Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Unfortunately, RWS has failed to acknowledge that no one ever responded to approve/deny the claim from 8/with the recommended repairs based on the abfindings during my tune-upNo work was ever done as I continued to wait for feedback from RWSRWS also fails to admit fault for never responding to my second claim I submitted during my call on 8/that that unit had completely failed the night before, and now I urgently need a response which I was told I would receive two days in a row and never didThe provided phone records prove that no one from RWS ever called back as promised to schedule a technician or help in any way whatsoever which is unacceptableSince our last communication was on 8/before I followed up to see what happened, the last day to cut a reimbursement check to me (business days excluding weekends and holidays) was actually October 5, not October I was told October by RWS during my follcall so I don't know why they are going back on what they originally told me to try and cover their error of cutting the check lateRWS has also failed to admit responsibility for not telling me that amount on the check was going to be changedIn summary, the following actions and lack thereof are unacceptable, and would warrant an effort by the company to rectify the situation with the customer, which RWS is refusing to doNever responded to approve or deny my 8/claim recommended repairs
Never responded to or even recorded my 8/claim that the unit stopped working and needed urgent attention
Never told me they decided to send me a $check for a buyout of my parts (I had to call a week later and learn that myself)Cut the check a week late after they told me themselves that October was the last day they could cut to be in compliance with their day policy
Sent a check for much less than the $I was told I would receive, and never communicated this change to me
Unfortunately, RWS is not willing to provide any reimbursement for the horrible experience provided in the summary aboveI cannot accept this as a satisfactory response to my Revdex.com claim so I suppose this claim will simply have to remain unresolved on Revdex.com's records along with the many other outstanding claims on the Revdex.com website against this company
Regards,
*** *** ***
The homeowner has stated she has a year-long home warranty in place with ANOTHER warranty company (not RWS)As a result, per the terms of her warranty with us, “the coverage under this policy shall come
after any and all other warranties in place [empadded].” Therefore, the homeowner, must file the entirety of her claim with her other warranty companyHowever, as a goodwill gesture from RWS to this homeowner, she may keep the check RWS has already mailed to her as we strive to go above and beyond our obligations to our customers, every time
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI would like to request to resolve this matter: I will accept the $479, and I will let the Revdex.com and the reporter know that we have settled this matter to my satisfactionHowever, I will not provide you any five star reviews as you requested because that would be an outright lieI will take the $offer and consider the case settledBelow is the email correspondences between myself and MrT*** for the record:Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I contacted the company as directed by the response provided and was connected with the Director of Operations "Lane", with whom I previously spokeLane again reviewed my case and asked various questions to (per him) see if I was covered under other policiesHe told me that he would meet with company leadership and they would determine further actionLane called me later that day, as he had stated and told me that the company leadership/counsel had agreed to provide $for settlement related to the customer service issuesLane stated that Lane "accepted this on your (my) behalf"I expressed my dissatisfaction with this amount but stated that he could send me this money as I was looking to put this behind meHe stated that it would be sent out Thursday afternoon or Friday at the latest and that within hours of it being sent out I would be contacted with a tracking numberHe also offered that I could call back at any time and utilize their resources/recommendations for contractors which I thanked Lane for the offer but politely declinedBefore we hung up I thanked Lane for his time and he again stated he would get the check out before the end of that week. To this point I have received no check and no tracking number for any checkI called yesterday to follow up and was told Lane was in a meeting and that he would call me backAn hour later I was called by a service representative who told me there was no record of any check in the file that he could see aside from the original $that was denied by the owner during final reviewThis representative told me he would check with Lane (who was in a meeting) and have Lane contact meToday (4/13/16), I have received no contact or follow upI would like to make it clear that a value I hold dear is that I do what I say I will doThe behavior or lack of follow through I have experienced with RWS would suggest that they do not hold a similar valueI would think the continued viability in a business would benefit from this shared value and I sincerely hope that their follow through is better in other situations (I am sure any response from their counsel will highlight that they do). If they did follow up on what they said they would do in this most recent instance, the issue would be resolved in my eyesI hope to be proven wrong and a check shows up in my mail this week but I no longer have the time or energy after 2+ months of going back and forth with RWS. I am writing today so that I can document this experience with RWS. Out of principle, I will no longer utilize any home inspection service that has an affiliation with RWS or Inspector Service Group and I have shared my experience with the original home inspection company
Regards,
Dr*** *. ***, ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.This has unnecessarily gone around in circles multiple timesAs proven in my call records that you agreed matched up with yours, there were no "multiple communications" so I don't know why that term keeps getting thrown aroundA simple review of the recorded calls will show that I stated in my second call that "no one called me back yesterday like I was told would happen, and now the need for a call back to schedule service is even more urgent because when I came home from work last night, my unit had completely failed." Whoever I spoke with said that they would pass the issue on to my local office, and I would get a call back that dayAs proven in my phone records, I never received a call from RWS again until October after I inquired about the reimbursement check that came for a much smaller amount than I was told I would receiveEvery other communication was initiated by me, which shows a great lack of customer service, especially after I said my A/C unit had failed completelyThe October date is a complete fallacy alsoMy calls to RWS regarding my A/C issues occurred on 8/and 8/which has been documented business days from the end of that week (August 26) is October after all holidays and weekends have been accounted forThe customer service rep is the one who gave me that October date (I didn't just make this up), which is already past days from August which was the last day I called RWSOctober is a week later from the day date of October This is simple math using a calendar.
Again, I am completely disappointed in the response by RWS and their refusal to take ownership for the situationThe facts have been presented multiple times, and only a reimbursement for the full amount I was told I would receive will be an acceptable resolution for all of the information I received, and complete failure of RWS to contact me to service my claims
Regards,
*** *** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I have never made any statement to RSW about having another company look at the problem Every call I have made to RSW has been to ask what the hold up is with their contracted company - ***, and every time I am told they need to research the paperwork more or try to contact *** themselves A promise is always made they will call me back and never have
Regards,
*** ***
Absolute garbage! This company assured me they were sending professionals out to service my claimsMy water heater was replaced by a very pushy plumber who flooded my garage and then took my shut off valve without replacing it! (code violation #1) Then, after a heated verbal argument with Zane over the telephone, I was told they would not cover the cost of another professional plumber to come fix the code violation that would require most of the water to be drained from my house! I was told that I would have to use the same plumber! Just recently I found out this company cut ties with the said plumber and never bothered to mention it to meSo, I investigated...come to find out, a permit was NEVER pulled to install my water heater, (required by all licensed plumbers in the city)The purpose of pulling a permit is so city codes can come inspect the work once it is finishedNo permit, no inspection( code violation #2)Do you see where I am going with this? I was told to use the same exact plumber that this company cut ties with? The same exact plumber that made two city code violations, (assuming he was licensed)DO NOT use this company! One of two things happened...1) They used an unlicensed plumber to avoid the inspection post permit, or 2) The plumber was licensed and skipped out on the permit on his own to avoid inspection of his garbage work and then the company cut him loose without mentioning it to me after refusing to let me use another plumber at no costRegardless of which it was, this is no way to treat a client! I've seen some reviews on this page where the company threatens legal action if the review isn't taken downHow do you have reviews of stars when you have to threaten legal action against your own customers on Facebook? The other are all star? I'm contacting my congressman and Indiana congressmen over thisYou have most likely figured out that I already contacted my cities building and codes department
Then, on top of it all, the page administrator outright accuses my post of being fraudulent and made up! Says that I have to delete it! See for yourself on their facebook page! They even went as far as to say that all negative reviews were downright fraudulent Then, I opened a dialogue with multiple people who gave them five star reviews, and one outright admitted to me that he wasn't even a home owner, he was a real estate agent who sell's their product This company is a scam! Please contact me for further info
Thank you for your May letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc("RWS")RWS would first like to clarify the specific role it plays in these transactions as it
appears the Customer is under the wrong impression by her statement: "RWS has refused to fully cover a warranty item that should have been discovered by their home inspection team." (Exhibit A)RWS is a warranty company with no ties to the Customer's home inspection company other than the business transaction that occurred when the company purchased a limited day warranty (the "Warranty") from RWS to provide to the CustomerIn the case at hand, the Customer possesses a current warranty with a third party which is important because the Warranty states that "the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place" (Exhibit S')This limitation is crucial because the Warranty is only meant as a further guarantee of the home inspector's findings (to provide the homeowner with some additional security after moving into their home) and was never meant to stand on its ownTherefore, RWS requires all applicable third party warranties be applied to claims BEFORE they are submitted for coverage under the WarrantyThe Customer's claim is due to a shower having no cold water, which their contractor stated was easily remedied by replacing the "moen cartridge" (also known, in the industry, as a "shower valve")Upon the Customer submitting her claim to us, ItWS requested, per the terms of the Warranty, a copy of the third party warranty company's denial of the claim, so we could move forward with processingThe Customer responded with, "I have checked with [the third party] and having the filter replaced is not an option to file a claimI have attached the portion of my warranty for plumbingYou are welcome to contact them direct at to verify"(Exhibit C)This response brought up multiple issues concerning the claim: Firstly, we were given no written denial and, regardless of what the Customer alleges in her Revdex.com complaint, RWS has no responsibility to track down information or documentation required for our claims process, especially when it involves a business transaction RWS is not and was never privy toSecondly, the Customer herself states that she relayed the issue to the third party as a "filter replacement" not, as is correct, a "valve replacement"This misstatement likely resulted in a premature denial on the part of the third party, a conclusion supported by the fact that the third party warranty verbiage provided to us by the Customer explicitly states that valve replacements are coveredTherefore, the Customer's issue remains with the third party and NOT with RWSIt should be noted that, even with RWS's stance that the Customer's claim is not with us (evidenced by the clear language of the third party's warranty verbiage, showing that the Customer's issue is covered), RWS still paid $to the Customer, This payment was for the entirety of the deductible amount owed under the third party's warranty to cover the costs of filing a claim with her own warranty companyRespectfully, Alix L* *** Corporate Counsel, RWS, Incp:*** ***.com
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Yes we will go ahead and accept the buyout for $
Regards,
***
"letter-spacing: -0.55pt">In regards to Mr[redacted] claim, we want to first clarify a few issues that were stated in the complaint and may have been unintentionally placed in the wrong field(s)Under "Purchase Price", you will find the amount of $12,This is most certainly a mistake, as Mr[redacted] has never purchased anything from uslikewise, the "Desired Settlement" section that states a refund as a potential resolution would also be mistakenly noted in this complaintWhat was probably intended was $as the purchase price, and that Mr[redacted] feels "damaged" to the tune of $12,500, as he itemized in his complaintThe complaint from Mr[redacted] has no merit, and should be rescinded immediately by Mr[redacted]We've had a number of difficulties working with him, and we will go through each of his statements to help you and he see the issue at hand, and after Mr[redacted] has removed his meritless and potentially actionable complaint from the Revdex.com, we will consider a resolution with him as you will find outlined belowFrom the "Customer's Statement of Problem" section, in the attached complaint you sent [exhibit Al Mr[redacted] starts with stating that we have a reimbursement policy for repair or replacement if an "inspector fails to identify a problem." This is erroneousAttached you will find the limited warranty provided to Mr[redacted] in conjunction with his inspection and nowhere in this document will you find any verbiage that could reasonably be misinterpreted so badly as was in his first statementThe contract specifically states the items to be covered and under what termsit is not a guarantee that the home inspector doesn't miss any defect, it is not marketed this way, and never was Mr[redacted] told otherwiseHis second statement about the HVAC units needing to be replaced cannot be verified unfortunately, but it is very unlikelyThe only statement Mr[redacted] submitted with his claim was a receipt for $11,from "Lee Company", completely absent of any diagnosis of any mechanical malfunctionFurther, the rate for the replacement of the system is rather high and it appears that two systems and every component of those systems was replacedWhile there may have been a covered mechanical malfunction, both Mr[redacted] and his contractor haven't stated what it was, only that it "had to be replaced" in an email from Mr[redacted] from March 17th, This is not a diagnosis, more of an indication that he was sold a system by an unscrupulous contractorWhile we would have liked to have had that discussion with Mr[redacted], but in writing and verbally we first needed to confirm the age of the units for coverageMr[redacted] refused to give us any of this information on multiple occasions, stating later in an email that he "replaced [the units' before the claim was submitted", neglecting to follow the simple Claims Procedures as noted in the attached agreementStill, we were willing to review his claim once he had submitted model numbersAt that point we would ask for an actual diagnosis of a mechanical malfunction rather than a simplistic receipt for $11,from a contractor.
When he goes on to state that we are claiming it does not qualify at all, he is referring to our statement to him that we cannot process the claim without the model numbers for the units, at which point we would ask for a diagnosisHe later provided a model number for a unit manufactured in late 2014, which is likely the replacement unit he just had installedThe last part of his complaint has to do with windowsIn the attached agreement you will find a listing of "Structural Coverage? where covered items are listedIn the very next paragraph referring to Coverage Terms, you will find that this service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all othersWe did not "disqualify" his claim regarding any windows, we simply don't offer coverage for themMr[redacted] is well aware of what the agreement says and he is well aware that we have the right to ask for the model number, the diagnosis, and even additional estimates If necessaryHe's also aware of the $aggregate limit on mechanical systems, and we have been in constant well-documented communication with him trying to get very basic information from that any homeowner making a legitimate claim would be able to provide, and happens seamlessly hundreds of times per week here at the top rated warranty company in the worldWith that being said, we offer a very simple resolutionIf Mr[redacted] rescinds in totality this fraudulent complaint, within days of receipt of this response, we will send him one more email with a simple question of what the mechanical failure diagnosis was, pay our typical rates for that repair within the aggregate limit of the policy, and the check will be written to Mr[redacted] upon receipt of a release of liability we will have him sign that restricts further any defamatory action he might takeThis is our only offer to Mr[redacted], and one we make reluctantly as it equates to rewarding bad behaviorIf this is not acceptable, we would ask the Revdex.com to take the proper steps to ensure this fraudulent complaint is administratively closed based on the attached agreement and the simple terms within it, and we will consider further options for dealing with Mr[redacted] statements and getting them removed using legal means and potentially seeking damages as wellPlease let us know within days what his decision is and deliver proof the complaint has been rescinded If he makes the correct choice in this matterSincerely,
Nathan T[redacted]
The homeowner forwarded the estimate to RWS on Monday, October Within three days of receiving the invoice, on Thursday, October 2016, the homeowner's claim was approved and he was forwarded notice of the same
"">While the homeowner is correct that there were some internet issues that affected our customer service (the nationwide [redacted] outage temporarily affected our warranty department), his claim was processed within hours, which is even quicker than our already quick claim processing turn-aroundFurthermore, it is RWS's standard business practice to process and mail the buyout checks within business days – we sincerely regret that the homeowner is unhappy about this, but as it's standard procedure, there is nothing that can be doneWe here at RWS strive for the highest levels of customer satisfaction and are disappointed that this homeowner is so frustrated by a 72-hour total claim turnaround that he would feel it appropriate to disparage our company to others
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.When Mr. Rooter came to look at the water heater, I was told directly over the phone by a lady in your claim department that RWS would pay $750 for the replacement of the water heater and labor. I also spoke recently with the lady at Eaton Plumbing who said that she had verbal approval from Josh from RWS to replace the tank. She was told that RWS would pay $800 of the replacement cost. The policy book says that water heaters are not covered for rust damage in the first 30 days. It does not state that they are not covered for any reason during the first 30 days. It also says that your claims department is trained to know when a claim is covered or not, so if it wasn't covered at all I would have been told that when I first called. I was told on three different occasions that RWS was covering the repair. I still don't know what you are talking about saying that the water heater was "modified". None of the contractors that came out to look at it said that to us.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner’s termite protection plan covers “new infestations” after the home inspection. The homeowner filed a claim stating they witnessed termites but, in the estimate they submitted, the contractor only...
confirmed the home inspection’s previously disclosed findings and there was no indication in the bid that new termite activity had been found. As a result, the damage appeared to be pre-existing, which precluded coverage and so the claim was denied.
After the denial was mailed, the homeowner’s home inspector called in and explained to the Director of the Warranty Department that the homeowner had seen new termite activity and he argued their case. The Director exercised his discretion and had the homeowners’ claim representative call the contractor directly to find out what was going on. The contractor stated that he was unaware the bid was going to a warranty company and so he wrote the bid for the homeowners, leaving out the new infestation signs and the price breakdown required. After speaking with him, it was apparent that the homeowner’s claim was covered. The contractor told RWS that they would charge $910.00 to chemically treat the infected areas, which is what the homeowner's plan covers, and the Director approved the amount. As a result, a check in the amount of $660 ($910 – the homeowner’s $250 deductible) was submitted earlier this month and mailed 12 July 2016.
If the homeowner would like to decline the buyout check, RWS is happy to re-review the claim a second time (with no guarantee that the review will result in a higher buyout amount). To re-open their claim, the homeowner simply needs to VOID and return the buyout check and provide an estimate for chemical treatment of the infected areas only, which is the treatment covered by their warranty, and the claim will be re-opened immediately.
This homeowner turned in an invoice for $3,263 when the maximum coverage for both structural and mechanical failures is $2,500 total, per her 90 Day warranty. Therefore, the homeowner had no...
possibility of recouping the entire invoice.
Not only this, but over $2,600 of the invoice was for rotten wood repair, which the homeowner stated, in her claim submission, had been missed by the home inspector.When reviewing the inspection report, however, it is clear that the rotten wood was clearly marked throughout, as the problem extended through most of the house and into the exterior. Therefore, because the inspection report clearly mentioned rotting wood throughout the home, because the 90-Day warranty only covers “those items confirmed to be in good working condition at the time of inspection and excludes all others”, and because the 90 Day warranty expressly excludes coverage for water damage (i.e. wood rot), all of the homeowner’s rotten wood claims were denied.
The remaining claims for a leaking bathtub and broken faucet were approved for $280, which is based on pricing in the homeowner’s area for similar claims. The homeowner was informed of this approval, and the approval amount, and a check was mailed to their attention. However, due to their concerns, upon receipt of this Revdex.com complaint, the claim was audited to ensure accuracy, which was confirmed today.
Worst company I have ever dealt with in my life. Never received my reimbursement check for what I spent over my deductible. Everyone I spoke to gave me different information and lied to me. Find ANY other company to deal with other than this one. I spoke to them 15+ times and every time they told me there were zero notes in the system from my previous conversations. Every person I spoke to said they would call me back and never did once. They need to be put out of business with how they run their company. Absolutely embarrassing.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
I am not denying that the company did try and call to get my money back but everything else that was said was a lie they approved the work and told me a check would be mailed I dont have time to set here and make lies up about a company, If they would have explained to me the approval process we wouldnt be here right now.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Unfortunately, RWS has failed to acknowledge that no one ever responded to approve/deny the claim from 8/with the recommended repairs based on the abfindings during my tune-upNo work was ever done as I continued to wait for feedback from RWSRWS also fails to admit fault for never responding to my second claim I submitted during my call on 8/that that unit had completely failed the night before, and now I urgently need a response which I was told I would receive two days in a row and never didThe provided phone records prove that no one from RWS ever called back as promised to schedule a technician or help in any way whatsoever which is unacceptableSince our last communication was on 8/before I followed up to see what happened, the last day to cut a reimbursement check to me (business days excluding weekends and holidays) was actually October 5, not October I was told October by RWS during my follcall so I don't know why they are going back on what they originally told me to try and cover their error of cutting the check lateRWS has also failed to admit responsibility for not telling me that amount on the check was going to be changedIn summary, the following actions and lack thereof are unacceptable, and would warrant an effort by the company to rectify the situation with the customer, which RWS is refusing to doNever responded to approve or deny my 8/claim recommended repairs
Never responded to or even recorded my 8/claim that the unit stopped working and needed urgent attention
Never told me they decided to send me a $check for a buyout of my parts (I had to call a week later and learn that myself)Cut the check a week late after they told me themselves that October was the last day they could cut to be in compliance with their day policy
Sent a check for much less than the $I was told I would receive, and never communicated this change to me
Unfortunately, RWS is not willing to provide any reimbursement for the horrible experience provided in the summary aboveI cannot accept this as a satisfactory response to my Revdex.com claim so I suppose this claim will simply have to remain unresolved on Revdex.com's records along with the many other outstanding claims on the Revdex.com website against this company
Regards,
*** *** ***
The homeowner has stated she has a year-long home warranty in place with ANOTHER warranty company (not RWS)As a result, per the terms of her warranty with us, “the coverage under this policy shall come
after any and all other warranties in place [empadded].” Therefore, the homeowner, must file the entirety of her claim with her other warranty companyHowever, as a goodwill gesture from RWS to this homeowner, she may keep the check RWS has already mailed to her as we strive to go above and beyond our obligations to our customers, every time
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI would like to request to resolve this matter: I will accept the $479, and I will let the Revdex.com and the reporter know that we have settled this matter to my satisfactionHowever, I will not provide you any five star reviews as you requested because that would be an outright lieI will take the $offer and consider the case settledBelow is the email correspondences between myself and MrT*** for the record:Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I contacted the company as directed by the response provided and was connected with the Director of Operations "Lane", with whom I previously spokeLane again reviewed my case and asked various questions to (per him) see if I was covered under other policiesHe told me that he would meet with company leadership and they would determine further actionLane called me later that day, as he had stated and told me that the company leadership/counsel had agreed to provide $for settlement related to the customer service issuesLane stated that Lane "accepted this on your (my) behalf"I expressed my dissatisfaction with this amount but stated that he could send me this money as I was looking to put this behind meHe stated that it would be sent out Thursday afternoon or Friday at the latest and that within hours of it being sent out I would be contacted with a tracking numberHe also offered that I could call back at any time and utilize their resources/recommendations for contractors which I thanked Lane for the offer but politely declinedBefore we hung up I thanked Lane for his time and he again stated he would get the check out before the end of that week. To this point I have received no check and no tracking number for any checkI called yesterday to follow up and was told Lane was in a meeting and that he would call me backAn hour later I was called by a service representative who told me there was no record of any check in the file that he could see aside from the original $that was denied by the owner during final reviewThis representative told me he would check with Lane (who was in a meeting) and have Lane contact meToday (4/13/16), I have received no contact or follow upI would like to make it clear that a value I hold dear is that I do what I say I will doThe behavior or lack of follow through I have experienced with RWS would suggest that they do not hold a similar valueI would think the continued viability in a business would benefit from this shared value and I sincerely hope that their follow through is better in other situations (I am sure any response from their counsel will highlight that they do). If they did follow up on what they said they would do in this most recent instance, the issue would be resolved in my eyesI hope to be proven wrong and a check shows up in my mail this week but I no longer have the time or energy after 2+ months of going back and forth with RWS. I am writing today so that I can document this experience with RWS. Out of principle, I will no longer utilize any home inspection service that has an affiliation with RWS or Inspector Service Group and I have shared my experience with the original home inspection company
Regards,
Dr*** *. ***, ***
I have been very frustrated at the small print of what is actually covered by my warrantyMost often, I'm finding issues are not covered
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.This has unnecessarily gone around in circles multiple timesAs proven in my call records that you agreed matched up with yours, there were no "multiple communications" so I don't know why that term keeps getting thrown aroundA simple review of the recorded calls will show that I stated in my second call that "no one called me back yesterday like I was told would happen, and now the need for a call back to schedule service is even more urgent because when I came home from work last night, my unit had completely failed." Whoever I spoke with said that they would pass the issue on to my local office, and I would get a call back that dayAs proven in my phone records, I never received a call from RWS again until October after I inquired about the reimbursement check that came for a much smaller amount than I was told I would receiveEvery other communication was initiated by me, which shows a great lack of customer service, especially after I said my A/C unit had failed completelyThe October date is a complete fallacy alsoMy calls to RWS regarding my A/C issues occurred on 8/and 8/which has been documented business days from the end of that week (August 26) is October after all holidays and weekends have been accounted forThe customer service rep is the one who gave me that October date (I didn't just make this up), which is already past days from August which was the last day I called RWSOctober is a week later from the day date of October This is simple math using a calendar.
Again, I am completely disappointed in the response by RWS and their refusal to take ownership for the situationThe facts have been presented multiple times, and only a reimbursement for the full amount I was told I would receive will be an acceptable resolution for all of the information I received, and complete failure of RWS to contact me to service my claims
Regards,
*** *** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I have never made any statement to RSW about having another company look at the problem Every call I have made to RSW has been to ask what the hold up is with their contracted company - ***, and every time I am told they need to research the paperwork more or try to contact *** themselves A promise is always made they will call me back and never have
Regards,
*** ***
Absolute garbage! This company assured me they were sending professionals out to service my claimsMy water heater was replaced by a very pushy plumber who flooded my garage and then took my shut off valve without replacing it! (code violation #1) Then, after a heated verbal argument with Zane over the telephone, I was told they would not cover the cost of another professional plumber to come fix the code violation that would require most of the water to be drained from my house! I was told that I would have to use the same plumber! Just recently I found out this company cut ties with the said plumber and never bothered to mention it to meSo, I investigated...come to find out, a permit was NEVER pulled to install my water heater, (required by all licensed plumbers in the city)The purpose of pulling a permit is so city codes can come inspect the work once it is finishedNo permit, no inspection( code violation #2)Do you see where I am going with this? I was told to use the same exact plumber that this company cut ties with? The same exact plumber that made two city code violations, (assuming he was licensed)DO NOT use this company! One of two things happened...1) They used an unlicensed plumber to avoid the inspection post permit, or 2) The plumber was licensed and skipped out on the permit on his own to avoid inspection of his garbage work and then the company cut him loose without mentioning it to me after refusing to let me use another plumber at no costRegardless of which it was, this is no way to treat a client! I've seen some reviews on this page where the company threatens legal action if the review isn't taken downHow do you have reviews of stars when you have to threaten legal action against your own customers on Facebook? The other are all star? I'm contacting my congressman and Indiana congressmen over thisYou have most likely figured out that I already contacted my cities building and codes department
Then, on top of it all, the page administrator outright accuses my post of being fraudulent and made up! Says that I have to delete it! See for yourself on their facebook page! They even went as far as to say that all negative reviews were downright fraudulent Then, I opened a dialogue with multiple people who gave them five star reviews, and one outright admitted to me that he wasn't even a home owner, he was a real estate agent who sell's their product This company is a scam! Please contact me for further info
All of the concerns mentioned in the homeowner's latest response have been addressed, in full, in RWS's previous responses
Thank you
Thank you for your May letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc("RWS")RWS would first like to clarify the specific role it plays in these transactions as it
appears the Customer is under the wrong impression by her statement: "RWS has refused to fully cover a warranty item that should have been discovered by their home inspection team." (Exhibit A)RWS is a warranty company with no ties to the Customer's home inspection company other than the business transaction that occurred when the company purchased a limited day warranty (the "Warranty") from RWS to provide to the CustomerIn the case at hand, the Customer possesses a current warranty with a third party which is important because the Warranty states that "the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place" (Exhibit S')This limitation is crucial because the Warranty is only meant as a further guarantee of the home inspector's findings (to provide the homeowner with some additional security after moving into their home) and was never meant to stand on its ownTherefore, RWS requires all applicable third party warranties be applied to claims BEFORE they are submitted for coverage under the WarrantyThe Customer's claim is due to a shower having no cold water, which their contractor stated was easily remedied by replacing the "moen cartridge" (also known, in the industry, as a "shower valve")Upon the Customer submitting her claim to us, ItWS requested, per the terms of the Warranty, a copy of the third party warranty company's denial of the claim, so we could move forward with processingThe Customer responded with, "I have checked with [the third party] and having the filter replaced is not an option to file a claimI have attached the portion of my warranty for plumbingYou are welcome to contact them direct at to verify"(Exhibit C)This response brought up multiple issues concerning the claim: Firstly, we were given no written denial and, regardless of what the Customer alleges in her Revdex.com complaint, RWS has no responsibility to track down information or documentation required for our claims process, especially when it involves a business transaction RWS is not and was never privy toSecondly, the Customer herself states that she relayed the issue to the third party as a "filter replacement" not, as is correct, a "valve replacement"This misstatement likely resulted in a premature denial on the part of the third party, a conclusion supported by the fact that the third party warranty verbiage provided to us by the Customer explicitly states that valve replacements are coveredTherefore, the Customer's issue remains with the third party and NOT with RWSIt should be noted that, even with RWS's stance that the Customer's claim is not with us (evidenced by the clear language of the third party's warranty verbiage, showing that the Customer's issue is covered), RWS still paid $to the Customer, This payment was for the entirety of the deductible amount owed under the third party's warranty to cover the costs of filing a claim with her own warranty companyRespectfully, Alix L* *** Corporate Counsel, RWS, Incp:*** ***.com
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Yes we will go ahead and accept the buyout for $
Regards,
***
"letter-spacing: -0.55pt">In regards to Mr[redacted] claim, we want to first clarify a few issues that were stated in the complaint and may have been unintentionally placed in the wrong field(s)Under "Purchase Price", you will find the amount of $12,This is most certainly a mistake, as Mr[redacted] has never purchased anything from uslikewise, the "Desired Settlement" section that states a refund as a potential resolution would also be mistakenly noted in this complaintWhat was probably intended was $as the purchase price, and that Mr[redacted] feels "damaged" to the tune of $12,500, as he itemized in his complaintThe complaint from Mr[redacted] has no merit, and should be rescinded immediately by Mr[redacted]We've had a number of difficulties working with him, and we will go through each of his statements to help you and he see the issue at hand, and after Mr[redacted] has removed his meritless and potentially actionable complaint from the Revdex.com, we will consider a resolution with him as you will find outlined belowFrom the "Customer's Statement of Problem" section, in the attached complaint you sent [exhibit Al Mr[redacted] starts with stating that we have a reimbursement policy for repair or replacement if an "inspector fails to identify a problem." This is erroneousAttached you will find the limited warranty provided to Mr[redacted] in conjunction with his inspection and nowhere in this document will you find any verbiage that could reasonably be misinterpreted so badly as was in his first statementThe contract specifically states the items to be covered and under what termsit is not a guarantee that the home inspector doesn't miss any defect, it is not marketed this way, and never was Mr[redacted] told otherwiseHis second statement about the HVAC units needing to be replaced cannot be verified unfortunately, but it is very unlikelyThe only statement Mr[redacted] submitted with his claim was a receipt for $11,from "Lee Company", completely absent of any diagnosis of any mechanical malfunctionFurther, the rate for the replacement of the system is rather high and it appears that two systems and every component of those systems was replacedWhile there may have been a covered mechanical malfunction, both Mr[redacted] and his contractor haven't stated what it was, only that it "had to be replaced" in an email from Mr[redacted] from March 17th, This is not a diagnosis, more of an indication that he was sold a system by an unscrupulous contractorWhile we would have liked to have had that discussion with Mr[redacted], but in writing and verbally we first needed to confirm the age of the units for coverageMr[redacted] refused to give us any of this information on multiple occasions, stating later in an email that he "replaced [the units' before the claim was submitted", neglecting to follow the simple Claims Procedures as noted in the attached agreementStill, we were willing to review his claim once he had submitted model numbersAt that point we would ask for an actual diagnosis of a mechanical malfunction rather than a simplistic receipt for $11,from a contractor.
When he goes on to state that we are claiming it does not qualify at all, he is referring to our statement to him that we cannot process the claim without the model numbers for the units, at which point we would ask for a diagnosisHe later provided a model number for a unit manufactured in late 2014, which is likely the replacement unit he just had installedThe last part of his complaint has to do with windowsIn the attached agreement you will find a listing of "Structural Coverage? where covered items are listedIn the very next paragraph referring to Coverage Terms, you will find that this service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all othersWe did not "disqualify" his claim regarding any windows, we simply don't offer coverage for themMr[redacted] is well aware of what the agreement says and he is well aware that we have the right to ask for the model number, the diagnosis, and even additional estimates If necessaryHe's also aware of the $aggregate limit on mechanical systems, and we have been in constant well-documented communication with him trying to get very basic information from that any homeowner making a legitimate claim would be able to provide, and happens seamlessly hundreds of times per week here at the top rated warranty company in the worldWith that being said, we offer a very simple resolutionIf Mr[redacted] rescinds in totality this fraudulent complaint, within days of receipt of this response, we will send him one more email with a simple question of what the mechanical failure diagnosis was, pay our typical rates for that repair within the aggregate limit of the policy, and the check will be written to Mr[redacted] upon receipt of a release of liability we will have him sign that restricts further any defamatory action he might takeThis is our only offer to Mr[redacted], and one we make reluctantly as it equates to rewarding bad behaviorIf this is not acceptable, we would ask the Revdex.com to take the proper steps to ensure this fraudulent complaint is administratively closed based on the attached agreement and the simple terms within it, and we will consider further options for dealing with Mr[redacted] statements and getting them removed using legal means and potentially seeking damages as wellPlease let us know within days what his decision is and deliver proof the complaint has been rescinded If he makes the correct choice in this matterSincerely,
Nathan T[redacted]
The homeowner forwarded the estimate to RWS on Monday, October Within three days of receiving the invoice, on Thursday, October 2016, the homeowner's claim was approved and he was forwarded notice of the same
"">While the homeowner is correct that there were some internet issues that affected our customer service (the nationwide [redacted] outage temporarily affected our warranty department), his claim was processed within hours, which is even quicker than our already quick claim processing turn-aroundFurthermore, it is RWS's standard business practice to process and mail the buyout checks within business days – we sincerely regret that the homeowner is unhappy about this, but as it's standard procedure, there is nothing that can be doneWe here at RWS strive for the highest levels of customer satisfaction and are disappointed that this homeowner is so frustrated by a 72-hour total claim turnaround that he would feel it appropriate to disparage our company to others
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.When Mr. Rooter came to look at the water heater, I was told directly over the phone by a lady in your claim department that RWS would pay $750 for the replacement of the water heater and labor. I also spoke recently with the lady at Eaton Plumbing who said that she had verbal approval from Josh from RWS to replace the tank. She was told that RWS would pay $800 of the replacement cost. The policy book says that water heaters are not covered for rust damage in the first 30 days. It does not state that they are not covered for any reason during the first 30 days. It also says that your claims department is trained to know when a claim is covered or not, so if it wasn't covered at all I would have been told that when I first called. I was told on three different occasions that RWS was covering the repair. I still don't know what you are talking about saying that the water heater was "modified". None of the contractors that came out to look at it said that to us.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner’s termite protection plan covers “new infestations” after the home inspection. The homeowner filed a claim stating they witnessed termites but, in the estimate they submitted, the contractor only...
confirmed the home inspection’s previously disclosed findings and there was no indication in the bid that new termite activity had been found. As a result, the damage appeared to be pre-existing, which precluded coverage and so the claim was denied.
After the denial was mailed, the homeowner’s home inspector called in and explained to the Director of the Warranty Department that the homeowner had seen new termite activity and he argued their case. The Director exercised his discretion and had the homeowners’ claim representative call the contractor directly to find out what was going on. The contractor stated that he was unaware the bid was going to a warranty company and so he wrote the bid for the homeowners, leaving out the new infestation signs and the price breakdown required. After speaking with him, it was apparent that the homeowner’s claim was covered. The contractor told RWS that they would charge $910.00 to chemically treat the infected areas, which is what the homeowner's plan covers, and the Director approved the amount. As a result, a check in the amount of $660 ($910 – the homeowner’s $250 deductible) was submitted earlier this month and mailed 12 July 2016.
If the homeowner would like to decline the buyout check, RWS is happy to re-review the claim a second time (with no guarantee that the review will result in a higher buyout amount). To re-open their claim, the homeowner simply needs to VOID and return the buyout check and provide an estimate for chemical treatment of the infected areas only, which is the treatment covered by their warranty, and the claim will be re-opened immediately.
This homeowner turned in an invoice for $3,263 when the maximum coverage for both structural and mechanical failures is $2,500 total, per her 90 Day warranty. Therefore, the homeowner had no...
possibility of recouping the entire invoice.
Not only this, but over $2,600 of the invoice was for rotten wood repair, which the homeowner stated, in her claim submission, had been missed by the home inspector.When reviewing the inspection report, however, it is clear that the rotten wood was clearly marked throughout, as the problem extended through most of the house and into the exterior. Therefore, because the inspection report clearly mentioned rotting wood throughout the home, because the 90-Day warranty only covers “those items confirmed to be in good working condition at the time of inspection and excludes all others”, and because the 90 Day warranty expressly excludes coverage for water damage (i.e. wood rot), all of the homeowner’s rotten wood claims were denied.
The remaining claims for a leaking bathtub and broken faucet were approved for $280, which is based on pricing in the homeowner’s area for similar claims. The homeowner was informed of this approval, and the approval amount, and a check was mailed to their attention. However, due to their concerns, upon receipt of this Revdex.com complaint, the claim was audited to ensure accuracy, which was confirmed today.
Worst company I have ever dealt with in my life. Never received my reimbursement check for what I spent over my deductible. Everyone I spoke to gave me different information and lied to me. Find ANY other company to deal with other than this one. I spoke to them 15+ times and every time they told me there were zero notes in the system from my previous conversations. Every person I spoke to said they would call me back and never did once. They need to be put out of business with how they run their company. Absolutely embarrassing.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
I am not denying that the company did try and call to get my money back but everything else that was said was a lie they approved the work and told me a check would be mailed I dont have time to set here and make lies up about a company, If they would have explained to me the approval process we wouldnt be here right now.