Sign in

Residential Warranty Services, Inc.

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Residential Warranty Services, Inc.? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Residential Warranty Services, Inc.

Residential Warranty Services, Inc. Reviews (136)

The homeowner’s primary complaint is that he is being cheated because, after his claim was approved, he was re-informed of the $250.00 deductible. If he would, respectfully, read the third paragraph of the...

one-page Termite Protection Plan he is filing his claim under, it clearly states that “RWS will pay the cost of having the infestation treated… less a $250 deductible”. Therefore, the homeowner’s claim was approved, in full and, with the deductible subtracted, they are receiving the full amount requested. The check was mailed earlier this week in complete accordance with company policies. Furthermore, the homeowner may have called in the claim on 11 March 2016 but he did not provide RWS with the information required to further process the claim, despite repeated requests, until 25 April 2016. It was approved less than a week later, with the homeowner notified of the same, and a check was mailed within a week. Mr. [redacted]’s claim was expedited by our claims staff out of consideration for him, even though the delays were entirely because of his inaction, not RWS’s. The homeowner has taken it upon himself to not only throw false accusations at RWS, but to threaten our good name as well as threaten a lawsuit (for the cost of his entire house, no less!) simply because he failed to read his policy and failed to provide us the information required to process a claim. RWS went above and beyond our obligations with regards to Mr. [redacted]s and his legal threats are completely inappropriate in light of how well his claim was handled.

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.
As previously stated, 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 do.
 
1. Never responded to approve or deny my 8/20 claim recommended repairs - proven in call records
2. Never responded to or even recorded my 8/23 claim that the unit stopped working and needed urgent attention - proven in call records
3. Never told me they decided to send me a $1000 check for a buyout of my parts (I had to call a week later and learn that myself). - proven in call records
4. Cut the check a week late after they told me themselves that October 7 was the last day they could cut to be in compliance with their 30 day policy
5. Sent a check for much less than the $1000 I was told I would receive, and never communicated this change to me. - proven in call records
 
Any business that calls the above actions "going above and beyond for the customer" has some serious soul-searching to do.
Regards,
[redacted]

I was just informed that our Director recently contacted you to schedule a second opinion for your dishwasher repair, which you mentioned in this response, yet you refused him and told him you still wanted the buyout but you wanted more than you were eligible for under the warranty. Please note that the deductibles aren’t per unit, the deductible is per failed part. Therefore, if you have two parts fail in one unit, you owe two deductibles. Due to your dissatisfaction, even though RWS has no obligation to do so, the Director has waived one of your deductibles. Therefore, you will receive a buyout of $375 provided you remove this complaint as RWS has been actively working with you to resolve this issue, beyond our obligation to do so, and you have responded by saying one thing to our Director and the exact opposite here. Therefore, if you do not choose the buyout, you can agree to the second opinion, which you turned down not even an hour ago, and we can continue with the repair. Please reach out to the Director of Operations to continue processing your claim. At this point, both the buyout option and the repair option have been temporarily suspended until you let us know exactly which option you want.

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.] The entire amount WAS not covered, and the "second damage" was not outside the 90 day window. I have the conversation recorded and I have all emails concerning this issue. I emailed several times asking about authorization concerning.  The initial cost was 1200.00  . I am being reimbursed 1155.00.  That is not the entire amount as stated.  The Home warranty claims that is secondary damage. It is not secondary. The roof leaking caused the damage.. 
 if you would like, please contact me and I will send you the recorded conversation as we disagreed. I had to settle for 1155.00. The home warranty said he used HIS calculations to determine the cost..  ( maybe he needs a new calculator) 
Regards,
[redacted]

The homeowner’s claim was first diagnosed as a bad capacitor, the replacement of which RWS approved and covered in full, minus the homeowner’s required service call fee. This, though not listed in the initial Revdex.com...

complaint, resulted in RWS, while looking into this claim, discovering that the homeowner had already paid the deductible to a contractor who then failed to complete the work. As a result, though the invoice submitted stated truthfully that no deductible was paid, RWS will cover that cost as it was due to no fault of the homeowner that the first contractor failed to keep his appointments. As a result, the homeowner’s $150 deductible has been submitted to accounting, to be reimbursed in full. With regards to the complaint, the capacitor was replaced on 8/19 and the diagnosis on 8/21 states “compressor is volting but not keeping up with system” and lists a compressor replacement as a ‘recommended repair’. On 9/13 the homeowner replaced both the capacitor and the compressor. Firstly, any cost related to the 9/13 capacitor replacement is not covered under the homeowner’s warranty because there would still be a manufacturer’s warranty in place on the capacitor as it had just been replaced less than 3 weeks earlier. The warranty does not cover those items currently covered under a manufacturer’s warranty. Secondly, as the 8/21 diagnosis does not state that the compressor is causing the issue, merely that it is a ‘recommended repair’, and as the compressor was working and had not actually failed, its replacement would not be covered under the information RWS was provided.
If the homeowner has any additional information that would change the circumstances or information already received, please forward to RWS and we will be happy to review your claim.

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.
On April 22nd, 2016 My wife recived a message from them saying "Your claim and policy will be cancelled, without refund due to your misrepresentations. You will be hearing from our legal counsel due to your multiple fraudulent posts from multiple fake profiles and we will be seeking civil penalties. Thanks"
It was they that initiated legal action because they didn't like the review.  Since then the owner has threaten me with bodily harm stating "That would be a grave error, and would be in violation of the terms of your Revdex.com submission as well. Happy to pay for your issues per the terms of your policy, or make this one of the most expensive mistakes of your life. Your call. You have until noonMonday. 
If you had a legitimate issue by the way, you'd just sue. But you don't, so you post with fake profiles. You're a fraud and a scam artist- I've never not met a contractual obligation and I've never lost in court.  Based on this threat we will file for an immediate injunction and force your hand, assuming you don't correct the issue immediately.  I have advised counsel to begin work on this already."
The fake profiles I do not know to what they are referring but it is documented on thier Facebook page that they threatened to cancel the warranty simply because they believed there were fake reviews, and I do not know what they are talking about.
My solution is to have my fridge repaired. Simply them threaten  to sue me then saying I have an attorney is just one of many excuses they have given along the way to not meet their obligations.
[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.
I appreciate the reply by RWS regarding my complaint however my original complaint of customer service issues were not addressed. 
First, I am disappointed in the outcome of my claim.  The home inspection clearly indicated "no active leaks" and this clearly is not true.  Yes, the area around the chimney was indicated that it needed caulking.  To me, this is a maintenance issue.  The home inspection clearly stated that there are"no active leaks" and this is what to my mind the warranty speaks to.
Second, my complaint to the Revdex.com was regarding customer service issues.  I placed multiple phone calls and left several messages.  I was lied to, although the response from RWS states that I was not.  When I called to follow up on my appeal, the receptionist told me that Katie was on vacation and would return the following week.  When I left a message for her at this time, I received and email, not a phone call, in response within the hour. This is not the action of someone that is on vacation. I responded to her email requesting a call back and to this date I have as yet to receive one. 
This second point is my frustration and the reason that I am stating their response does not resolve my claim.  I feel that I have been avoided and dismissed. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Firstly, please be aware that RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified Contractor. As a result, RWS will never be able...

to tell you whether (or for how much) a claim will be approved until that estimate has been received and processed by RWS. This claim involved a main water line leak: under your Simple policy, which covers only “items falling within the perimeter of the foundation of the home”, this claim was precluded. However, every Simple policy comes with a complimentary SewerGard guarantee, and so your RWS claims representative also filed your claim thereunder, in order to maximize your chances of coverage. Under the SewerGard policy, coverage is limited, with regards to water lines, to “the single lateral water service line from the point of the water utility’s connection to the point of the water meter or main shut off line inside the home”. As a result, the sprinkler lines are not covered under SewerGard. Lastly, please note that, even if one of RWS’s networked Contractors had been close to your area, you would still be responsible for payment as this claim is a non-claim and therefore not covered under your policy. Most of our homeowners love that RWS frequently allows them to use their own Contractors – it allows homeowners to work with a local company with whom they may have worked in the past and one that they pick. While we’re sorry the homeowner is not thrilled with the outcome, she would be personally responsible for the costs of this repair regardless of what Contractor completed the repair.

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.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. The response of Residential Warranty Service (RWS)’s representative shows that they are ether confused about the facts or willfully trying to mislead the reader. It was RWS’s Contractor who came representing RWS and solicited me into agreement. RWS’s Contractor did not fulfill the part of the agreement that required him to install a Primary Sump Pump and back-up Sump Pump both made by the “Zoeller Company” and to give me a copy of the purchasing receipt for the sump pump he just purchased. Although caught after paying the Contractor $1000; It was discovered that the contractor actually only installed a Back-up Sump Pump made by the Zoeller Company and he used the same primary sump pump that was installed on the previous day and, which I explained to him earlier that I had some quality concerns about. I tried to contact the Contractor only a few hours after he had left my house to confront him on what I discovered. After at least, 10 emails attempts, 6 telephone attempts, all of which went to voicemail; I left message requested that he come and uninstall the back-up sump pump system and give me a full refund. Or, if he sends me a return address I will hire someone to uninstall the equipment and I ship it to him. The contractor finally responded almost two days later and said “I agreed to what was installed and paid for it” and hung up the phone. From the start of this discovery, I reported this incident to RWS management about the deceitful practice of one of their representatives/Contractors. RWS’s Management stated that this issue was not covered by the Warranty Contract and therefore an issue solely between me and the contactor. I explained to RWS management that the Contractor was avoiding me and basically told me that I wasn’t entitled to a refund because I had agreed and then paid for what was installed; even though I expressed to the Contractor my dissatisfaction of what was installed and offered to pay to have the equipment uninstall and shipped to him all at my cost. RWS sided with the Contractor and further claim that this issue was not covered by the Warranty Contract, and therefore an issue solely between me and the contactor. Since the contractor was not responding to me I asked RWS Management for the Contractor’s place of business or an address to where I can send his equipment. RWS’s Management refused to give me the Contractor’s shipping address. I then suggested that I can ship the equipment to RWS, the manager again say “no, don’t send it here either” I never received the purchase receipt from the Contractor that would show the cost of the sump pump and all of its components. Through researching the varies prices of sump pumps, I called several local sump pump distributors of the Zoeller Primary and Back-Up Sump pumps system. I found out that the cost of the Zoeller primary and back-up sump pump system together (model 970) cost $950. According to the distributors I contacted, a Zoeller back-up pump system average cost is between $300 -$500. I also spoke with other Plumbers in the Industry who states that it’s a good chance that the back-up sump pump was not new. Since the Contractor came to my location operating as a representative for RWS; RWS is liable for the Contractors conduct and actions Regardless of whether the back-up sump pump was a covered item in the Warranty Contract. The Contractor committed Fraud. Therefore, both parties can be named in a fraudulent criminal or civil proceeding, either individually or jointly. Regards, [redacted]
Because of the fraudulent act of one of its representatives, I request RWS refund me $950.00
Regards,
[redacted]

Our air conditioning system failed and we submitted a claim. This company only paid $300 on the total $5700 cost, claiming that the failure of one part caused the whole unit to shut down so they only paid for one part. Our contractor explained that it was a total failure and not one part causing another part to fail. Also, they are very hard to get a hold of and do not return calls. I would definitely NOT recommend them or renew my policy. Dealing with them is very stressful and not worth the hassle.

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.
There are so many spelling errors in this response; it
almost makes the entire document painful to read.  One major aspect of my complaint that was
never address by RWS Counsel is the phone calls and emails that were never
returned.  We left messages beginning on
12 June concerning our AC that were never returned.  To this date, I have never received a phone
call or email from anyone at RWS.
The contractor RWS selected and sent to my house (Freedom
Heating and Air) on June 26th completed their inspection and began
calling RWS for approval to complete the work the afternoon of the 26th.   No one returned his phone call either.  As of 12:00 pm Monday June 29th, no
one at Freedom had ever heard from anyone at RWS.  The diagnosis submitted by Freedom was well
above and beyond what it took to make my AC unit cool.  The technician told me the unit was low on
refrigerant.  The leak check alone was
almost $700.00 plus $160.00 per pound for Freon.  At that point the AC was cooling
somewhat.   The technician also told me:   the
fan motor was bad, the coil was clogged, and both the inside and outside coil
needed to be cleaned.
After the technician left, the unit was blowing hot
air.  I had to buy a window unit for my
bedroom because the temperature in the house was over 85 degrees.  After the total lack of effort and
communication on June 29th, I found a company who could come the next
day.  He inspected the inside coil and
outside and checked the entire system. 
The only thing he found was the system to be completely out of Freon.  He put 2 lb. of Freon in the system to see if
he could locate a leak.  He found the
leak to be an open valve that was checked by Freedom on the 26th.  The system that was low, was mysteriously
completely out of coolant…..explaining the hot air coming from the vents as
soon as freedom left.  The tech closed
the valve and completely filled the system with 9 pounds of coolant at a rate
of $60.00 per pound vs $160.00 at Freedom. 
He also found the fan motor in working condition and both coils to be
clean.  Other than the age of the unit,
everything was in working order when he left and has not given a single problem
since the repair on the 30th of June.
I spoke with Frankie at RWS and informed her of the huge
difference in price and evaluation of the two companies.  I talked with the owner of freedom and he did
not have any explanation for the charges. 
He did tell me if I would have them come back without using a warranty
company, he could cut me a better deal on rates.  In my mind, this is fraud.  Inflating the rates and doing unnecessary
work is not good business.  Frankie asked
me to send her copies of the Freedom estimate and the copy of the invoice I paid
for $585.00.  After receiving them, she
informed me she would file the clam and follow it through.  She thanked me to being honest and saving
them what could have well exceeded $2,000.00. 
I spoke with Frankie several times and she informed the claim had been
accepted and sent to accounting for payment. 
They had deducted two amounts of $150.00 for two separate service
calls.  I asked why the second deduction
was made and never received an explanation why.
Last week, I spoke with Tony.  She gave me the same story that the claim had
been accepted and had been sent to accounting for payment.  All of this time, no one ever told me on any
occasion the claim was denied.  No one
has ever called me or initiated any communication from RWS.  I requested the refund because the customer
service is fantastic when they want to sell you a warranty.   If you need to use it, the service is the
polar opposite.  I thought I was doing
what is right by informing them of a large discrepancy in the estimate of work
and what it actually took to complete the work. 
Everyday this was going
on my family had to live in a house that was HOT to say the least.  I understand they don’t want to pay….. That is
very easy to see.  The maximum payment
per claim is $500.00 on the 90 day warranty. 
There is no deduction for deductible or service calls.  I paid $585.00 to resolve the issue.  If they want to deduct for a service call,
that’s fine.  That brings the balance to
$435.00….I will accept it and walk away.  I was told multiple times the claim was accepted, and now they say it was immediately denied.  Every time I have  been told anything, it has been with a phone call from myself to RWS and never the opposite.

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. 
I will accept the $375, no strings attached. Check to be received in no more than 3 business days. 
Regards,
[redacted]

While we here at RWS are sorry the homeowner misunderstood the scope of the SewerGard policy's coverage, it clearly states, on the one page policy, that "the water line is the single lateral water service line from the point of the water utility's connection to the point of the water meter or main shut off line inside the home." The Simple Policy, as stated earlier, covers only “items falling within the perimeter of the foundation of the home”, which is clearly stated in the policy. While we here at RWS do wish the customer's claim had been covered, there was nothing we could do as it is clearly precluded under both policies. We urge the homeowner to review his policy, in full, so that he can be fully aware of it's scope of coverage.

We here at RWS are sorry the homeowner feels owed more money
but, pursuant to her policy, RWS has fulfilled all obligations and even, despite the homeowner's obvious feelings to the contrary, going above and beyond in order to cover as much of her claim as was possible.
With regards to the homeowner’s response, please review RWS’s previous responses, as all points mentioned herein have been discussed previously.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. I understand but I am not satisfied because I think RWS's policy is very narrow and deceitful.
I never approved the $280 for the faucet and bathtub. I was not aware that there was a limit on reimbursement for the faucet.   
I appreciate Revdex.com though. Thank you very much for your help.
Regards,
[redacted]

We here at RWS sincerely apologize that the homeowner has felt slighted by our response – it was never our intention to question her claims; simply to point out where some confusion may have lain as the failed unit was never mentioned and no documents pertaining to a failed unit were ever submitted to RWS, despite the multiple communications. As the majority of the information contained in the homeowner’s response has already been addressed in prior communications, we have only addressed, in this response, the new item included and clarified an accusation leveled by the homeowner which, by her response, was misunderstood initially:
Firstly, the phone records provided match up with the RWS records, as discussed and referenced in previous responses. Secondly, RWS's final approval process takes up to 30 business days (which excludes holidays and weekends), putting the homeowner's claim's finalization date as 13 October. True to form, on 13 October, the approval process was being finalized when it was realized that the homeowner had no actual failure or even issue, that the repairs were ‘recommended’, that there was no documentation showing the homeowner ever had the ‘recommended repairs completed’, no proof that the ‘recommended repairs’ were necessary, multiple ‘recommended repairs’ (i.e. options) that purported to fix the same issue, and that the contractor stated there were no failures or even issues! At this point, the amount was adjusted accordingly and the buyout check mailed out immediately, per company policy.
RWS has addressed all of the questions and concerns raised with regards to this claim, all backed by our policy and nothing in this most recent correspondence changes any of the facts upon which the claim decision was made - if this changes, the homeowner is urged to reach out to RWS so that we can re-audit the claim, if appropriate. Thank you.

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]

Revdex.com:
Check was received and deposited yesterday. Upon arrival it is apparent that RWS is concerned about saving money as the envelope had been repurposed  (having a previous address to Ohio marked out). While RWS policy may assert that tracking numbers are not regularly supplied with checks mailings, I would think it would be good practice to do this, particularly in matters such as these (or when a customer was told that this would occur). While I cringe to say that this resolution is "acceptable", I am moving on from this matter as I have wasted far too much time on this over the past 2.5 months. Thank you to Revdex.com for their assistance as this otherwise would not have been documented or resolved in a somewhat timely fashion.
Regards,
Dr. [redacted], [redacted].

Based on the homeowner’s expressed desires, RWS has frozen the pending buyout and is re-opening the claim.However, first, RWS respectfully reminds the homeowner that, per their policy, “Roof repair is for leaks only, to rolled, composition, or asphalt shingle roof only, and is limited to the repair of the leak only” and, for these reasons , the check they will receive from RWS may not match the contractors’ estimates.
In order to review the claim, additional information (referenced in RWS's last Revdex.com response) is required - the invoice/estimate must be itemized; it must contain a parts cost and a labor cost for each item listed. Also required is a specific cause for the failure, in writing, from a licensed or properly certified repairperson, per the warranty. As stated earlier, the home inspector intervened and made the Claims Director aware of some extenuating circumstances, which is why the claim was approved without the above information. However, in order to re-evaluate the claim as thoroughly and completely possible, as requested by the homeowner, it is necessary that all required documentation is received so that RWS can ensure that the homeowner receives the proper amount.
Please forward this information to the email address listed on your policy and, once received, it will be reviewed immediately.

The homeowner has offered no reason (left blank) as to why she declines our response. As a result, we have nothing to add except to refer to our last response.

Check fields!

Write a review of Residential Warranty Services, Inc.

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Residential Warranty Services, Inc. Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Add contact information for Residential Warranty Services, Inc.

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated