Home Warranty of America

August 10, 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 provide the following response. ...

  On August 26, 2016, a home warranty was ordered from our company, on the customer’s property.   This contract, which provides coverage for a majority of the appliances and systems in the home, was purchased at a cost of $540.    Our records reflect, that the customer has filed four claims, and has received $834.00 in service costs.    We apologize that a representative did not reach out to him to advise that the failure with his shower base pan is excluded from his coverage, per contract section IV.A.   If the customer desires to cancel his coverage, we can easily end the contract.  Unfortunately, there would be no refund provided based on the $834.00 already paid by the warranty on the customer’s behalf.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 25, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] VA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We received the customer’s inquiry, and per information provided by the...

technician, the needed repair was completed last Friday.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

August 4, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] TN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   It would seem that the customer is again making repeated reference to his personal losses, and damages, which he is well aware we are not responsible for.   We are not providing the customer a blanket approval to have this issue addressed by a third party, when the technician has the unit to complete his repair today.                                         ...⇄ Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

February 22, 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.    On January 2, 2017, the customer filed the following plumbing claim online:   “Covered Item Problem: Water Leak Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: Yesterday Q & A: Q: Please let us know where you are having a water leak or where water is leaking from A: Pipe in the Garage Problem Description: There seems to be a leak somewhere in the storage room of our garage. The walls are not wet but the floor is wet. Its a tight spot so I really don't know what it could be.”   Per contract, we assigned a technician to investigate the reported failure.   On January 4, 2017, the technician requested the customer’s permission to remove some damaged sheetrock from the garage utility room, and found improperly installed hose/piping causing the leak.   Per contract VII.J:   ““HWA is not liable for repairs related to adequacy or capacity of appliances, components and systems in the home; improper installation, design or previous repair of appliances, components and systems”   Also, per contract, section VII.G:   “HWA is not responsible for consequential or secondary damage.”   We requested the customer’s inspection from prior to closing , and per the document, there were multiple signs of leakage/damage to drywall caused by leakage at the garage, storage room  and laundry.   The warranty would not address improperly installed piping, nor would we restore water  damaged drywall, that the customer allowed the technician to remove.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

December 19, 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 inquiry, and provide the...

following explanation.   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 less.”   We are sorry that the technician charged the customer $75.00(which is $25.00 less than their $100.00 Trade Call Fee), and then reported to us that the actual cost of service was $115.00. This is what caused the confusion.  The customer’s statement from the technician that the $40 fee was not part of the ‘service fee’ is incorrect.      This issue was resolved with the customer directly the day this complaint was filed.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

January 5, 2016 Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  TN-835265 Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s rebuttal, and provide the following response. We have the diagnosis, from a licensed technician, stating the unit was properly installed.. The customer states it wasn’t, and we are asking for a statement from a licensed technician to confirm. We are not asking for pictures that the customer has taken of the issue.  We are asking for a technician’s diagnosis confirming the customer’s opinion. The customer is wanting us to ‘stand up’ on his behalf,  but rather than provide  the information we are requesting, he is taking pictures and questioning the technician’s character. We are not going to send a second opinion, at our cost, to support the customer’s opinion, without confirmation that the installation was improper. Sincerely, Carl [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

June 15, 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 contacted them...

with the requested replacement information.   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]. We are still working to resolve the full extent of the damages.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

October 30, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  AZ-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and provide a...

more focused timeline of events:   On October 19, 2017, at 5:44 PM CST,  the customer reported the master bathroom toilet valve dripping, and that they had to shut off the water to stop the leakage.   As a courtesy, we found a technician that advised they could service same day.  The customer was not contacted by them, and we offered the customer the ability to contact their own vendor.   On October 20, 2017, the customer could not get their own technician (without paying a non-covered trip charge), and wanted us to send a technician, which we did.   That evening, they provided us the following electronic diagnosis:   “Repair: Adjust Toilet Levels And Flapper Chain Model: Serial: Repair: [redacted] 2PC ELONGATED CLOSET WHITE WTR SVR MDL Model: Serial: Repair: [redacted] REPLACE PLASTIC BALLCOCK WITH BALL Model: Serial: Repair: [redacted] REPLACE STOP AND FLEX SUPPLY Model: Serial: Notes: Tech Notes: Found three toilet issues and home, first issue in guest bathroom downstairs flapper chain is loose and water level needs to be adjusted. Second issue upstairs guest bathroom toilet trap is full of settlement and calcium told it is nonrepairable, it has lost its flashing power needs to be replaced. Third issue is master bathroom toilet angle stop will not shut off or open and fill valve diaphragm is broken need to replace fill valve. Replaced angle stop and fill valve in master bathroom adjusted water level to guest bathroom downstairs and flapper. And toilet replacement for guest bathroom upstairs is in progress tested everything and no more issues found everything looks normal”   A week later, the customer reported that the guest bathroom toilet was broken again.  We reassigned the technician, who advised that the handle in that bathroom was now broken.   The customer feels that the broken handle was related to the first issue(s) reported, but the technician disagrees, stating that everything was repaired and working after the initial service.   The technician has advised that a second fee was due, which was why we advised the customer that the issue was not related to the initial toilet repair.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 5, 2016   [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 have addressed the issue...

with him directly.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

August 23, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] GA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and provide the...

following response.   Per the diagnosis received from the technician, we replaced the customer’s HVAC Condenser, between August 8, 2016 and August 12, 2016.   On August 12, 2016, the customer advised that the unit was not cooling.  Per our contract section III.F:   “If Services performed under this Contract should fail, then HWA will provide for the necessary repairs without an additional Trade Call Fee for a period of 90 days on parts and 30 days on labor.”   We assigned the technician to go back, as the repair was currently under their warranty for parts and labor,  and were advised they could do so the following day.   On August 15, 2016, the customer called stating they did not show up, and she called her own technician and wants reimbursement.  Per our contract III.D:   “HWA has the sole and absolute right to select the Authorized Repair Technician to perform the Service; and HWA will not reimburse for Services performed without its prior approval.”   We did not assign ‘Coolray’ to perform a repair, nor did we approve them to do so.  The customer did so, outside of our warranty, as well as the initial technicians warranty on the installation.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

October 5, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer’s appliances and systems need to be in proper working order.  Their water heater was not new and known to be leaking on their inspection .    Her concern about her heating and air conditioning system have nothing to do with her water heater that was leaking before the contract started   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

October 20, 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 provide the...

following response.   On October 4, 2017, a home warranty was ordered from our company, on the customer’s property, with a start date of October 6,  2017.   This contract, which provides coverage for a majority of the appliances and systems in the home, requires that all systems and components be in proper working order as of that date, and become inoperative due to normal wear(per contract section I.B.7).   On October 12, 2017(less than a week moving into the property), the customer reported the following failures that were noticed that day:   ·        The gas was just turned on and the gas furnace is not blowing any heat ·        The gas was just turned on and the gas dryer is not heating ·        The gas was just turned on and the gas water heater was not heating ·        The stove door fell off ·        The water by the washing machine is constantly running.   As three of the issues were noticed at the same time the gas was turned on at the property (indicating the systems never worked properly under contract), we (per contract section VII.A) requested “a copy of any visual or mechanical test that may have been performed by a home inspector or other licensed mechanical contractor.” , to confirm (per contract section I.B.7) that “no defect is known or would have been detectable by a visual inspection or mechanical test on the Coverage Period Start Date.”, so we could consider the items in question in proper working order.   Per the customer’s inspection(dated September 14, 2017)that was received the same day:   The furnace’s condition was dirty, and needed professional service and evaluation prior to closing The dryer’s operated, but did not heat. The water heater had no relief pipe, which was a known safety hazard. The stove’s gas supply was shut off, preventing testing, and the door did not close properly. The washing machine could not be tested, as the water was shut off to the unit.   Per the customer’s statement, the customer’s warranty has coverage for unknown pre-existing conditions, which is defined in contract section I.A.2 as:   “” 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.”   Per the customer’s inspection, all items referenced had detectable failures, or could not have been tested due to the gas/water being off to the property.  Had the utilities been turned on,  the problems would have been detected, as they were by the customer when the gas company turned the gas on to the property.   We apologize for the inconvenience to the customer, but we will not address the detectable failures in his recently purchased foreclosure property   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

April 18, 2017   [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 rebuttal, and provide the following response.   The customer is free to make unfounded accusations, but we hold to the statement that the first technician that we assigned to the claim was declined by the customer, because they could not service when the customer wished.   The customer is also free to imply that because a technician chooses to not work with us, and doesn’t wish to call us, it is some kind of indicator of poor service. We have no control over a technician that decides to not work with our company, or not to call our office.   We have spoken to the technician, that can repair the unit.  We are waiting for the invoice to determine reimbursement.  Again, we are not required to replace a unit that can be repaired.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

February 14, 2016   [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 claims that we “advertise they insure dama** to homes, appliances, air cond., etc”  We do not do this.   Per our contract section I, we :   “…arran** 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.”   This is in no way insuring dama** to homes…etc.  Additionally, we require that ‘Covered Systems and Components’ be in proper working order on the covera** period effective date, and become inoperative due to normal wear and tear.    Referencing the issues mentioned in their complaint, the customer opened a contract with us on October 28, 2016.  On October 31, 2016, the customer called,  advising:     Of a heating claim on a unit that never heated properly for them.  They had not yet moved into the home. The customer reported that they had an inspector come to the home and found that  the unit was not working properly. We assigned a technician, and received a diagnosis., that the unit was extremely dirty and in need of maintenance.   We requested their home inspection, and confirmed this was a known issue.   Of an Air conditioning issue on a unit that never cooled properly for them.  They had not yet moved into the home.   The customer reported that they had an inspector come to the home and found that  the unit was not working properly. We assigned a technician, and never received a diagnosis. Per their inspection, the unit was not fully functional, requiring repair of service.   Of a water heater that had never performed properly for them, which was noticed by an inspector.  We assigned a technician, who found signs of prior leaka**(but no current leaks), and a gas company report that the water heater was missing a combustion door and platform.  The warranty does not address missing parts on a unit, or a unit that is still operational.   On November 16, 2016, the customer filed a claim for their ** dishwasher, that had stopped working.  We sent a technician, who found “dishwasher had noise in pump, disassembled and cleaned. had various broken items in pump, cleaned out, and reassembled pump, tested and works as new.”  (As an aside, the customer’s inspection states that the ** unit was worn,  making a noise/buzzing when running and needed to be checked/maintained.  The buyer requested that unit be replaced, or they receive payment for the unit at closing) On November 26, 2016, the customer opened a claim for their [redacted], stating that the unit did not turn on.   The technician was sent, found the unit repairable, and we offered the customer the repair, or the cost of the repair.  The customer accepted our cash out. (Note-The oven was also noted on the inspection,  as not fully functional, requiring repair or servicing.)   So, effectively, the customer is complaining that he had a series of items, that were not in proper working order, and he is upset that the warranty did not replace them.  It would seem that they think the warranty addresses failures noted before the contract start, but it does not.    Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

December 8, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer’s statement is perfectly true, except the part that it does not make sense.  The warranty does not require an inspection, but if a problem would have been detectable by a visual inspection or mechanical test, it is not covered under contract.  There is no contradiction here.   The customer is free to have his own opinion, whether it is correct or not.   As we have explained to the customer previously, the intent of the warranty is to cover items that are: ·        Inside the bounds of the main foundation ·        In proper working order ·        Become inoperative due to normal wear.   The customer’s intent to try to change the purpose of  the warranty will not obligate the warranty to cover the labor to replace the heat exchanger that was not in proper working order, which would have been easily detectable on the coverage period start date.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

July 10, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   There is nothing more for us to do, in reference to this issue.  If the former customer wishes to file additional complaints with other organizations, that is their prerogative.   The repair has been completed, their contract has been refunded, and we consider this matter closed.     Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

March 15, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted] VA-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: In the customer’s original response, he stated: “After he was gone it started happening again so I called the local repair person I explain the situation that it still does same thinh and he adviced me that call hwa and there will no charge because its a same issue. He came after 3 days when my heating working fine.” We cannot state what happened between the customer and the technician. We can state factually that the customer spoke to our office on February 15, 2016, to file a recall to send the technician back.  At that time, per a review of the call, he was advised that the trade call fee would be pending, requiring that the current failure was the same as the initial failure.  This would mean that  that there would not be any charge if this was the same problem.   The customer insisted it was the same failure at that time. When the technician stated there was no failure at the time of  second service, it was not the same failure as the initial service, and a second fee would be due. So, based on the customer’s statement: “I was told frim both contractor and hwa that there wont be any charge as this is a same problem” The customer is assuming the problem would be the same, as they did on the phone call with our office.  We did not say the failures were the same when the recall was filed, because we would not know until we received the diagnosis.   In this case, the customer has  removed the word ‘if’, and changed it to ‘as’, in order to dispute the fee. The fee is due, because their was no mechanical failure at the time of the second service. Again, we are sorry if this is an intermittent problem, but the unit would need to become inoperative for us to address the issue under Contract.    Sincerely, [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

January 25, 2018     Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] OH-907360     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry and contacted...

them directly to address the issue. We apologize for any miscommunication, and are providing an $1,100.00 reimbursement for the water heater replacement, less trade fee.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] Office of the President

September 25, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] CO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and have...

contacted them, to discuss the resolution of their three claims.  (Range, Microwave, Water heater)   As we are addressing these issues with the customer, we will not be providing a refund of the contract cost.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President