is not working.  It will not let ice drop.” This claim was not processed by our system, because, per contract section VI.C, the contract specifically excludes:   “Water and ice dispensers and their respective equipment”   That day we advised the customer why the issue would not be covered.   On August 27, 2015, the customer called back, stating the unit was not dispensing, and stopped making ice on August 20, 2015 .  We assigned a technician per contract, who advised that the issue was with the dispenser (which is not covered).  The customer requested a second opinion. The second opinion came out, and addressed the issue with ice production(stating the metal bar was staying up to stop the ice production).   On the morning of June 27, 2016, the customer filed a Refrigerator claim online, stating:   “Covered Item Problem: Ice Maker Brand: [redacted] Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: More than one month ago Q & A: Q: Please tell us what the problem with the ice maker is A: Is Not Making Ice Q: Please tell us how many times this item has worked properly since the contract start date A: Never Q: Please tell us what type of refrigerator you have A: Side by Side Q: Please tell where the refrigerator is located A: Kitchen Problem Description: The ice maker is not working properly, you have sent a service tech a couple of times and it will make ice for a bit then will stop.  The line freezes and then the ice maker cannot make ice.  Please do not send the same company that has already been out a couple of times.   A technician was assigned, and we had received no specifics of their diagnosis, until August 3, 2016, when they reported a bad water valve.    We have no information about a scheduled service call on July 27, 2016, except from the customer’s statement, and would not be liable for the technician making that appointment and not showing.   As to their plumbing service, we addressed the eligible cartridge, but would not address any restriction in their fresh water line.   We will be contacting the customer in reference to their refrigerator, per the update received today.  We will not refund ‘all monies paid’  to technicians for service fees under the contract.       Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

March 16, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted] TX-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s complaint and are providing the following response. The...

customer opened a warranty contract with us on May 18, 2015. On may 28, 2015, $490.00 was paid for her Contract. In the course of the Contract period  they have filed 4 claims: In June, they reported a failure with their Air Conditioning system. Per the technician’s diagnosis, the unit was cooling properly and there was no mechanical failure with the system. In December, a claim was opened in reference to the Heating system, which was stated was related to the Air Conditioning failure.  They did not want the technician that came out on the precious claim, so a second technician was sent.  The second technician found the customer’s Zone Controller failing, which is excluded, per section V.A of our Contract.(Now, she is requesting we pay for this ‘motherboard’ at $485.20) In December, a claim was opened on the customer’s tankless water heater, because she had to keep resetting it.  The technician recommended that the unit be maintained(descaled), and quoted a price to do so.  In February, the  customer requested to reopen the claim, stating she had the unit descaled.  We requested proof of the maintenance, and she had no proof (stated her father performed it.  She got upset and ended the call.   She called back three days ago, and we are resending a technician to evaluate. In March, the customer reported water in her ductwork after a storm, stating it was not related to her Air conditioning.  As we would not address a roof leak in her home, or storm damage, she advised she would speak with her association.  (We heard nothing else on this issue until now, when she states it is a “Freezing up AC coil”.  She claims it is covered, but we have no diagnosis as to why it is freezing up.  She did not advise us of this issue after her technician diagnosed it.  She just decided to pay for it outside of her warranty, at a cost of $208.00 ) The customer has given us our option of two ‘demands’: A refund of $580.00(though they never paid $580.00 for the Warranty Contract), after using the coverage for 11 months.  They are not even referencing a cancellation of their Contract, per section VIII.E.  They just wish $580.00 that they never paid for the coverage.   Payment for two items:  a Zone Contol Board that is excluded from their Contract, and repair done outside of the Warranty Contract, that we have no specific information about, and did not approve. As we are not expected to do either of these per our Contractual Agreement, we decline both of their demands, and will wait for the technician to provide the diagnosis of their water heater. Sincerely, [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Revdex.com:I still feel that this company has the worst system in place I have ever seen in regards to customer service.  We started this whole NO AC situation on July 11th and literally did not get it fixed until August 10th despite repeated calls, emails and major complaining.  There are no supervisors to talk to and whomever you get on the phone cannot physically call someone in their purchasing department to find out why parts are not ordered, etc.  They can only email according to them and wait for responses.  Which either take forever or are completely inaccurate.  I will NEVER use this company again and will tell every single soul I encounter to do the same thing.  We had to spend A MONTH in either hotels and staying with friends and my mother-in-law along with 2 dogs.  They should be investigate for unfair business practices.  They have no problem taking our money but just do not hold up their end when it comes to doing the right thing for the customer in a timely manner.
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]

October 28, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] ID-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   On October 21, 2016, we sent a work order to the garage door company, and resent it again today.   The customer does not only receive service when they file a complaint, and we are sorry that they believe that is how the warranty works.      Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

September 21, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] OK-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and they are free to...

cancel their coverage.  Per contract section VIII.E:   “If HWA cancels this Contract, or if You cancel this contract after the first 30 days of the Coverage Period, then You shall be entitled to a pro rata refund of the paid Contract fee for the unexpired term, less an administrative fee of the lesser or $30 or 10% of the Contract fee (unless otherwise required by state law), and any actual service costs incurred by HWA.”   The customer will not receive the remaining 8 months balance as a refund.  Any processed refund will be the pro-rated amount of the term, less service fees.   If they still wish to cancel the contract, being aware of that fact,  we will process their cancellation as requested.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I made a service call and your brokered technician from [redacted] came to my home on 6/30.  I witnessed him pressure test the unit and his diagnosis was that there was no visible leak so he recommended that we add more freon (which we did).  If that isn't evidence that he deemed the unit to be in working condition but need of repair, I'm not sure what other evidence you need.    
Sincerely,
[redacted]