Residential Warranty Corporation Of PA

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
They denied me on the phone twice. Now I'm getting a lawyer.
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]May 19, 2016
[redacted]
The Revdex.com
Revdex.com Serving Metro Washington DC
and Eastern Pennsylvania
Re:    Revdex.com ID No. [redacted]
         RWC File No [redacted]
Dear [redacted]:
                This
letter is to serve as a rebuttal to the response given by Residential Warranty
Company, LLC (RWC) on May 12, 2016 for a claim that I submitted Revdex.com ID No. [redacted]
for lack of warranty performance and failure to act accordingly in a timely
manner. Since my initial request for warranty performance on November 13, 2016,
RWC has consistently done a poor job in executing its obligations under the
terms of the warranty contract (Application No. [redacted]) which was purchased in
full on January 29, 2015. The response provided by Diane *. N[redacted] on May 12,
2016 contains several statements that were misleading and false that I feel need
to be corrected.
                Ms.
N[redacted] claims that RWC sent me, the homeowner, a monetary settlement offer for
the issues granted for coverage. While that is in part true there was an issue
with the settlement that was sent. Please see my email to Warranty Administrator
Jody K[redacted] sent on January 25, 2016 at 1:33 PM.
“Jody,
The Settlement Offer you have
submitted to us has a discrepancy in the settlement amount. On the first page
you state "RWC will release a check in the amount of $2404.71 upon the
receipt of your completed "Full and Final Release", whereas, the
second page states in the consideration section that $1,028.42 would be
released.
Please clarify the discrepancy and
comment on why the warranty coverage report is missing the deficiency of the
exterior windows. Your Supervisor, Daine N[redacted], assured me they would be on
the report when I spoke to her last week.
Thanks”
Her response was.
“[redacted],
I apologize for the discrepancy in
the documents.   The cash settlement offer
to you was $1,028.42 as noted on the National Cost Estimate document that was
attached.  That being said, I am going to
check on the exterior windows issue.   I
will respond in writing regarding this matter. 
Jody K[redacted]
Warranty Administrator
Warranty Resolution Department”
This discrepancy and the failure by
RWC to appropriately diagnose any of the problems is why the settlement offer
was rejected. The settlement offer did not take into account the particulars or
logistics need to repair the claim items.  After an extended period of no communication
from RWC I sent this email on February 18, 2016.
“Ms. K[redacted],
It has been several weeks since last
we spoke. At that time you had mentioned getting a contractor out to our
residence to assess the overall work effort and cost of our warranty issues.
Since I didn't hear back from you I went ahead and had a local company that
specializes in home repairs come out and take a look at the deficiencies. His
determination on issues 1a and 2 from your settlement offer are particularly
concerning to me.
Issue 1a: Install expandable spray
foam between fiberglass basin and subfloor. The fiberglass basin lies directly
on the subfloor and there is no way to inject the aforementioned spray foam
without removing the fiberglass basin. Improper installation of this basin is
causing it to flex and gaps between the tile surround and basin are present.
The contractor also noted that this continued flexing will eventually cause a
catastrophic failure of the main seal and drain pipe which would result in another
major leak. The contractor would need to remove the tile above the basin in
order to remove it. Once removed an appropriate membrane and subfloor would
need to be added to prevent further flexing and leaking. Unfortunately, the
$39.25 you have allotted is not going to remedy the situation.
Issue 2: for the bowed exterior
siding is a direct result of improper installation and lack of sufficient
fastening of the siding to the exterior walls. There are extensive gaps
(16" +) where the exterior siding is not fastened to the exterior wall by
either tacks or nails. This lack of fastening is causing the siding to bow from
the exterior wall. To fix this the siding would have to be removed from the
place of issue all the way to the bottom. Because exterior siding is installed
from the bottom up the only proper way to ensure a tight fit would be to start
from the bottom and work up to the affected area. The contractor also noted
several other areas on the outside of the home where this deficiency is
occurring and would need to further inspect these areas to determine if the
same conditions exist. The amount your company has offered in the amount of
$247.00 comes nowhere close to the $1800.00 estimate I received. This amount is
contingent on the isolated instance and does not reflect the additional
occurrences that were observed on the remaining exterior.
Since communication with your company
in regards to our warranty issues has been infrequent and unsatisfactory, I am
giving you 10 business days to reply to this in writing before submitting a
complaint to the Revdex.com. 
Thank You
[redacted]
RWC File No. [redacted]
[redacted]
North East MD [redacted]”
                Ms.
N[redacted] claims in the second paragraph of her response that “RWC learned that
the first contractor it contacted, to schedule a visit to the home to provide
RWC with an estimate, was previously contacted by the homeowner with repair
costs that exceeded the repairs required for the issues covered under The
Limited Warranty”. The only contractor I ever contacted to look at the items in
my RWC claim was [redacted], [redacted].com.
I spoke to [redacted] on 5/19/16 to confirm this claim and he clearly stated to me
that neither he nor his employees have ever received a solicitation from RWC to
make a warranty estimate for my claim. He also stated that he would be willing
to answer any questions regarding this claim.
                If
RWC is truly interested or as Ms. N[redacted] puts it “hopeful” that arbitration
will not be necessary, then why the constant delays and obfuscation when it
comes to executing any part of its obligations under this warranty contract. It
has been over 6 months and not one thing has been repaired or fixed. In my
opinion, RWC is operating under false pretenses and is completely fraudulent when
it advertises on its website that
“As a savvy homeowner, you need to
know what residential warranties can mean to you in terms of value and
protection. Whether you are just beginning the construction process, already
have a new home warranty in place, or are looking to augment your coverage with
other options, you’re starting in the right spot. RWC is here to help, no
matter what stage of the process you are in!”
For me and my family RWC has yet to help. Sincerely,[redacted]
Completely Dissatisfied Customer

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because of the same reasons I explained last time.  Just because a company has legal documents stating how they can operate doesn't mean it's correct or honest.
Regards,
[redacted]

Regarding previous conversation with RW, contact was telephone conversations.

February 12, 2014
Dear **. [redacted]
I am writing in response to your request regarding the above-mentioned file.
Residential Warranty Company, LLC (RWC) received a request for warranty performance on November 4, 2013. Based on the effective date of the...

[redacted]’s Warranty enrollment, July 14, 2008, the provisions for coverage remaining on the home are set forth in section II.C (3) of the Limited Warranty. The specific coverage available is for a loss resulting from a Major Structural Defect. The Major Structural Defect definition outlined in section 1.14 of the Limited Warranty, names three specific criteria necessary to constitute such a defect. There must be actual physical damage xo one or more specific load-bearing segments of the home causing the failure of the specific load-bearing component, which affect their load-bearing functions to the degree that it materially affects the physical safety of the occupants.
On November 22, 2013 a confirmation letter was sent to all concerned parties regarding the inspection scheduled for December 3, 2013. An independent engineer, [redacted], P.E. of [redacted] & [redacted], Inc., performed the inspection on that date. The engineering report was received by RWC on January 17, 2014.
A determination of coverage (Warranty Coverage Report) was provided to the homeowners via Certified Mail on January 27, 2014. In addition, as a gesture of good faith, a copy of the non-destructive fact finding report provided by **. [redacted] was also provided to the [redacted]. RWC determined that No Major Structural Defect existed based on the terms and limitations of the Limited Warranty.
On January 30, 2014 RWC received a telephone response from **. [redacted] disputing our determination. This conversation resulted in RWC providing information regarding the dispute resolution process outlined in the Limited Warranty Booklet. I personally reviewed the engineering report as well as all of the documentation provided by the homeowner. By way of our response to your inquiry, RWC reaffirms our position regarding the coverage decision that was made.
The next step outlined in section IV,E of The Limited Warranty is Binding Arbitration. Upon receipt of the Request for Binding Arbitration Form that was provided to the homeowner after the January 30th telephone discussion along with the appropriate fee RWC will process the request.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at ###-###-####. My direct extension is [redacted].
Sincerely

June 1, 2015Dear [redacted]:This letter serves to respond to your May 22, 2015 notice regarding the complaint filed by [redacted]. Please note that the address of the home In question is referenced above and is not the address under Customer Information. The home's Effective Date of Warranty is...

November 16, 2007.On February 7, 2008 Residential Warranty Company, LLC (RWC) received a written request for warranty performance from [redacted] and [redacted] In response to the request, RWC opened file no. [redacted]. Based upon the Effective Date of Warranty, the home was in Year l of coverage. The issues requested for warranty performance were "microwave hood light is not working" and "fireplace has a huge draft coming into living room", in Year 1 of warranty coverage the builder is the Warrantor and the responsible party for covered warranty issues. RWC communicated with the homeowner and builder through its mediation process and the potential warranty issues were resolved. RWC sent a letter to **. and [redacted], [redacted] on March 5. 2008 to this effect and informed the homeowners that their file was considered closed.On February 13, 2015 RWC received another written reauest for warranty performance from [redacted] and [redacted] dated February 11, 2015. The issues requested for warranty performance were "doors sticking and not latching and cracks in the wait". RWC communicated with **. and [redacted]. [redacted] and explained the Major Structural Defect coverage available on the home. RWC scheduled a fact-finding inspection at the home. The fact-finding inspection took place on March 20, 2015. The fact-finding inspection revealed that the homeowners had repairs to the foundation slab performed in addition to cosmetic repairs. Consequential damages are specifically excluded from warranty coverage. And, the coverage for a Major Structural Defect was denied because there was no substantiation of a Major Structural Defect. In addition, as stated in Section I.D.8, WHAT YOUR LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER, "A Defect that you repair without prior written authorization of the Administrator." On May 21, 2015 the homeowners notified RWC that they wish to start arbitration on this claim, In response, arbitration information was provided to the homeowners. Upon receipt of the executed Request For Binding Arbitration form and payment to the chosen arbitration service, RWC will process the homeowners' arbitration request.Sincerely,Residential Warranty Company, LLCDiane N, Manager Warranty Resolution Department

Useless service. After almost a year of being told my problem would be fixed, RWC changed and said I had to go to arbitration. They seem to allow the builder to control the complaint. You are better going straight to small claims court with your warranty item.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:They denied me on the phone twice. Now I'm getting a lawyer.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: I have a foundation issue with my home that was covered under my home's warranty with RWC. The work to fix the foundation issue was completed on January 11, 2013. I provided the warranty company with a list of consequential damages in January 2013, and a Structural Engineer came to my home on Feb. 7, 2013. He provided a report to RWC on March 11, 2013. A contractor (from [redacted], not [redacted], where I live) was scheduled to come to my home on March 25, 2013 to do a walk thru and provide an estimate to the warranty company on what it will cost to fix the consequential damages. He had to cancel because of a snow storm. He then rescheduled on April 15, 2013 and did a walk thru at that time. For some reason, he never provided an estimate to the warranty company. Another contractor, this time from [redacted], came to my house on May 21, 2013 and did a walk thru, to provide an estimate to the warranty company on what it will cost to fix my home. Again, this contractor never provided an estimate to the warranty company. I emailed the Technical Advisor with the warranty company on July 2, 2013 advising how upset I was with this process and I detailed what the cost will be to fix my home. He advised "I am discussing your settlement amount currently at a higher level. RWC will be in touch with you shortly." I have heard nothing from him, I have emailed him twice and called and left two voicemail messages and received no response. It is now going on over SIX MONTHS since the initial work was completed on my home's foundation, and I am STILL WAITING for a FAIR settlement offer from the warranty company on the consequential damages!Desired Settlement: A check in the amount of $10,856.00 so I can start getting my home fixed!

Business

Response:

Please see attached response.

Review: We contacted our RWC in November after being quoted a rather large repair bill for a failing foundation. We contacted the builder and they refused to offer any help and said to call RWC. We did and they quickly sent out a self proclaimed "Road and Bridge Engineer" ([redacted]; [redacted] and [redacted], Inc.). We were then told by [redacted] (RWC) that we would hear back within 2 weeks. RWC never contacted us unless we called or emailed a few times. They blamed the "Engineer" for not getting his report dome in time. The "Engineer" proclaimed at the time of a "fact finding inspection" that he was only to indicate if there was a "total failure of the structure". He took pictures of damage from 50-75' away from the house and refused to gather photos of the serious damage caused my the failing foundation. He leveled the Steel Beam in the house and neglected to add that to his report, he failed to mentioned the failing foundation caused the window in the basement to crack. [redacted] replaced this window prior to closing on the home in 2008. I received the "Engineer's" report from RWC finally on 1/30/2014. More than 1-1/2 months after the "inspection". They denied my claim as the "Engineer" said they would. They refused to send an actual "Residential Structural Engineer" to perform the inspection. We are requesting they perform another inspection using the "Residential Structural Engineer" we choose. We further request all repairs be completed immediately as they have sent us on a "wild goose chase". I know this might be common practice for "RWC" to get out of paying clai** but either [redacted], RWC or both will be fixing this problem.Desired Settlement: We would like them to use a Engineer we choose at their cost. We would like them to cover all repairs immediately as they have dragged their feet on this matter long enough. We will attend arbitration only after they contract a real "Residential Structural Engineer" of our choosing.

Business

Response:

February 12, 2014

Dear **. [redacted]

I am writing in response to your request regarding the above-mentioned file.

Residential Warranty Company, LLC (RWC) received a request for warranty performance on November 4, 2013. Based on the effective date of the [redacted]’s Warranty enrollment, July 14, 2008, the provisions for coverage remaining on the home are set forth in section II.C (3) of the Limited Warranty. The specific coverage available is for a loss resulting from a Major Structural Defect. The Major Structural Defect definition outlined in section 1.14 of the Limited Warranty, names three specific criteria necessary to constitute such a defect. There must be actual physical damage xo one or more specific load-bearing segments of the home causing the failure of the specific load-bearing component, which affect their load-bearing functions to the degree that it materially affects the physical safety of the occupants.

On November 22, 2013 a confirmation letter was sent to all concerned parties regarding the inspection scheduled for December 3, 2013. An independent engineer, [redacted], P.E. of [redacted] & [redacted], Inc., performed the inspection on that date. The engineering report was received by RWC on January 17, 2014.

A determination of coverage (Warranty Coverage Report) was provided to the homeowners via Certified Mail on January 27, 2014. In addition, as a gesture of good faith, a copy of the non-destructive fact finding report provided by **. [redacted] was also provided to the [redacted]. RWC determined that No Major Structural Defect existed based on the terms and limitations of the Limited Warranty.

On January 30, 2014 RWC received a telephone response from **. [redacted] disputing our determination. This conversation resulted in RWC providing information regarding the dispute resolution process outlined in the Limited Warranty Booklet. I personally reviewed the engineering report as well as all of the documentation provided by the homeowner. By way of our response to your inquiry, RWC reaffirms our position regarding the coverage decision that was made.

The next step outlined in section IV,E of The Limited Warranty is Binding Arbitration. Upon receipt of the Request for Binding Arbitration Form that was provided to the homeowner after the January 30th telephone discussion along with the appropriate fee RWC will process the request.

If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at ###-###-####. My direct extension is [redacted].

Sincerely

Useless service. After almost a year of being told my problem would be fixed, RWC changed and said I had to go to arbitration. They seem to allow the builder to control the complaint. You are better going straight to small claims court with your warranty item.

Review: I bought my home from [redacted] in August of 2007. Before closing on my home, I had some concerns about a large crack in the cement slab foundation and was told by the [redacted] sales rep not to worry, it was covered for 10 years. My home was inspected by a [redacted] inspector and a private inspection paid for by myself prior to purchasing my home and again at the 1 year anniversary of my home. Never was the back yard grading ever mentioned in any of the reports. Years 3-10 are handled by this company, Residential Warranty Company, LLC. I had noticed some shifting of my foundation and notified them. They sent out a Engineer to inspect my property and he reported that although he found physical damage to covered vertical grade beam, in his opinion it had not affected its load bearing function. He went on to say that there's a slight slope in the back yard which allowed the soil to retain moisture at the back of my home. RWC sent me a letter telling me that if I did not fix the grading issue in my back yard, then they would exclude coverage for a major structural defect if the rear yard grading caused the major structural defect. A representative from my home builder, [redacted] came out to inspect my home and said the back yard slight slope was designed this way prior to me purchasing my home so water wouldn't enter the back of my house in the event of a heavy rain. He said there's nothing wrong and that my back yard doesn't need to be re-graded. Residential Warranty Company, LLC is refusing to eliminate their request that I re-grade my backyard. I feel as though they are punishing me for the way my home builder designed my back yard and are using this as a ploy to escape having to possibly repair my home's foundation in the future since my warranty doesn't expire until 8/28/2017Desired Settlement: Residential Warranty Company, LLC eliminates their request for me to re-grade my back yard since this is the way my home builder designed my back yard and doesn't require any repairs and to eliminate the paragraph in the letters they have sent me telling me the coverage for a major structural defect would be excluded if the rear yard grading caused the major structural defect. They are telling me I can arbitrate their findings, but I feel as though I shouldn't have to spend $500 when no repairs are currently needed for my home according to them.

Business

Response:

November 27, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

This letter serves to respond to your November 19, 2013 letter relating to a complaint the Revdex.com received against Residential Warranty Company, LLC (RWC) from the homeowner. RWC received the homeowner's August 7, 2013 written request for warranty performance on August 13, 2013 regarding "a problem with the foundation". The home's Effective Date of Warranty is August 28, 2007. Based upon timing of notice to RWC, the home is in Year 6 of coverage. During Years 3-10 coverage under The Limited Warranty is limited to a Major Structural Defect. On September 5, 2013 [redacted]. P.E., Staff Engineer performed a fact-finding inspection for RWC. Based upon the fact-finding inspection and The Limited Warranty, it was determined the criteria for a Major Structural Defect did not exist at the time of the inspection. During the inspection the engineer observed and noted issues relative to the drainage and grading around the home. These observations were shared with the homeowner. Grading and drainage issues are applicable to coverage during Year 1 only. The homeowner was advised to take action as deemed necessary relating to the grading and drainage. The homeowner was also advised that if she has a dispute with RWC's coverage determination she may make a request for arbitration. RWC believes its coverage determination and the information provided to the homeowner is appropriate and is in accordance with The Limited Warranty.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: According to documentation provided to me upon purchasing my home from the builder, [redacted], I am not allowed to make any changes to the grading or drainage in my back yard or it will in fact void my warranty. Residential Warranty Company is asking me to violate my warranty with the builder. Additionally, the builder came out to my home and said the grading and drainage was done by them correctly and therefore does not need to be addressed. Residential Warranty Company is saying this so they will not have to repair any future issues with my home's foundation since their inspector has already noticed damage, but said it's still functioning and does not need to be repaired at this time. I also have documentation from before I purchased my home indicating my concern for a crack in my home's foundation and emails from the builder telling me not to worry, that my home comes with a 10 year limited warranty but never mentions has to meet 3 areas of criteria that Residential Warranty Company says must be met.

Regards,

Business

Response:

December 18, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

This letter serves to respond to your December 10, 2013 letter regarding the additional concerns of the homeowner. We believe the homeowner has a misunderstanding regarding RWCs communications with her relating to the grading in the rear of her home. RWC is not asking that she make changes to the grading in her back yard. RWC informed the homeowner of the observations identified in the engineer's Fact-Finding Inspection Report and recommended she take action as she dee** necessary. The homeowner was told if she makes a written request for warranty performance in the future, RWC will consider all of the information provided-

Sincerely,