Home Warranty of America

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 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

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]

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

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

following response.   On August 1, 2016, the customer filed the following Air Conditioning claim online:    “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: Yes Q: Please Tell us the nature of the problem you are experiencing A: Outside unit is not coming on Q: Please tell us how the air conditioner worked for you previous to this problem A: No problems Q: Have you had maintenance performed on the system A: Yes 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 season. A: More than 2 Months Problem Description: The unit stopped last night and will not come back on Has been cooling and functioning fine all season until now.”   Per our Contractual agreement, we sent a technician to diagnose the issue. The technician confirmed service that day, or the next.   On August 3, 2016, we received the replacement forms.   On August 4, 2016, we contacted the customer and advised their condenser had failed, and was eligible for replacement. Their existing coil would not work with the new upgraded condenser, so we called them to discuss the non covered costs connected with the replacement and the coil upgrade. Per that conversation, the customer believed she had coverage to lower the non covered costs (she did not), and wanted us to provide a different unit, and upgrade it to 16 SEER. (the contract only requires the SEER standard of 14).   As the customer wanted to upgrade their system, we offered our cost for the replacement of their condenser a few days later, per contract section VII.N:   “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.”   It would appear, that rather than pay the costs for the coil upgrade, or accept the check for our cost to replace the Condenser, the customer has paid retail cost to upgrade their system, and now wants us to pay for it.  We decline to do so.      Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

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

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

November 2, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] MO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The disputed $25 discrepancy has been resolved, with our apologies.  The claim has been filed, and the technician scheduled for tomorrow morning.   We would request that the customer close this complaint, with the option to reopen it later, if needed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

March 17, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006      Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]) TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We do not dispute that we dispatched the technician.   We do not dispute that we have a contract with Mr. [redacted].   We do not dispute that we are not responsible for restoration of a wall covering (aka. A baseboard)   We have spoken to the technician, and provided the information to the customer.  We are not liable for any damage that they state the technician caused.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/25) */
September 25, 2015
Esther [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
Revdex.com
330 North Wabash, Suite 2006
Chicago, IL 60611
Re: 94569792: Nagle FL-1852322
Dear Ms. [redacted]
We have received the customer's complaint,...

and have credited their funds to their credit card.
Sincerely,
Carl [redacted]
Escalated Special Handling
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/09/28) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I received the money back in my checking account this morning.

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

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

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

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

August 3, 2016   [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  rebuttal  and are providing the following response.   No claim for a water heater was filed prior to June 9, 2016.  Per contract section III.A:   “In order for the Service Request to be covered, notice must be given to HWA prior to expiration of this Contract.”   So even if it were leaking prior to June 9, it was not reported.    We are not disputing the second opinion’s diagnosis. The unit was not in proper working order, and would not be covered under contract.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

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

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The failure in 2014 & the failure in 2017 were for exactly the same thing; the septic air pump stopped working.  There was no other problems that I filed a claim for in either case. So I still don't understand why Home Warranty of America (HWA) covered the cost in 2014 (minus the $60 service fee) but would not provide the same cover in 2017. And I still can't find any wording in our contract that limits HWA to $500 liability.Regarding HWA's comment about not hearing from me about the issue before filing a complaint with the Revdex.com, we did talk to 2 HWA service representatives before the repairs were done. And the HWA reps told us we would be hearing from their "authorizations dept." to further discuss/dispute the costs.  I never heard from their authorization dept. nor would the HWA service reps give me a phone number for that department.So I did try to resolve the issue prior to contacting the Revdex.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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

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

February 6, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] WI-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have reviewed the customer’s complaint, and the delivery of the...

replacement unit was expected the day the complaint was filed.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling