Thank you for your 26 October 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS") regarding Ms. [redacted] at [redacted]. Upon review of her complaint, it appears that there has been a misunderstanding, by the homeowners, of when the reimbursement process begins.On...
20 August 2015, the homeowners called in the claim, stating that their air conditioner was not cooling. RWS gave the homeowners permission to call a contractor of their choice for their convenience, stating only that the contractor would need to call in to RWS after diagnosis (before repair) so RWS could determine the extent of coverage and any approval would be granted over the phone so as to not waste any of the homeowner's time.For reasons unknown, the homeowners did not have a contractor out to their home until 15 September 2015, at which point the contractor notified RWS and informed them that the air conditioning unit had sat for months in a vacant home, causing the issues at hand. Even though the RWS warranty does not cover vacant homes and this is, in fact, grounds for immediate cancellation, the manager went forward and approved the claim instead of asking for more information with regards to the vacancy statement. She did this because customer satisfaction is one of RWS's highest priorities and the manager chose, due to the homeowner's delay in hiring a contractor, to not waste any more of their time and have the unit repaired.The contractor's invoice was received by RWS on 20 September 2015 and immediately submitted to accounting for processing . The homeowners need to be aware that the 30 business days begins upon RWS's receipt of the contractor's final invoice, not the date the claim was submitted, especially with the length of time that can occur between the two, as in this case. 30 business days from the date the invoice was submitted is 30 October 2015, this upcoming Friday, keeping RWS within the parameters of the time quoted to the homeowner . Accounting has been contacted and the check will be mailed out this week.Furthermore, we here at RWS are sorry to hear that the homeowner feels one of our managers hung up on her "when she heard [her] voice". Due to a steady increase of customers, RWS recently switched to a different phone system to better serve those customers and, as a result, there were some complications during that first week while our employees learned the new system. If any calls were disconnected, please be assured it was due to learning a new phone system and not due to any kind of hostility towards the homeowner herself as (1) our managers are not so unprofessional and (2) RWS handle tens of thousands of calls every month and the idea that a manager would be able to recognize a specific homeowner by their voice highly unlikely. However, we do apologize for any inconvenience the disconnected call may have caused the homeowner and can assure them that the new phone system has been fully integrated within all of our buildings and dropped calls are unlikely to ever occur again.Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Alix L. V[redacted], Esq.General Counsel - Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Carmel, IN 46032(317) 573-2088 (tel.)(317) 218-0315 (fax)[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 belowThe real invoice is attached. This is the one the service guy gave me. Notice; only charge is deductible. Also notice, recommendations. I also have the text msg from the service guy saying he only used little freon just to start the AC
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner needs to read his 9o day policy, which clearly states that there is a mechanical aggregate maximum of $500.00 and a structural aggregate maximum of $2,000.00. The SewerGard policy has an...
aggregate maximum of $2,000.00 per occurrence. That being said, the invoice turned in for $6,140.00 and $16,000 were never going to be covered in full, nor will the $16,000.00 he is attempting to recoup via Revdex.com.
However, regarding the issue at hand: the homeowner states he did “not make a claim for a clog” but his email to our representative clearly states, “While running water in the kitchen sink, the sink became clogged and then started spitting out from the other side of the sink. While snaking the drain line from the kitchen sink, there was a large amount of mud coming into the kitchen from the drain.” The homeowner's own contractor's diagnosis states “the sewer line is holding water and solids and debris”. Therefore, as the 90-day policy states “This contract does not cover plumbing stoppages, regardless of reason" and the SewerGard policy states “This is not a policy to cover clogs”, the homeowner's claim would be prima facie denied.
However, because the homeowner had erroneously included other found plumbing issues in this claim description, and, after speaking with the homeowner, the plumber, and the home inspector, and hearing of the extenuating circumstances, RWS was able to go above and beyond our policy by partially approving the plumbing issues and the sewer issue, with no obligation to do so, simply because we value customer service so much.
Furthermore, the homeowner’s claims that RWS has failed to return his phone calls is patently false. RWS has returned every phone call and had multiple instances where RWS representatives went above and beyond their duty by contacting the homeowner’s contractor themselves to get the information necessary to continue processing his claim. What the homeowner has failed to mention was that RWS representatives returned his phone calls consistently, despite the repeated verbal abuse he felt entitled to dole upon them each and every time.
At this point, the checks were mailed almost two weeks ago, and the homeowner has likely already received them. There is nothing further to be done regarding this issue.
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.Residential Warranty Services' response was completely inaccurate with the timeline. They did not speak with the pest control specialist [redacted] until yesterday, July 12. I called them personally on July 7 at 12:45 pm and argued against the denial. They then emailed me at 1:02 pm that same day and said they determined to cut the check for $910 only instead of the necessary amount of $1840. They did not consult the pest control specialist until 5 days after they determined they would only pay $910 instead of the necessary $1840 to take care of the termite issue.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner has indicated that “the warranty trying [sic] to collect money from me while no work was done on my AC Unit”, which is concerning to RWS due to our having possession...
of an invoice and multiple communication records between RWS, the homeowner, and the contractor that would indicate otherwise. However, for the homeowner's benefit, below is a breakdown of all the items relevant to this claim, at this point. Please review and reach out if you have any additional questions: Overtime Fees. The homeowner submitted their claim on a Friday and, despite its non-emergency status, insisted on a contractor being dispatched immediately over the weekend. While RWS does not charge over-time fees, our policy clearly states that a contractor may, for non-emergency claims. The homeowner was advised of this by both RWS and the contractor yet insisted on the immediate service and so agreed to the overtime charges, the cost of which ($295.00) is due to the contractor immediately. Service Call Fees. The homeowner wanted two HVAC units serviced, which resulted in two service call fees as the policy clearly states that the service call fee applies to each mechanical breakdown, for each distinct malfunction and so multiple service call fees may apply to one claim. However, later, the homeowner refused to pay the $300.00 due, which is grounds for immediate cancellation of his warranty, without possibility of refund, which will be addressed further below. That cost is due to the contractor immediately. Repair over Replacement. The contractor informed the homeowner that one of the units needed to be replaced due to its age, as it would be more expensive to temporarily repair the item over replacing them. He quoted a replacement to the homeowner but the homeowner insisted on immediate service and so insisted on the repair. The contractor explained the risks and expenses of repairing over replacement, and contacted RWS for authorization. An RWS representative spoke with the homeowner, who insisted he knew the risks and that he still wanted the repair. The contractor was given authorization per the homeowner’s demands and so replaced the capacitor in the older unit and ensured it was working when he left. Freon Fees. The contractor also re-filled the Freon in both units, which resulted in a total of 10lbs of R-22 refrigerant being added, even though the homeowner’s policy clearly states that the homeowner is responsible for the differences in costs for any refrigerant required other than R-410A. The contractor was informed of this over the phone prior to the repair, yet opted for the repair regardless. The $400.00 cost is due to the contractor immediately. Leak Checks. In addition, the homeowner should be aware that leak checks are not covered under his policy, even though he had the contractor conduct two leak checks – one on each unit. However, in a good faith gesture the contractor did not charge anything for the two hours spent on the leak check, or the labor for the leak check itself. Despite this, the homeowner still refused to pay the contractor for any of the charges the homeowner knew were due. RWS would advise the homeowner to re-read his policy carefully to ensure he is aware of the full extent of his coverage. If he has any questions, he is more than welcome to contact RWS and our trained customer service representatives will be able to explain all covered items to ensure there is no confusion. With regards to this situation, with the repair authorized repeatedly by the homeowner, against the advice of both RWS and the contractor, the homeowner is liable to the Contractor for a total of $995.00. The remainder costs will be covered by RWS pursuant to the homeowner’s policy. If the homeowner continues to refuse to pay this amount to the contractor for services already rendered, not only will the contractor have legal remedies against the homeowner, but RWS will be forced to cancel the homeowner’s policy, without refund for failure to pay the applicable fees, pursuant to the cancellation provision of the policy. At this point in time, the homeowner must send a check to the contractor in full payment of the owed amount, and forward proof of the same to RWS by 30 September 2016. Failure to do so will result in an immediate cancellation of the homeowner’s policy and any other remedy RWS, or the contractor if they feel so inclined, feels obligated to pursue against the homeowner.
All of the homeowner’s raised questions have been addressed, including by quoting the policy itself, in RWS’s previous responses. We here at RWS urge Mr. [redacted] to review his policy, and our previous answers, thoroughly. As stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]’s policy is still marked for cancellation without refund due to his refusal to pay the clearly delineated fees associated with this warranty. Once RWS receives confirmation of the payment, we will be able to work with Mr. [redacted] with regards to his air conditioners. If there was no work done, as Mr. [redacted] alleges, the contractor should have no problem giving RWS written confirmation of the same, along with an explanation detailing the reason for the discrepancies in the invoice given to the homeowner (per Mr. [redacted]'s claims) versus the invoice submitted to RWS. Otherwise, as stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]'s policy will be canceled in accordance with the cancellation provision included therein.
The homeowner needs to be aware that Residential Warranty Services, Inc. (“RWS”) is NOT their home inspection company – we are a third party warranty provider. This is vital because the homeowner mistakenly stated “I had home inspection done by their company”. Secondly, RWS has been...
actively working with the homeowner on this claim – his initial invoice, $7300 for a new system, was extremely unusual based on the circumstances surrounding this claim. As a result, RWS initially approved the obviously failed part, the compressor, and has been actively working with the homeowner to dispatch another contractor for a second opinion with regards to the other items listed, in order to move this claim forward. It should be noted that RWS also offered to cover hotel expenses pursuant to the policy, for any delay this second opinion causes, all of which was communicated to the homeowner last week.The new contractor conducted the second opinion today and, once RWS receives the 2nd opinion, we will be able to process the claim and determine the correct course of action.
Upon review of this claim, it appears Ms. [redacted] called in on 5/11/16 and stated that she had another company out to look at the issue who stated the failure was a city issue and that the repair would be covered by the city. From that point onward, we were waiting to hear from the homeowner...
regarding the city assessment of the same. If she is interested in continuing with RWS, please call in and ask for Cameron, the one year manager who will handle your claim personally from this point forward.
Here's my problem I had a home inspection done and was told that he seen a termite tube but no active signs of them and I started to remodel a room and then seeing the infestation of termites call the inspector and he told me that I had a warranty for termites so then I contacted Rws and in all of their paperwork and send them a copy of my home inspection two weeks later I was told my claim was approved two months down the line I was finally told my claim was denied during this process spoke numerous times to different people and no one would ever get back to me was told they would pay a portion of treatment and was told I was denied wrote a review on their Facebook page and was contacted by owner to take it down or he would sue me I have pictures of evident termites that inspector did not find but when the exterminator came they were obvious extremely dissatisfied
Firstly, RWS would like to take this opportunity to assure the homeowner and clarify a few things:
1.
font-family: Times New Roman; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"> RWS does not hang up on people repeatedly, nor “intentionally [place] people on hold multiple times to irritate [them]”. Due to high call volume, or the questions asked, a customer service representative may have to place a homeowner on hold to gather more information on the claim if the homeowner does not prefer to receive a call back with the information at a later point.
2. All contractors (especially those who are in the RWS network) schedule a window of time when they will arrive at the homeowner’s home – it is by no means necessary for a homeowner to wait at the house the entirety of the day on the chance that someone might show up – if the homeowner is stating they took off 3 entire days to be available for a contractor due to something the contractor said – please let us know immediately. We’ve already reached out to the contractor who has assured us that a time frame was given but we would like to gather more information from the homeowner to ensure our policyholders are as inconvenienced as little as possible during their claims processing.
3. Based on the claim, it appears that the first contractor did not call the homeowner the day after the claim was reported, so another contractor was immediately dispatched. The second contractor diagnosed the issue and spoke with RWS representatives on multiple occasions regarding the claim. Our notes state that the second contractor did diagnose the issue to be a ‘cracked pipe’ and began work to remedy it.
Despite this, the homeowner called two days later to request that another contractor be sent out, which was immediately dispatched but, due to scheduling conflicts, this latest contractor wasn’t able to fit the homeowner into his schedule quickly enough, and so the homeowner was given permission to hire his own contractor, in order to expedite the repair as it had been a week, at that point – this occurred the day before the homeowner filed a Revdex.com complaint against the company.
4. The homeowner has stated “I asked to speak to a manager or supervisor, even the owner, “I was then told that there wasn’t no such individual here”. This cannot be true as the customer service representative on the phone (1) is trained better than that and (2) because they did exactly as requested and the homeowner spoke with both the Manager of the 1 Year Warranty Department AND the Director of the entire Company on separate days and occasions, all before this Revdex.com complaint was filed.
Finally, the homeowner is more than welcome to ask for a refund of his policy – the purchase price will be fully refunded to the party that paid, in this case to the Title Company for disbursement, absent only any claims already paid out, cancellation costs, and administration fees of approximately 10%. If this is the option the homeowner would like to enact, please let us know immediately.
Otherwise, it appears the homeowner spoke with the Director of the Company the same day this Revdex.com complaint was filed and the Director immediately dispatched a third contractor (the homeowner requested another RWS networked contractor in lieu of contacting his own) and so this issue appears to have been resolved. However, if the homeowner still desires to have his policy cancelled, he simply needs to call in and it will be submitted immediately for processing.
Residential Warranty Services (RWS) has multiple complaints and bad reviews. In good conscience, cannot recommend RWS for any warranty services. Realtors and inspection companies should be warned against RWS warranties. In an initial home inspection, both the home and pest inspection companies noted past termite damage on the property with small probability of current termite issues. The home inspector allowed the property to pass inspection with the condition that RWS would cover any inspection issues within a 90-day warranty period. Within 20 days, the original pest inspection company confirmed evidence of live termites. RWS did not honor their warranty agreement thru the home inspection company. As such, the home owners worked directly with RWS and their recommended pest inspection company. RWS tried repeatedly to refute their own contracted pest company recommendations for treatment. RWS originally offered to partially cover the cost of a surface treatment not allowed by the state. To resolve the treatment dispute, the pest inspection company wrote a formal letter and email stating that they could not perform the treatment mandated by RWS. The claim process took 3 months (8/18/16 - 11/7/16). The process included over 20 emails, 10 phone calls, and written correspondence from RWS contracted pest control company for Residential Warranty Service to only cover 40% of the pest control costs.
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.
This is a company who holds customer satisfaction at a high level but yet we’ve filed a claim April 28th 2016 and they didn’t send anyone out to follow up on the claim and we were put into a position to go to Hiller Plumbing to find out why we have a leak coming from the shower areas, under sink and toilet. RWS Warranty had an opportunity to send someone that was contracted with them to get whatever information they desired without having to depend on Hiller Plumbing for a break down. We shouldn’t have to talk to OUR contractor which we don’t have one to fix our leak issue. RWS Warranty should be talking to their vendor who they’ve sent out to fix the issue (they NEVER sent one). Also RWS Warranty alluded to a buyout which we don’t have any knowledge of or paper work to confirm any buyout. They allegedly claim they have paperwork but won’t send them because my wife and I contacted Revdex.com. It’s been 20 days and still RWS Warranty has not sent their own contractor out to follow up on our claim nor did we receive any funds from them to take care of this issue. We have voice recordings from telephone conversations we’ve had with RWS Warranty trying to get this issue taken care of. I don’t know how you fix a leak problem when RWS Warranty are stating we’re not covered under Hiller Plumbing break down but yet we’re covered to fix the leak. Very confusing but RWS holds customer satisfaction at a high level.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you for your 1 May 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"), attached as Exhibit 'A'. I've reviewed the file and feel that the claim was justly...
handled under the terms of our warranty (Exhibit '11'). The case at hand is derived from a broken heat exchanger and, though the Customer alleges that RWS and he had not "come to a final cost of repair/replacement of our furnace", the Customer received (and accepted) a cash payment of one thousand, one hundred dollars ($1,100), acknowledged in the complaint, as settlement of this claim. This amount, per the warranty terms, was an exercise of RWS's reserved right "to make a cash payment to a Policyholder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s). The cash payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost far service and may be less than retail" (Exhibit B — page 15, number 8). However, because RWS greatly values customer satisfaction, we would like to take this opportunity to again explain to the Customer why he is ineligible to receive his desired outcome of a "refund check" of "at least the lower quoted coverage [approximately $3,500]". The Customer, when describing the various quoted coverages as "a couple of my estimates were over $9,000 but included a replacement of both furnaces. One of the HVAC contractors provided an estimate to replace one (of the two) obviously damaged furnace [sic] for $3,500 (plus ALL permit fees)" (Exhibit A) highlights exactly why he did not receive the full amount desired: Firstly, the policy only covers repair or replacement of the defective part — in this case a heat exchanger. RWS is in no way responsible for replacing an entire unit as the policy clearly states "RWS shall be responsible ONLY [emp. added] for the costs of the failed part and the cost of installation." (Exhibit B —page 1.5, number 9). This automatically eliminates the $9,000+ bills from full coverage as replacement of the entire system was never required under the warranty. Secondly, the policy clearly states that "RWS does NOT [emp. added] pay for the costs of permits, except where specified." (Exhibit B — page 15, number 7), which immediately eliminates the $3,500 bill from fun Coverage due to its inclusion of a service not offered in (or covered by) the warranty. Finally, the Customer has pointed to no wording in the policy to indicate he is owed additional monies under the policy other than our aggregate limits of liability, which we have no obligation to pay out entirely for every claim we receive. Therefor; RWS has handled the Customer's claim fairly and per the carefully constructed, terms and conditions of its policy by sending a cash payment in lieu of repair/replacement, a limitation the Customer was aware of when purchasing the policy, as indicated by his signature asserting that he read and understood the terms and conditions. (Exhibit C) By accepting the cash payment of $1,100 made on this claim, the claim has been paid, and closed, in accordance with the policy. Respectfully, Alix L. V[redacted] Corporate Counsel, RWS alix@alixv[redacted].com 317.573.2088
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 expected, RWS Warranty is once again being untruthful. First to claim the warranty is "free" and "provided as a service" is absolutely ridiculous. The cost of the warranty is paid by the inspection company and passed on to the home owner. Also, prior to filing out my complaint I called RWS and specifically asked if mold was identified in some areas of the house, would that negate the mold warranty through out the rest of house, I was told it would not. Yet another untruth from RWS. This company is a sham and their warranty is absolutely useless, but don't take my word for it, look on-line and read their reviews. This company as designed to extract even more money from home buyers while providing no discernible value at all. Do yourself a favor, look somewhere else for warranty coverage.
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.
This is so unfortunate that this business can work like this while what they are saying almost feels like a scam to me. The following is a line by line what they have done: I called them regarding my AC unit not functioning properly. They said they will assign someone to come to my home. They have chosen someone from Columbus (almost 1.5 hours away from where I live at Mason, OH) on a Saturday. The service folks came and it was pouring rain outside. They spent may be about an hour. The service folks informed that I have 2 options: 1. I can replace the unit 2. Add Freon. They also strongly advised that adding Freon is worthless as the unit is leaking and adding Freon is expensive (old Freon type I guess). They have also told me that warranty company would not provide much for the Freon. So, I wanted to talk to warranty company on replacing the units. As a matter of fact, service company has indicated in the invoice that Unit be replaced. Also, to note, the invoice only has amount for deductible and not any charges for adding Freon. Now, let’s talks about the items one by one: 1. Overtime Fees: This service company was chosen by the warranty company and the warranty company told me that when the service company would arrive. There was no request from me to do an emergency call. Note that, the warranty company chose a service company from Columbus while I live in Mason. Sounds like a shady deal going on. There are plenty of service company in the Cincinnati area. There is no insistence from me that the service has to be immediate and it’s an emergency. This is a complete Lie from the warranty company. 2. Service call fees: While talking to April from RWS, I have asked for where does it say that having 2 units equates to two service calls. Also, service fees should be associated with fixing something. They have not fixed anything or promised to fix anything. The service company told me that the RWS will not pay anything for repairing for my unit. I’d be more than happy to pay the service fees if April from RWS would have told me that the units will be fixed per the recommendation of the service company. Talking to her sounded like, the warranty company running a scam and would make money out of me rather than paying for coverage. 3. Repair over replacement: This is an absolute lie to suggest that I have suggested not to replace my unit. Absolutely the opposite, what I have asked is to agree that a replacement will happen. The service company actually warned me that the RWS will not replace the unit. Is RWS saying now that they would replace the unit? If they are, I have no problem of paying the service fee. If they fix the issue, they will definitely deserve the service fee. Also note that, the service company worked in my home for about an hour or so and nothing was fixed, replaced or added. Also note that, there is no signature, written approval from me. I did not have sign the service sheet because it is a complete lie. 4. Freon fees: This is another lie. As a matter of fact, I have told them not to put Freon and if they did, without my approval. Here are few other things to consider: a. The invoice does not have any price for adding Freon, invoice only has the deductible. You would think, if freon was added, the prcie would be reflected in the service sheet b. The service guy would not add Freon without getting his money or approval from me as the warranty company only pays like $15 per pound and I’d have to pay the remainder. There is no approval from me. c. The service guy suggested and I listened that Old Freon is not an option for now d, I actually have a written proof (a text from him) that the service guys did not add 10 lbs of Freon. E. If they did, my unit would be functioning properly which still does not Bottom-line: 1. The warranty company chose this service company located 1.5 hours away 2. The warranty company and service company decided when to come to my home. 3. There was no adding of 10 lbs. of Freon. I have written proof that this was not done. Other Issues: 1. April form warranty company told me that she has video proof inside my home. Did someone videotaped inside my property without my approval.
The warranty company must fix the issue per service company’s suggestion which is to replace the unit.
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.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
RWS has no record of the homeowner calling in about a failed unit or about setting up a claim for a failed unit, which is unusual due to the ample records of the homeowner calling in regarding her A/C tune-up claim and the associated buyout. If the homeowner would provide proof she contacted RWS and filed a claim for her failed unit, we would be happy to re-evaluate. Otherwise, as the homeowner had no issue filing a claim previously, as there exist no records of a second claim being filed, and as the homeowner was aware of warranty procedures yet expressly failed to follow them with regards to her A/C replacement (which immediately precludes coverage completely), there is nothing more RWS can do with regards to her failed A/C unit.
With regards to the accusations regarding her claim buyout check, RWS has multiple records of conversations with the homeowner regarding her buyout, which the homeowner has mistakenly misreported in her Revdex.com response by stating “no one at RWS bothered to call and say they decided to offer a buyout”. This is simply untrue as the homeowner was notified multiple times (including the first business day after she filed her claim when her claim was initially approved, along with each time she called in thereafter) that she would be issued a buyout check, which was currently being processed. At no point was she unaware that she would be receiving a buyout check, though the final amount was not finalized until the entire approval process was complete.
As stated previously, the homeowner’s claim consisted of no actual failures, which should have precluded coverage entirely under her warranty. The homeowner cannot deny this as both she and her contractor have admitted the same. Despite this, RWS went above and beyond their obligations by covering those items which were operating less than perfectly by replacing a ‘weak’ (yet working) blower capacitor and paying for a refrigerant refill due to an ‘indoor coil icing up’ due to ‘low refrigerant’. However, it is important the homeowner understand that the above had not failed and so RWS had no obligation to cover any of this claim. To claim that RWS should also cover all of the ‘recommended repairs’, despite the existence of no failures, including a ‘coil replacement’ that the contractor had already stated could be repaired with a Freon refill (which was covered), is simply impossible. Therefore, as RWS has stated earlier, “unless the homeowner has additional information that would change the circumstances or information already received, the homeowner is due no additional money and this claim remains closed”.
All of the homeowner’s raised questions have been addressed, including by quoting the policy itself, in RWS’s previous response. We here at RWS urge Mr. [redacted] to review his policy, and our previous answer, thoroughly. However, to address the new allegations Mr. [redacted] has seen fit to raise in his second response, RWS states as follows: 1. The distance of a contractor has NO BEARING on the homeowner. The contractor is paid only the applicable deductible(s) from the homeowner unless, as stated earlier, the customer requests expedited service, as occurred in this instance. All costs above the deductible and expedited service fees are paid by RWS, making distance irrelevant. Furthermore, the policy clearly states that a homeowner has the freedom to “call any contractor you would like”, giving Mr. [redacted] a second option with regards to contractors, one he chose not to exercise. 2. RWS has nothing to do with any scheduling between the service contractor and the homeowner unless the homeowner specifically asks us to intervene. RWS contacts a contractor if the homeowner requests an RWS networked contractor, and puts them in contact with the homeowner, for them to decide when to schedule the appointment. Otherwise, the homeowner reaches out to a contractor of their choice and provides RWS with an estimate prior to any work being done. 3. The invoice clearly states that “7lbs of R-22” was added to the upstairs unit, along with “3lbs R-22” to the downstairs unit. There is a charge for R-22 clearly listed at the bottom of the page – RWS urges Mr. [redacted] to review the invoice thoroughly for the clearly listed items. 4. No RWS customer service representative has access to the interior of a homeowner’s home; this is clearly a miscommunication or misunderstanding as no one at RWS would ever indicate there was ‘video proof’ inside a homeowner’s home when no one from RWS has ever visited that home. As stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]’s policy is still marked for cancellation without refund due to his refusal to pay the clearly delineated fees associated with this warranty. Once RWS receives confirmation of the payment, we will be able to work with Mr. [redacted] with regards to his air conditioners. Otherwise, his policy will be canceled in accordance with the cancellation provision included therein. -- Alix Lei V[redacted], Esq.
RWS has up to 30 business days to issue a check, which the homeowner was informed of, at the time of being notified of the refund. Despite this, RWS went above and beyond our obligations by expediting the check - it was mailed last week (12-06-2016) to the address contained on the file. Please call into RWS if it has not yet been received and we will re-issue the check, if necessary.
This complaint is currently pending with the Revdex.com as ID No. [redacted] and has been addressed in full on that complaint.
Thank you for your 26 October 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS") regarding Ms. [redacted] at [redacted]. Upon review of her complaint, it appears that there has been a misunderstanding, by the homeowners, of when the reimbursement process begins.On...
20 August 2015, the homeowners called in the claim, stating that their air conditioner was not cooling. RWS gave the homeowners permission to call a contractor of their choice for their convenience, stating only that the contractor would need to call in to RWS after diagnosis (before repair) so RWS could determine the extent of coverage and any approval would be granted over the phone so as to not waste any of the homeowner's time.For reasons unknown, the homeowners did not have a contractor out to their home until 15 September 2015, at which point the contractor notified RWS and informed them that the air conditioning unit had sat for months in a vacant home, causing the issues at hand. Even though the RWS warranty does not cover vacant homes and this is, in fact, grounds for immediate cancellation, the manager went forward and approved the claim instead of asking for more information with regards to the vacancy statement. She did this because customer satisfaction is one of RWS's highest priorities and the manager chose, due to the homeowner's delay in hiring a contractor, to not waste any more of their time and have the unit repaired.The contractor's invoice was received by RWS on 20 September 2015 and immediately submitted to accounting for processing . The homeowners need to be aware that the 30 business days begins upon RWS's receipt of the contractor's final invoice, not the date the claim was submitted, especially with the length of time that can occur between the two, as in this case. 30 business days from the date the invoice was submitted is 30 October 2015, this upcoming Friday, keeping RWS within the parameters of the time quoted to the homeowner . Accounting has been contacted and the check will be mailed out this week.Furthermore, we here at RWS are sorry to hear that the homeowner feels one of our managers hung up on her "when she heard [her] voice". Due to a steady increase of customers, RWS recently switched to a different phone system to better serve those customers and, as a result, there were some complications during that first week while our employees learned the new system. If any calls were disconnected, please be assured it was due to learning a new phone system and not due to any kind of hostility towards the homeowner herself as (1) our managers are not so unprofessional and (2) RWS handle tens of thousands of calls every month and the idea that a manager would be able to recognize a specific homeowner by their voice highly unlikely. However, we do apologize for any inconvenience the disconnected call may have caused the homeowner and can assure them that the new phone system has been fully integrated within all of our buildings and dropped calls are unlikely to ever occur again.Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Alix L. V[redacted], Esq.General Counsel - Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Carmel, IN 46032(317) 573-2088 (tel.)(317) 218-0315 (fax)[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 belowThe real invoice is attached. This is the one the service guy gave me. Notice; only charge is deductible. Also notice, recommendations. I also have the text msg from the service guy saying he only used little freon just to start the AC
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner needs to read his 9o day policy, which clearly states that there is a mechanical aggregate maximum of $500.00 and a structural aggregate maximum of $2,000.00. The SewerGard policy has an...
aggregate maximum of $2,000.00 per occurrence. That being said, the invoice turned in for $6,140.00 and $16,000 were never going to be covered in full, nor will the $16,000.00 he is attempting to recoup via Revdex.com.
However, regarding the issue at hand: the homeowner states he did “not make a claim for a clog” but his email to our representative clearly states, “While running water in the kitchen sink, the sink became clogged and then started spitting out from the other side of the sink. While snaking the drain line from the kitchen sink, there was a large amount of mud coming into the kitchen from the drain.” The homeowner's own contractor's diagnosis states “the sewer line is holding water and solids and debris”. Therefore, as the 90-day policy states “This contract does not cover plumbing stoppages, regardless of reason" and the SewerGard policy states “This is not a policy to cover clogs”, the homeowner's claim would be prima facie denied.
However, because the homeowner had erroneously included other found plumbing issues in this claim description, and, after speaking with the homeowner, the plumber, and the home inspector, and hearing of the extenuating circumstances, RWS was able to go above and beyond our policy by partially approving the plumbing issues and the sewer issue, with no obligation to do so, simply because we value customer service so much.
Furthermore, the homeowner’s claims that RWS has failed to return his phone calls is patently false. RWS has returned every phone call and had multiple instances where RWS representatives went above and beyond their duty by contacting the homeowner’s contractor themselves to get the information necessary to continue processing his claim. What the homeowner has failed to mention was that RWS representatives returned his phone calls consistently, despite the repeated verbal abuse he felt entitled to dole upon them each and every time.
At this point, the checks were mailed almost two weeks ago, and the homeowner has likely already received them. There is nothing further to be done regarding this issue.
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.Residential Warranty Services' response was completely inaccurate with the timeline. They did not speak with the pest control specialist [redacted] until yesterday, July 12. I called them personally on July 7 at 12:45 pm and argued against the denial. They then emailed me at 1:02 pm that same day and said they determined to cut the check for $910 only instead of the necessary amount of $1840. They did not consult the pest control specialist until 5 days after they determined they would only pay $910 instead of the necessary $1840 to take care of the termite issue.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner has indicated that “the warranty trying [sic] to collect money from me while no work was done on my AC Unit”, which is concerning to RWS due to our having possession...
of an invoice and multiple communication records between RWS, the homeowner, and the contractor that would indicate otherwise. However, for the homeowner's benefit, below is a breakdown of all the items relevant to this claim, at this point. Please review and reach out if you have any additional questions: Overtime Fees. The homeowner submitted their claim on a Friday and, despite its non-emergency status, insisted on a contractor being dispatched immediately over the weekend. While RWS does not charge over-time fees, our policy clearly states that a contractor may, for non-emergency claims. The homeowner was advised of this by both RWS and the contractor yet insisted on the immediate service and so agreed to the overtime charges, the cost of which ($295.00) is due to the contractor immediately. Service Call Fees. The homeowner wanted two HVAC units serviced, which resulted in two service call fees as the policy clearly states that the service call fee applies to each mechanical breakdown, for each distinct malfunction and so multiple service call fees may apply to one claim. However, later, the homeowner refused to pay the $300.00 due, which is grounds for immediate cancellation of his warranty, without possibility of refund, which will be addressed further below. That cost is due to the contractor immediately. Repair over Replacement. The contractor informed the homeowner that one of the units needed to be replaced due to its age, as it would be more expensive to temporarily repair the item over replacing them. He quoted a replacement to the homeowner but the homeowner insisted on immediate service and so insisted on the repair. The contractor explained the risks and expenses of repairing over replacement, and contacted RWS for authorization. An RWS representative spoke with the homeowner, who insisted he knew the risks and that he still wanted the repair. The contractor was given authorization per the homeowner’s demands and so replaced the capacitor in the older unit and ensured it was working when he left. Freon Fees. The contractor also re-filled the Freon in both units, which resulted in a total of 10lbs of R-22 refrigerant being added, even though the homeowner’s policy clearly states that the homeowner is responsible for the differences in costs for any refrigerant required other than R-410A. The contractor was informed of this over the phone prior to the repair, yet opted for the repair regardless. The $400.00 cost is due to the contractor immediately. Leak Checks. In addition, the homeowner should be aware that leak checks are not covered under his policy, even though he had the contractor conduct two leak checks – one on each unit. However, in a good faith gesture the contractor did not charge anything for the two hours spent on the leak check, or the labor for the leak check itself. Despite this, the homeowner still refused to pay the contractor for any of the charges the homeowner knew were due. RWS would advise the homeowner to re-read his policy carefully to ensure he is aware of the full extent of his coverage. If he has any questions, he is more than welcome to contact RWS and our trained customer service representatives will be able to explain all covered items to ensure there is no confusion. With regards to this situation, with the repair authorized repeatedly by the homeowner, against the advice of both RWS and the contractor, the homeowner is liable to the Contractor for a total of $995.00. The remainder costs will be covered by RWS pursuant to the homeowner’s policy. If the homeowner continues to refuse to pay this amount to the contractor for services already rendered, not only will the contractor have legal remedies against the homeowner, but RWS will be forced to cancel the homeowner’s policy, without refund for failure to pay the applicable fees, pursuant to the cancellation provision of the policy. At this point in time, the homeowner must send a check to the contractor in full payment of the owed amount, and forward proof of the same to RWS by 30 September 2016. Failure to do so will result in an immediate cancellation of the homeowner’s policy and any other remedy RWS, or the contractor if they feel so inclined, feels obligated to pursue against the homeowner.
All of the homeowner’s raised questions have been addressed, including by quoting the policy itself, in RWS’s previous responses. We here at RWS urge Mr. [redacted] to review his policy, and our previous answers, thoroughly. As stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]’s policy is still marked for cancellation without refund due to his refusal to pay the clearly delineated fees associated with this warranty. Once RWS receives confirmation of the payment, we will be able to work with Mr. [redacted] with regards to his air conditioners. If there was no work done, as Mr. [redacted] alleges, the contractor should have no problem giving RWS written confirmation of the same, along with an explanation detailing the reason for the discrepancies in the invoice given to the homeowner (per Mr. [redacted]'s claims) versus the invoice submitted to RWS. Otherwise, as stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]'s policy will be canceled in accordance with the cancellation provision included therein.
The homeowner needs to be aware that Residential Warranty Services, Inc. (“RWS”) is NOT their home inspection company – we are a third party warranty provider. This is vital because the homeowner mistakenly stated “I had home inspection done by their company”. Secondly, RWS has been...
actively working with the homeowner on this claim – his initial invoice, $7300 for a new system, was extremely unusual based on the circumstances surrounding this claim. As a result, RWS initially approved the obviously failed part, the compressor, and has been actively working with the homeowner to dispatch another contractor for a second opinion with regards to the other items listed, in order to move this claim forward. It should be noted that RWS also offered to cover hotel expenses pursuant to the policy, for any delay this second opinion causes, all of which was communicated to the homeowner last week.The new contractor conducted the second opinion today and, once RWS receives the 2nd opinion, we will be able to process the claim and determine the correct course of action.
Upon review of this claim, it appears Ms. [redacted] called in on 5/11/16 and stated that she had another company out to look at the issue who stated the failure was a city issue and that the repair would be covered by the city. From that point onward, we were waiting to hear from the homeowner...
regarding the city assessment of the same. If she is interested in continuing with RWS, please call in and ask for Cameron, the one year manager who will handle your claim personally from this point forward.
Here's my problem I had a home inspection done and was told that he seen a termite tube but no active signs of them and I started to remodel a room and then seeing the infestation of termites call the inspector and he told me that I had a warranty for termites so then I contacted Rws and in all of their paperwork and send them a copy of my home inspection two weeks later I was told my claim was approved two months down the line I was finally told my claim was denied during this process spoke numerous times to different people and no one would ever get back to me was told they would pay a portion of treatment and was told I was denied wrote a review on their Facebook page and was contacted by owner to take it down or he would sue me I have pictures of evident termites that inspector did not find but when the exterminator came they were obvious extremely dissatisfied
Firstly, RWS would like to take this opportunity to assure the homeowner and clarify a few things:
1.
font-family: Times New Roman; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"> RWS does not hang up on people repeatedly, nor “intentionally [place] people on hold multiple times to irritate [them]”. Due to high call volume, or the questions asked, a customer service representative may have to place a homeowner on hold to gather more information on the claim if the homeowner does not prefer to receive a call back with the information at a later point.
2. All contractors (especially those who are in the RWS network) schedule a window of time when they will arrive at the homeowner’s home – it is by no means necessary for a homeowner to wait at the house the entirety of the day on the chance that someone might show up – if the homeowner is stating they took off 3 entire days to be available for a contractor due to something the contractor said – please let us know immediately. We’ve already reached out to the contractor who has assured us that a time frame was given but we would like to gather more information from the homeowner to ensure our policyholders are as inconvenienced as little as possible during their claims processing.
3. Based on the claim, it appears that the first contractor did not call the homeowner the day after the claim was reported, so another contractor was immediately dispatched. The second contractor diagnosed the issue and spoke with RWS representatives on multiple occasions regarding the claim. Our notes state that the second contractor did diagnose the issue to be a ‘cracked pipe’ and began work to remedy it.
Despite this, the homeowner called two days later to request that another contractor be sent out, which was immediately dispatched but, due to scheduling conflicts, this latest contractor wasn’t able to fit the homeowner into his schedule quickly enough, and so the homeowner was given permission to hire his own contractor, in order to expedite the repair as it had been a week, at that point – this occurred the day before the homeowner filed a Revdex.com complaint against the company.
4. The homeowner has stated “I asked to speak to a manager or supervisor, even the owner, “I was then told that there wasn’t no such individual here”. This cannot be true as the customer service representative on the phone (1) is trained better than that and (2) because they did exactly as requested and the homeowner spoke with both the Manager of the 1 Year Warranty Department AND the Director of the entire Company on separate days and occasions, all before this Revdex.com complaint was filed.
Finally, the homeowner is more than welcome to ask for a refund of his policy – the purchase price will be fully refunded to the party that paid, in this case to the Title Company for disbursement, absent only any claims already paid out, cancellation costs, and administration fees of approximately 10%. If this is the option the homeowner would like to enact, please let us know immediately.
Otherwise, it appears the homeowner spoke with the Director of the Company the same day this Revdex.com complaint was filed and the Director immediately dispatched a third contractor (the homeowner requested another RWS networked contractor in lieu of contacting his own) and so this issue appears to have been resolved. However, if the homeowner still desires to have his policy cancelled, he simply needs to call in and it will be submitted immediately for processing.
Residential Warranty Services (RWS) has multiple complaints and bad reviews. In good conscience, cannot recommend RWS for any warranty services. Realtors and inspection companies should be warned against RWS warranties. In an initial home inspection, both the home and pest inspection companies noted past termite damage on the property with small probability of current termite issues. The home inspector allowed the property to pass inspection with the condition that RWS would cover any inspection issues within a 90-day warranty period. Within 20 days, the original pest inspection company confirmed evidence of live termites. RWS did not honor their warranty agreement thru the home inspection company. As such, the home owners worked directly with RWS and their recommended pest inspection company. RWS tried repeatedly to refute their own contracted pest company recommendations for treatment. RWS originally offered to partially cover the cost of a surface treatment not allowed by the state. To resolve the treatment dispute, the pest inspection company wrote a formal letter and email stating that they could not perform the treatment mandated by RWS. The claim process took 3 months (8/18/16 - 11/7/16). The process included over 20 emails, 10 phone calls, and written correspondence from RWS contracted pest control company for Residential Warranty Service to only cover 40% of the pest control costs.
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.
This is a company who holds customer satisfaction at a high level but yet we’ve filed a claim April 28th 2016 and they didn’t send anyone out to follow up on the claim and we were put into a position to go to Hiller Plumbing to find out why we have a leak coming from the shower areas, under sink and toilet. RWS Warranty had an opportunity to send someone that was contracted with them to get whatever information they desired without having to depend on Hiller Plumbing for a break down. We shouldn’t have to talk to OUR contractor which we don’t have one to fix our leak issue. RWS Warranty should be talking to their vendor who they’ve sent out to fix the issue (they NEVER sent one). Also RWS Warranty alluded to a buyout which we don’t have any knowledge of or paper work to confirm any buyout. They allegedly claim they have paperwork but won’t send them because my wife and I contacted Revdex.com. It’s been 20 days and still RWS Warranty has not sent their own contractor out to follow up on our claim nor did we receive any funds from them to take care of this issue. We have voice recordings from telephone conversations we’ve had with RWS Warranty trying to get this issue taken care of. I don’t know how you fix a leak problem when RWS Warranty are stating we’re not covered under Hiller Plumbing break down but yet we’re covered to fix the leak. Very confusing but RWS holds customer satisfaction at a high level.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you for your 1 May 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"), attached as Exhibit 'A'. I've reviewed the file and feel that the claim was justly...
handled under the terms of our warranty (Exhibit '11'). The case at hand is derived from a broken heat exchanger and, though the Customer alleges that RWS and he had not "come to a final cost of repair/replacement of our furnace", the Customer received (and accepted) a cash payment of one thousand, one hundred dollars ($1,100), acknowledged in the complaint, as settlement of this claim. This amount, per the warranty terms, was an exercise of RWS's reserved right "to make a cash payment to a Policyholder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s). The cash payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost far service and may be less than retail" (Exhibit B — page 15, number 8). However, because RWS greatly values customer satisfaction, we would like to take this opportunity to again explain to the Customer why he is ineligible to receive his desired outcome of a "refund check" of "at least the lower quoted coverage [approximately $3,500]". The Customer, when describing the various quoted coverages as "a couple of my estimates were over $9,000 but included a replacement of both furnaces. One of the HVAC contractors provided an estimate to replace one (of the two) obviously damaged furnace [sic] for $3,500 (plus ALL permit fees)" (Exhibit A) highlights exactly why he did not receive the full amount desired: Firstly, the policy only covers repair or replacement of the defective part — in this case a heat exchanger. RWS is in no way responsible for replacing an entire unit as the policy clearly states "RWS shall be responsible ONLY [emp. added] for the costs of the failed part and the cost of installation." (Exhibit B —page 1.5, number 9). This automatically eliminates the $9,000+ bills from full coverage as replacement of the entire system was never required under the warranty. Secondly, the policy clearly states that "RWS does NOT [emp. added] pay for the costs of permits, except where specified." (Exhibit B — page 15, number 7), which immediately eliminates the $3,500 bill from fun Coverage due to its inclusion of a service not offered in (or covered by) the warranty. Finally, the Customer has pointed to no wording in the policy to indicate he is owed additional monies under the policy other than our aggregate limits of liability, which we have no obligation to pay out entirely for every claim we receive. Therefor; RWS has handled the Customer's claim fairly and per the carefully constructed, terms and conditions of its policy by sending a cash payment in lieu of repair/replacement, a limitation the Customer was aware of when purchasing the policy, as indicated by his signature asserting that he read and understood the terms and conditions. (Exhibit C) By accepting the cash payment of $1,100 made on this claim, the claim has been paid, and closed, in accordance with the policy. Respectfully, Alix L. V[redacted] Corporate Counsel, RWS alix@alixv[redacted].com 317.573.2088
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 expected, RWS Warranty is once again being untruthful. First to claim the warranty is "free" and "provided as a service" is absolutely ridiculous. The cost of the warranty is paid by the inspection company and passed on to the home owner. Also, prior to filing out my complaint I called RWS and specifically asked if mold was identified in some areas of the house, would that negate the mold warranty through out the rest of house, I was told it would not. Yet another untruth from RWS. This company is a sham and their warranty is absolutely useless, but don't take my word for it, look on-line and read their reviews. This company as designed to extract even more money from home buyers while providing no discernible value at all. Do yourself a favor, look somewhere else for warranty coverage.
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.
This is so unfortunate that this business can work like this while what they are saying almost feels like a scam to me. The following is a line by line what they have done: I called them regarding my AC unit not functioning properly. They said they will assign someone to come to my home. They have chosen someone from Columbus (almost 1.5 hours away from where I live at Mason, OH) on a Saturday. The service folks came and it was pouring rain outside. They spent may be about an hour. The service folks informed that I have 2 options: 1. I can replace the unit 2. Add Freon. They also strongly advised that adding Freon is worthless as the unit is leaking and adding Freon is expensive (old Freon type I guess). They have also told me that warranty company would not provide much for the Freon. So, I wanted to talk to warranty company on replacing the units. As a matter of fact, service company has indicated in the invoice that Unit be replaced. Also, to note, the invoice only has amount for deductible and not any charges for adding Freon. Now, let’s talks about the items one by one: 1. Overtime Fees: This service company was chosen by the warranty company and the warranty company told me that when the service company would arrive. There was no request from me to do an emergency call. Note that, the warranty company chose a service company from Columbus while I live in Mason. Sounds like a shady deal going on. There are plenty of service company in the Cincinnati area. There is no insistence from me that the service has to be immediate and it’s an emergency. This is a complete Lie from the warranty company. 2. Service call fees: While talking to April from RWS, I have asked for where does it say that having 2 units equates to two service calls. Also, service fees should be associated with fixing something. They have not fixed anything or promised to fix anything. The service company told me that the RWS will not pay anything for repairing for my unit. I’d be more than happy to pay the service fees if April from RWS would have told me that the units will be fixed per the recommendation of the service company. Talking to her sounded like, the warranty company running a scam and would make money out of me rather than paying for coverage. 3. Repair over replacement: This is an absolute lie to suggest that I have suggested not to replace my unit. Absolutely the opposite, what I have asked is to agree that a replacement will happen. The service company actually warned me that the RWS will not replace the unit. Is RWS saying now that they would replace the unit? If they are, I have no problem of paying the service fee. If they fix the issue, they will definitely deserve the service fee. Also note that, the service company worked in my home for about an hour or so and nothing was fixed, replaced or added. Also note that, there is no signature, written approval from me. I did not have sign the service sheet because it is a complete lie. 4. Freon fees: This is another lie. As a matter of fact, I have told them not to put Freon and if they did, without my approval. Here are few other things to consider: a. The invoice does not have any price for adding Freon, invoice only has the deductible. You would think, if freon was added, the prcie would be reflected in the service sheet b. The service guy would not add Freon without getting his money or approval from me as the warranty company only pays like $15 per pound and I’d have to pay the remainder. There is no approval from me. c. The service guy suggested and I listened that Old Freon is not an option for now d, I actually have a written proof (a text from him) that the service guys did not add 10 lbs of Freon. E. If they did, my unit would be functioning properly which still does not Bottom-line: 1. The warranty company chose this service company located 1.5 hours away 2. The warranty company and service company decided when to come to my home. 3. There was no adding of 10 lbs. of Freon. I have written proof that this was not done. Other Issues: 1. April form warranty company told me that she has video proof inside my home. Did someone videotaped inside my property without my approval.
The warranty company must fix the issue per service company’s suggestion which is to replace the unit.
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.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
RWS has no record of the homeowner calling in about a failed unit or about setting up a claim for a failed unit, which is unusual due to the ample records of the homeowner calling in regarding her A/C tune-up claim and the associated buyout. If the homeowner would provide proof she contacted RWS and filed a claim for her failed unit, we would be happy to re-evaluate. Otherwise, as the homeowner had no issue filing a claim previously, as there exist no records of a second claim being filed, and as the homeowner was aware of warranty procedures yet expressly failed to follow them with regards to her A/C replacement (which immediately precludes coverage completely), there is nothing more RWS can do with regards to her failed A/C unit.
With regards to the accusations regarding her claim buyout check, RWS has multiple records of conversations with the homeowner regarding her buyout, which the homeowner has mistakenly misreported in her Revdex.com response by stating “no one at RWS bothered to call and say they decided to offer a buyout”. This is simply untrue as the homeowner was notified multiple times (including the first business day after she filed her claim when her claim was initially approved, along with each time she called in thereafter) that she would be issued a buyout check, which was currently being processed. At no point was she unaware that she would be receiving a buyout check, though the final amount was not finalized until the entire approval process was complete.
As stated previously, the homeowner’s claim consisted of no actual failures, which should have precluded coverage entirely under her warranty. The homeowner cannot deny this as both she and her contractor have admitted the same. Despite this, RWS went above and beyond their obligations by covering those items which were operating less than perfectly by replacing a ‘weak’ (yet working) blower capacitor and paying for a refrigerant refill due to an ‘indoor coil icing up’ due to ‘low refrigerant’. However, it is important the homeowner understand that the above had not failed and so RWS had no obligation to cover any of this claim. To claim that RWS should also cover all of the ‘recommended repairs’, despite the existence of no failures, including a ‘coil replacement’ that the contractor had already stated could be repaired with a Freon refill (which was covered), is simply impossible. Therefore, as RWS has stated earlier, “unless the homeowner has additional information that would change the circumstances or information already received, the homeowner is due no additional money and this claim remains closed”.
All of the homeowner’s raised questions have been addressed, including by quoting the policy itself, in RWS’s previous response. We here at RWS urge Mr. [redacted] to review his policy, and our previous answer, thoroughly. However, to address the new allegations Mr. [redacted] has seen fit to raise in his second response, RWS states as follows: 1. The distance of a contractor has NO BEARING on the homeowner. The contractor is paid only the applicable deductible(s) from the homeowner unless, as stated earlier, the customer requests expedited service, as occurred in this instance. All costs above the deductible and expedited service fees are paid by RWS, making distance irrelevant. Furthermore, the policy clearly states that a homeowner has the freedom to “call any contractor you would like”, giving Mr. [redacted] a second option with regards to contractors, one he chose not to exercise. 2. RWS has nothing to do with any scheduling between the service contractor and the homeowner unless the homeowner specifically asks us to intervene. RWS contacts a contractor if the homeowner requests an RWS networked contractor, and puts them in contact with the homeowner, for them to decide when to schedule the appointment. Otherwise, the homeowner reaches out to a contractor of their choice and provides RWS with an estimate prior to any work being done. 3. The invoice clearly states that “7lbs of R-22” was added to the upstairs unit, along with “3lbs R-22” to the downstairs unit. There is a charge for R-22 clearly listed at the bottom of the page – RWS urges Mr. [redacted] to review the invoice thoroughly for the clearly listed items. 4. No RWS customer service representative has access to the interior of a homeowner’s home; this is clearly a miscommunication or misunderstanding as no one at RWS would ever indicate there was ‘video proof’ inside a homeowner’s home when no one from RWS has ever visited that home. As stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]’s policy is still marked for cancellation without refund due to his refusal to pay the clearly delineated fees associated with this warranty. Once RWS receives confirmation of the payment, we will be able to work with Mr. [redacted] with regards to his air conditioners. Otherwise, his policy will be canceled in accordance with the cancellation provision included therein. -- Alix Lei V[redacted], Esq.
RWS has up to 30 business days to issue a check, which the homeowner was informed of, at the time of being notified of the refund. Despite this, RWS went above and beyond our obligations by expediting the check - it was mailed last week (12-06-2016) to the address contained on the file. Please call into RWS if it has not yet been received and we will re-issue the check, if necessary.