This homeowner submitted a claim under the 90-day policy stating that, while a contractor was installing a new dish, he removed shingles and the old dish and, in doing so, noted that there were leaks and...
water damage present underneath. The homeowner, relying on this find, contacted another contractor who failed to diagnose the issue (required by the policy) but instead proposed to remove the shingles, fix the issues, remove the old satellite dish brackets and shingles, and repair for between $1,000 and $1,250. The 90-day policy clearly states that “this contract does not cover water damage… or items that are inaccessible without the removal of drywall, concrete, or any other permanently installed covering.” As this issue was discovered after a contractor removed not only a satellite dish but also multiple shingles, it is clear that this issue is outside the scope of the 90-day warranty. Furthermore, the invoices received were not in accordance with what is required to process the claim as many of the items the contractor listed would not be approved (such as removing brackets from the old satellite dish, or removing/replacing shingles).
However, after speaking with the home inspector, the Claim Director was made aware of some extenuating circumstances surrounding the issue and partially approved the claim; for which a check was submitted for processing and is currently going through a final audit before being mailed. However, this was done under no obligation and was above and beyond the requirements of the policy. However, we here at RWS strive for complete customer satisfaction and so, if the homeowner would like RWS to re-open her claim to see if she is entitled to a higher amount, we are more than happy to freeze her pending payment and re-evaluate the claim in whole, in case something was missed and she is entitled to an approval or a higher amount. Please forward an itemized repair estimate with a breakdown of parts & labor as well as a specific cause for the failure in writing from a licensed or properly certified repairperson per the terms of the warranty and the claim will be re-evaluated in its entirety
It is clear this homeowner does not wish to honor the terms of the warranty and that he would rather resort to extorting a company for more money, evident not only by his responses to the Revdex.com but by his contacting a reporter, providing that reporter false information, and then insinuating that, unless RWS pays his ransom price, our name will be dragged through the mud. This is unacceptable and abhorrent.
At this point, the homeowner has clearly declined the previous offer set forth and so the owner of the Company has asked me to offer the homeowner, one final time, the initial offer of $375, no review required. Of course this final offer is dependent upon this payment settling the issue for good. If the homeowner accepts this amount, he must respond to the Revdex.com accordingly by noon tomorrow in order for a check to be both processed and mailed tomorrow as any further delay in an acceptance will result in a delay in receiving a check.
Otherwise, if the homeowner continues to push for more money or otherwise threaten or extort RWS, the original buyout amount of $225 will be processed and this issue will be litigated elsewhere with the homeowner keeping in mind that he will be held both legally and financially responsible for any damages that occur due to any defamatory statements that are published about our company due to his statements.
This homeowner filed a claim under a policy add-on he had not purchased with his base one-year policy. While the claim was, as the homeowner indicated, initially approved for a set amount should the add-on have...
been purchased with his base policy, a final review revealed the homeowner did not purchase the add-on and so his policy did not cover for the claim. Giving approval for a homeowner to contact their own contractor does not equal a blanket approval of any associated costs; it was made very clear that the contractor would have to contact us with a written estimate and diagnosis before the claim could be processed. While no written estimate or diagnosis was provided, the homeowner did submit a receipt for reimbursement after the repair was completed. Upon review of the invoice, it was clear that this claim was not covered under the homeowner’s policy due to the lack of the add-on. We here at RWS greatly value customer satisfaction and try to ensure the homeowner’s awareness of all covered and non-covered items in their warranty with us – we also try to cater to our customer’s needs by offering base policies with standard coverage and allowing each homeowner to build a custom policy with our add-on services, so that their final warranty covers only what they need covers and fits in their budget. If a customer chooses not to purchase an add-on for something they have in their home, RWS cannot be faulted for denying a claim for non-coverage.
Thank you for your 1 July 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). As stated in our previous response, water heaters are explicitly excluded from coverage within the first thirty (30) days of the warranty's commencement. This limitation is an industry standard to protect home warranty companies from claims on likely pre-existing issues and is clearly stated in the warranty terms and conditions under #1 of the Limits of Liability. In response to the Customer's confusion about the modification referenced earlier, it is explicitly written on the Contractor's invoice, wherein the Contractor states that the water heater had been so modified that the owner of the Contractor's company had to be called out to inspect the unit. It further states that the water heater was determined to have been so modified that it was made dangerous to the point of not being safe for operation with immediate replacement given as the only recommendation. This again puts the Customer's claim outside the scope of the warranty and required RWS to deny the claim under #11 of the Limits of Liability. RWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditions. RWS remains unable to grant approval for this particular claim. Sincerely, Alix [redacted] Esq. Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Cannel, IN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax) [redacted].com
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.
Actually none of my questions are addressed by RWS. This company is running a borderline scam.
1. Yes, I was told ONLY RWS will assign the contractor. Can you imagine someone living in Mason, OH will get a contractor from someone Columbus, OH. They have assigned the service contractor.
2. No Freon was added. You would think, if they added Freon, they would list the price of the Freon. Only deductible is mentioned in the price. Also, I contacted the service guy and he said he only added very little Freon just to start the system. The service guys are probably the best in using grammar and instead of saying need adding, they said added. Also, I had a subsequent diagnosis done, and the new service contractor needed to add Freon. RWS is running a scam on this subject. Can they show the invoice where the service guy showed the price of the Freon they added.
3. The RWS claim lady said some very unprofessional stuff. She definitely told me that she has video proof.
My demand is RWS fixes the issue and deductible will be paid.
I have been trying to have my refrigerator repaired for the last 3 weeks now. It has been leaking water all over my new floor which is now ruined. The company has failed numerous times now to even get somebody to my residence. I'm beginning to wonder if they are a fraudulent business because you certainly don't get what you pay for!
This homeowner, 9 months into a 12 month policy, has received repairs costing 3x the amount the warranty actually cost to obtain and there has been NO money taken from the homeowner as the policy was paid for up front and in full. This homeowner has profited greatly from her one year warranty...
with RWS, making it all the more bewildering why she would file a complaint on an issue she personally knew had been resolved beforehand.
In fall of 2015, the homeowner had a plumbing issue and contacted her own contractor to diagnose the issue. This contractor charged a service call fee; a fee that was unnecessarily spent by the homeowner as she then called RWS to open a claim, which resulted in our own contractor needing to be sent and a deductible owed per the terms of her warranty with us. The homeowner did not contact us about this reimbursement issue until late March 2016, wherein she was immediately contacted by the Director of the Company (on 30 March 2016, the same day she filed this complaint). He spoke with her and told her he would immediately process the requested refund, not out of any obligation but simply out of a want to ensure complete customer satisfaction.
That same day, the Director honored the conversation and submitted the reimbursement. Unfortunately, the homeowner did not and, that same day, knowing what she was told by the Director, filed this complaint regardless. The homeowner has not been trying to get this resolved since October; the only contact we had with her with regards to this claim have taken place this week and, as stated above, finalized wholly in accordance with the homeowner's desires.
We here at RWS are saddened that she has so blatantly acted in bad faith - the homeowner was told, directly by the Director of the Company, that he would personally submit the reimbursement for processing yet she still filed a complaint within hours of that conversation falsely claiming a lack of communication and of RWS "giving us the run around". The reimbursement, which we have NO obligation to pay, is currently being processed, as promised. You will receive it within 30 business days.
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 am appalled that my claims are being questioned. I have now provided my phone records from my statements for August, September and October to prove, once again that there was no communication to me from RWS even though RWS is falsely claiming they have " multiple records of conversations with the homeowner regarding her buyout". I will give RWS that benefit of the doubt that they perhaps have my account confused with another. If not, the allegations that I received multiple (or any) communications is false, and can be proved in the attachment.
Although this continues to go in circles, please see the phone records that correspond exactly with my account of what happened. The green stars indicate my calls to RWS and the yellow stars indicate incoming calls from RWS. The call records show me calling twice on 8/20 to try to get a hold of someone about my claim. The records also shows my call on the morning of Monday, 8/22 to inquire about my claim. I was told I would receive a call back, and as you can see from the records, I did not receive one. The records also show me calling on the morning of Tuesday, 8/23 to say I still need a call back, and now the issue is more urgent because my a/c unit has completely failed. This would all be in the RWS recorded call logs which prove I stated that there was a new issue of the failed unit. If the RWS agent on the phone did not record the additional claim in my account, which I suspect because I never received follow up, then that is beyond my control and does not mean I did not issue a claim.
Due to my frustration with RWS that no one would respond to me to service my claim, I decided I could not wait any longer with a feline cancer patient in my house which was exceptionally warm, so I decided on my own to replace my unit. As expected, RWS still never responded to me in the days to come, and the next recorded communication is when I called again on Tuesday, 8/30 to express my extreme displeasure that 8 days had gone by since I was told a second time I would receive a call, and still nothing happened. My claim was completely ignored. At that point, the agent told me that there was a note in my account that I would receive a $1000 buyout. That was the one and only time that I heard about the buyout, and it was due to a call that I made. I thought the $1000 was a fair compromise for the complete disregard for my claim, and therefore there was no further communication on the issue between me and RWS.
Fast forward to 10/17 when I received the check in the mail for a fraction of what I was told I would receive. I immediately contacted RWS which is shown in my call records. The person I spoke with was sympathetic and said unfortunately there had been some bad business practices and people had been removed from the company. He said he would see what he could do about my situation. He called to follow up on 10/18 and said he was still waiting on an answer. He then called again on 10/19 and said there was nothing he could do. Both calls are in my statement, and are the only incoming calls I received from RWS.
The statement below is disturbing, and hopefully it was written by someone confused at RWS and not one of the "bad apples" that should have been removed from the company. Furthermore, I never received any approval for my claim.
"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.
Regarding the last paragraph, I am not claiming I am owed money for the repairs or my new unit or went outside the warranty process and am still requesting payment. I am simply claiming that I called to complain that no one ever responded to me, and the man on the other line said I was receiving a $1000 buyout. This was the first I heard of it. RWS saying they went above and beyond is a joke since my phone records prove I received no communications from them. I had accepted the buyout as a remedy for the situation where RWS completely ignored my claim, never sent me an approval or denial, and did not help when I called back and said my A/C had failed. They forced me to act on my own, and the buyout was a fair remedy to the failed service from RWS.
Finally, I have attached the check I received from RWS. In the call on 8/30 when I found out about the buyout, I was told that per RWS's 30 day check policy, the check would be cut by 10/7. When I received the check on 10/17, I saw it had been cut on 10/13, which was a week late. That is when the agent told me there was a note in my account dated 10/13 explaining the decreased amount on the check. Decreasing the amount on 10/13 is passed the due date to cut my check, so changes should not have been allowed at that time.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com of Central Indiana
151 N Delaware Street #2020
Indianapolis IN 46204
class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Re: Complaint ID [redacted]
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding his
refrigerator claim.
On Saturday August 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm we received a voicemail on our
after hours non emergency voicemail system stating that they just moved into
the home and the refrigerator wasn’t working.
On Monday August 11, 2014 at
9:31 am our office returned his call to let him know that we did not have a
warranty for the property located at [redacted], **
[redacted].
On August 12, 2014 at 9:37 am our office was informed by [redacted]
that the check was issued and mailed to Home Warranty of America (a different
warranty company) for the property located at [redacted], **
[redacted]. At this point [redacted] said that
they would get the funds from Home Warranty of America and issue us a check in
the amount of $395.00 for the home warranty.
We were provided with an image of check #[redacted] payable to Residential
Warranty Services (RWS).
On August 13, 2014 at 10:13 am our office created a warranty for the
property at [redacted]. On August 13, 2014 at 10:17 am our office
created a claim for Mr. [redacted]s refrigerator.
At 10:18 am our office contacted the homeowner to let him know that we
needed a copy of their home inspection report and the signed policy notice
(this is a form that requires a signature prior to filing any claims). The homeowner called RWS at 12:53 pm wanting
to file the claim. He was advised that
the claim had been started, but we cannot move forward until we received the
home inspection report and policy notice.
8/14/14 2:41 pm Received requested information via email from the
homeowner. 8/14/14 2:42 pm our office contacted the homeowner to let him know that he was free
to call the contractor of his choice and to call with the diagnosis and cost to
repair prior to having any work done.
The homeowner refused and wanted us to send out our contractor. On 8/15/14 2:38 pm Homeowner called our
office stating that they have not heard from our contractor yet he was advised
again he was free to use his own contractor and he again refused. We advised we would get in touch with our
contractor, when our office called voicemail picked up and we left all pertinent
information and requested a call back.
8/19/14 4:52 pm Homeowner left a voicemail for the 1 year warranty
manager (her shift ends at 4 pm EST) that he wanted this issue fixed now. 8/20/14
8:35 am The message that was left for the manager was given to the supervisor
to contact the homeowner. When the
supervisor called, he received Mr. [redacted]s voicemail but left a message
letting him know that the appliance repair company that we use in the [redacted] area was booked and were not available until the week of August 25, 2014. He is still free to use his own contractor
and that we would pay anything over his deductible over the phone to the
contractor of his choice. 8/20/14 4:51
pm Homeowner called into our office demanding to know why this hasn’t been
fixed. He claims to never have received
the voicemail left by our office. He was
once again given the option of using his own contractor for the repair.
As of August 21, 2014 RWS has yet to be paid for the home warranty at
[redacted]. We
have gone above and beyond attempting to get the issue resolved for the
homeowner.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience that Mr. [redacted] may have
experienced with his claim; however, Residential Warranty Services made an
exception to typical procedure due to Mr. [redacted]’s circumstances by accepting a
claim prior to the policy being paid for.
[redacted]
Director of Operations
Residential Warranty Services
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 case has not been resolved to my satisfaction at this point. We have not received the $150.00 that they said they would send us in their response.
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:
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 had spoken with the "third party" warranty company with full explanation of the item that needed replacing and was verbally told that it is not covered. When I explained the item that needed replacing, the "third party" warranty company they would have stated how the claim should be filed. I was told this cartridge is not covered therefore was no claim was written and no written denial was given.
This item should have been discovered at time of inspection, for which RWS guarantees the home inspectors findings, of which the inspector never checked.
I feel that RWS gives new home owners a false sense of coverage.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you for your
12 November 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. (“RWS”). After
looking into this matter, it appears that the Homeowner called in on Friday (06
November 2015) requesting that RWS pay for her plumbing services directly,
which required prior approval. However,...
even though the approval was granted, this
Revdex.com complaint was filed before the approval could be communicated to the
Homeowner. This is due, in part, to the weekend and Veteran’s Day, making today
only the second business day since the Homeowner’s initial request.However, the
approval had been granted and, if Ms. [redacted] would have her plumber contact
RWS at 1-800-544-8156, payment will be issued. Otherwise, the Director of the
company will be reaching out to her today to ensure that she is taken care of.
We here at RWS apologize for the inconvenience experienced and respectfully ask
that, in the future, if there is a delay in our response regarding an issue, please
contact RWS one last time, prior to filing a Revdex.com complaint, as this was simply
a matter of miscommunication.
Thank you for your time.
As stated earlier:
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.
The homeowner states in his complaint that the home inspector noted the deficiencies with the metal flashing but repair work on the same was completed prior to the home’s purchase. Those deficiencies have...
re-occurred and the homeowner seeks coverage. However, the homeowner’s 90-day policy states “this contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others, regardless of their condition at the time of inspection or whether they were repaired” Therefore, because the homeowner’s roof issue was noted in his inspection report, it does not matter that it was later fixed; it is not covered. Furthermore, the inspection report received by RWS includes the deficiencies and states that the roller asphalt roof coverings are “near the end of their useful life” and that “buckling and wrinkling observed in numerous areas” along with “lifting laps observed in numerous areas”. Additionally, “flashing is missing/damaged and can allow water to enter the roof structure. Recommend repair/replace”. As a side note, the homeowner, in his Revdex.com complaint admitted that the deficiencies were in his inspection report but later claimed that his inspection report states these deficiencies were excluded and the issue was noted to be in “good working condition”. RWS is concerned that you are insinuating you have two separate home inspection reports, from the same company, with one that includes deficiencies and another that excludes them completely. Regardless, due to the inclusion in the inspection report, this claim was denied. Furthermore, the 90-day email is listed at the bottom of the policy and is the quickest way to reach a customer service representative. While our representatives may use their individual accounts to contact a customer who is unavailable or hard to reach via telephone, it is only utilized for information requests to continue processing claims for the convenience of our customers and out of consideration for their schedules. However, by only contacting a single representative and not calling in to RWS or emailing the 90-day email address included on every policy, a customer can run the risk of a particular representative being unavailable and the company being unaware of the missed communications. While we do apologize for this inconvenience, the email address to contact regarding claims is listed on the policy itself and this claim was properly denied due to the roof issues listed specifically in the inspection report.
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 the policy holder, and supporter of RWS for multiple years, and referring clientele to RWS, I understand the policy and the reason RWS thinks they should deny the claim. However there are 3 seperate calls into RWS regarding the AC unit. Every time they sent out a contractor the contractor would say it is only dirty, and RWS does not cover maintenance. Since I was tired of paying for someone to clean a broken unit, I called a contractor out to test the AC system. In fact I had two separate contractors out to assess the situation. In both instances they concluded that the compressor unit had failed. I continued with the repair due to the fact that the hot and humid weather was not healthy for the family.
I hired on of the contractors to complete the job because RWS would have sent a contractor out to say it is dirty and I was over their incompetent contractors.
This is why I believe the contract was not broken by myself but by RWS originally when they refused to replace the broken part due to their contractor not properly testing the system.
As far as yelling, there was none of that, in fact I recorded the calls and had a witness with me on my end. I was trying to explain that after multiple attempt to have RWS send their contractors out and not fix the situation I was tired of not having the AC working.
The representative was interrupting me to raise her voice, then in the middle of my explanation she said she would hand up on me if I did not listen to her. Within 3 seconds she hung up. Ever since then they will not return my calls.
Regards,[redacted]
Thank you for your 14 July 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). I've reviewed the letter and it appears the policyholder violated the terms of his warranty,...
which negates this claim's coverage under the warranty and, as a result of this violation, detailed below, the claim continues to be denied.
The homeowner called RWS 19 June 2015 to ask about reimbursement for his air conditioning claim as detailed in the complaint. Unfortunately, the homeowner broke RWS protocol, which he should have been abundantly aware of as he's had a policy with RWS for over seven (7) years, which negated this particular claim. Specifically, the policy clearly states, in bolded, capitalized font, "DO NOT CALL A CONTRACTOR BEFORE YOU CALL RWS". It goes on to state, "RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the policyholder without prior authorization. Policyholder's contractors contacted prior to making a claim with RWS and without prior authorization will not be considered for servicing any claim, nor will any bill be reimbursed."
In the case at hand, the homeowner contacted a contractor, had the unit REPLACED, and then called RWS after the fact, in direct violation of the policy, for reimbursement. The claim was denied and, on 13 July 2015, when the claims representative tried to again explain the policy denial to the homeowner, which the homeowner should have been familiar with due to his years of contracting with RWS, he began yelling at her and not allowing her to speak.
RWS would like to note here that customer service is one of their highest priorities and any complaint is taken very seriously. However, unfortunately there are customers who feel the right, or the need, to verbally abuse the representatives or receptionists who answer the phones, who are only trying to fix the situation. In these cases, our representatives are informed to bring over a manager or director to witness the abuse. If the manager/director agrees that the abuse has reached a level that the representative is simply being held on the line by the policyholder to be continually abused, with the policyholder refusing to allow the claims representative to explain or gather information to possibly remedy the perceived problem, our representatives are allowed to politely warn of the pending disconnection and, if the abuse continues, to disconnect the call. We do this to protect our representatives who have no other remedy by which to protect themselves from the abuse some policyholders feel they are entitled to dole upon them.
In the case at hand, the claims representative followed protocol completely and, in full view and with the support of her director, informed the homeowner that, should he continue to yell and abuse her verbally, she would be forced to disconnect the call. He continued the abuse and the phone call was subsequently ended.
Notwithstanding the abuse and disconnected telephone call, RWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditions. The policyholder blatantly violated the terms of the warranty and, per the terms of the warranty, RWS is not responsible for paying for a repair for which no prior authorization was given. The claim will continue to be denied.
Sincerely,
Alix L. [redacted] Esq.
Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc.
[redacted]
(317) 573-[redacted] (tel.)
(317) 218[redacted] (fax)
[redacted].com
Mr. [redacted] submitted two claims to RWS, both of which are partially mentioned in his complaint. One claim is clearly outside the scope of the 90 day warranty, which Mr. [redacted] has been informed of and which he agrees, due to it being an issue for homeowner's insurance rather than the 90...
day guarantee. The second claim was approved by RWS and covered for essentially the entire amount asked for (not just 2/3 of the cost as referenced in the complaint). Mr. [redacted] was contacted today by RWS's Director of Operations and has expressed satisfaction with his claim's handling and the amount he is receiving under his 90 day warranty. His check has been turned into accounting and will be processed and mailed accordingly.
The homeowner filed his water heater claim with RWS by stating “I woke up yesterday and my tankless water heater was not working.” While this is important (water heaters are covered under the 90 day warranty up...
to an aggregate of $500, which the homeowner was made aware of) his claim submission continued with “I had a plumber come yesterday evening and he noticed two possible reasons…”.
Unfortunately, this is not what the homeowner’s plumber actually documented. Instead, the Plumber’s invoice, submitted on the same day as the overall claim, noted very clearly “Looked at tankless [water heater] and found tankless [water heater] working at this point.” [emp. added] While the Plumber did note some potential issues that he estimated could "eventually be an issue" [emp. added], there was no evidence of any current failure and so no diagnosis was given.
As a result, the water heater was working and there was no evidence of the failure the homeowner had earlier alleged. A unit that hasn't failed is not covered under the 90 day warranty. As a result, this claim is denied.
If the homeowner would please review the first response letter RWS sent with regards to this complaint, all of the questions being asked now have already been answered therein. As stated earlier, a few times, the homeowner was given a choice of how she wanted to proceed and RWS was happy to oblige, whatever her decision. She made a decision to NOT receive her buyout and instead have her claim reevaluated, as documented in her Revdex.com responses, which the company honored.
Now, it appears she changed her mind with which option she wants, which she has not communicated to RWS in any form (including Revdex.com responses up to this point), instead blaming the company for not moving things forward even when she has been told, repeatedly, that there wasn’t enough information to move forward with the reevaluation, which she was informed of even before she made her decision.
RWS’s answer remains the same. She was given a choice, the choice was made, and the Company awaits the information. The problems with the invoices have been detailed repeatedly, including providing copies of the invoices we have, to illustrate their deficiencies with the policy itself and all the homeowner has to do is submit one itemized estimate. As stated earlier, if she would like to have her contractor contact RWS for exact details of what the policy requires, we’re happy to speak with them.
If the homeowner wants to receive the buyout, an option she declined originally, which is the ONLY reason RWS froze her check, we are happy to oblige – she simply needs to tell us, clearly, which option will settle this issue once and for all. However, due to her changing her mind, refusing to work with RWS, and accusing RWS at every turn of trying to cheat her, there are some stipulations now attached to this buyout. The homeowner must acknowledge, prior to the check being sent, that the $450 check is in full settlement of her claim; that she will seek no other forms of redress against the company. Once this has been received, RWS is more than happy to honor the homeowner's change of mind and process her buyout check, as originally planned, and get it to her as soon as possible. If RWS receives her answer through the Revdex.com by 5pm today, the check will be mailed tomorrow. Otherwise, it will be mailed next week.
This homeowner submitted a claim under the 90-day policy stating that, while a contractor was installing a new dish, he removed shingles and the old dish and, in doing so, noted that there were leaks and...
water damage present underneath. The homeowner, relying on this find, contacted another contractor who failed to diagnose the issue (required by the policy) but instead proposed to remove the shingles, fix the issues, remove the old satellite dish brackets and shingles, and repair for between $1,000 and $1,250. The 90-day policy clearly states that “this contract does not cover water damage… or items that are inaccessible without the removal of drywall, concrete, or any other permanently installed covering.” As this issue was discovered after a contractor removed not only a satellite dish but also multiple shingles, it is clear that this issue is outside the scope of the 90-day warranty. Furthermore, the invoices received were not in accordance with what is required to process the claim as many of the items the contractor listed would not be approved (such as removing brackets from the old satellite dish, or removing/replacing shingles).
However, after speaking with the home inspector, the Claim Director was made aware of some extenuating circumstances surrounding the issue and partially approved the claim; for which a check was submitted for processing and is currently going through a final audit before being mailed. However, this was done under no obligation and was above and beyond the requirements of the policy. However, we here at RWS strive for complete customer satisfaction and so, if the homeowner would like RWS to re-open her claim to see if she is entitled to a higher amount, we are more than happy to freeze her pending payment and re-evaluate the claim in whole, in case something was missed and she is entitled to an approval or a higher amount. Please forward an itemized repair estimate with a breakdown of parts & labor as well as a specific cause for the failure in writing from a licensed or properly certified repairperson per the terms of the warranty and the claim will be re-evaluated in its entirety
It is clear this homeowner does not wish to honor the terms of the warranty and that he would rather resort to extorting a company for more money, evident not only by his responses to the Revdex.com but by his contacting a reporter, providing that reporter false information, and then insinuating that, unless RWS pays his ransom price, our name will be dragged through the mud. This is unacceptable and abhorrent.
At this point, the homeowner has clearly declined the previous offer set forth and so the owner of the Company has asked me to offer the homeowner, one final time, the initial offer of $375, no review required. Of course this final offer is dependent upon this payment settling the issue for good. If the homeowner accepts this amount, he must respond to the Revdex.com accordingly by noon tomorrow in order for a check to be both processed and mailed tomorrow as any further delay in an acceptance will result in a delay in receiving a check.
Otherwise, if the homeowner continues to push for more money or otherwise threaten or extort RWS, the original buyout amount of $225 will be processed and this issue will be litigated elsewhere with the homeowner keeping in mind that he will be held both legally and financially responsible for any damages that occur due to any defamatory statements that are published about our company due to his statements.
This homeowner filed a claim under a policy add-on he had not purchased with his base one-year policy. While the claim was, as the homeowner indicated, initially approved for a set amount should the add-on have...
been purchased with his base policy, a final review revealed the homeowner did not purchase the add-on and so his policy did not cover for the claim. Giving approval for a homeowner to contact their own contractor does not equal a blanket approval of any associated costs; it was made very clear that the contractor would have to contact us with a written estimate and diagnosis before the claim could be processed. While no written estimate or diagnosis was provided, the homeowner did submit a receipt for reimbursement after the repair was completed. Upon review of the invoice, it was clear that this claim was not covered under the homeowner’s policy due to the lack of the add-on. We here at RWS greatly value customer satisfaction and try to ensure the homeowner’s awareness of all covered and non-covered items in their warranty with us – we also try to cater to our customer’s needs by offering base policies with standard coverage and allowing each homeowner to build a custom policy with our add-on services, so that their final warranty covers only what they need covers and fits in their budget. If a customer chooses not to purchase an add-on for something they have in their home, RWS cannot be faulted for denying a claim for non-coverage.
Thank you for your 1 July 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). As stated in our previous response, water heaters are explicitly excluded from coverage within the first thirty (30) days of the warranty's commencement. This limitation is an industry standard to protect home warranty companies from claims on likely pre-existing issues and is clearly stated in the warranty terms and conditions under #1 of the Limits of Liability. In response to the Customer's confusion about the modification referenced earlier, it is explicitly written on the Contractor's invoice, wherein the Contractor states that the water heater had been so modified that the owner of the Contractor's company had to be called out to inspect the unit. It further states that the water heater was determined to have been so modified that it was made dangerous to the point of not being safe for operation with immediate replacement given as the only recommendation. This again puts the Customer's claim outside the scope of the warranty and required RWS to deny the claim under #11 of the Limits of Liability. RWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditions. RWS remains unable to grant approval for this particular claim. Sincerely, Alix [redacted] Esq. Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Cannel, IN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax) [redacted].com
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.
Actually none of my questions are addressed by RWS. This company is running a borderline scam.
1. Yes, I was told ONLY RWS will assign the contractor. Can you imagine someone living in Mason, OH will get a contractor from someone Columbus, OH. They have assigned the service contractor.
2. No Freon was added. You would think, if they added Freon, they would list the price of the Freon. Only deductible is mentioned in the price. Also, I contacted the service guy and he said he only added very little Freon just to start the system. The service guys are probably the best in using grammar and instead of saying need adding, they said added. Also, I had a subsequent diagnosis done, and the new service contractor needed to add Freon. RWS is running a scam on this subject. Can they show the invoice where the service guy showed the price of the Freon they added.
3. The RWS claim lady said some very unprofessional stuff. She definitely told me that she has video proof.
My demand is RWS fixes the issue and deductible will be paid.
Regards,
[redacted]
I have been trying to have my refrigerator repaired for the last 3 weeks now. It has been leaking water all over my new floor which is now ruined. The company has failed numerous times now to even get somebody to my residence. I'm beginning to wonder if they are a fraudulent business because you certainly don't get what you pay for!
This homeowner, 9 months into a 12 month policy, has received repairs costing 3x the amount the warranty actually cost to obtain and there has been NO money taken from the homeowner as the policy was paid for up front and in full. This homeowner has profited greatly from her one year warranty...
with RWS, making it all the more bewildering why she would file a complaint on an issue she personally knew had been resolved beforehand.
In fall of 2015, the homeowner had a plumbing issue and contacted her own contractor to diagnose the issue. This contractor charged a service call fee; a fee that was unnecessarily spent by the homeowner as she then called RWS to open a claim, which resulted in our own contractor needing to be sent and a deductible owed per the terms of her warranty with us. The homeowner did not contact us about this reimbursement issue until late March 2016, wherein she was immediately contacted by the Director of the Company (on 30 March 2016, the same day she filed this complaint). He spoke with her and told her he would immediately process the requested refund, not out of any obligation but simply out of a want to ensure complete customer satisfaction.
That same day, the Director honored the conversation and submitted the reimbursement. Unfortunately, the homeowner did not and, that same day, knowing what she was told by the Director, filed this complaint regardless. The homeowner has not been trying to get this resolved since October; the only contact we had with her with regards to this claim have taken place this week and, as stated above, finalized wholly in accordance with the homeowner's desires.
We here at RWS are saddened that she has so blatantly acted in bad faith - the homeowner was told, directly by the Director of the Company, that he would personally submit the reimbursement for processing yet she still filed a complaint within hours of that conversation falsely claiming a lack of communication and of RWS "giving us the run around". The reimbursement, which we have NO obligation to pay, is currently being processed, as promised. You will receive it within 30 business days.
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 am appalled that my claims are being questioned. I have now provided my phone records from my statements for August, September and October to prove, once again that there was no communication to me from RWS even though RWS is falsely claiming they have " multiple records of conversations with the homeowner regarding her buyout". I will give RWS that benefit of the doubt that they perhaps have my account confused with another. If not, the allegations that I received multiple (or any) communications is false, and can be proved in the attachment.
Although this continues to go in circles, please see the phone records that correspond exactly with my account of what happened. The green stars indicate my calls to RWS and the yellow stars indicate incoming calls from RWS. The call records show me calling twice on 8/20 to try to get a hold of someone about my claim. The records also shows my call on the morning of Monday, 8/22 to inquire about my claim. I was told I would receive a call back, and as you can see from the records, I did not receive one. The records also show me calling on the morning of Tuesday, 8/23 to say I still need a call back, and now the issue is more urgent because my a/c unit has completely failed. This would all be in the RWS recorded call logs which prove I stated that there was a new issue of the failed unit. If the RWS agent on the phone did not record the additional claim in my account, which I suspect because I never received follow up, then that is beyond my control and does not mean I did not issue a claim.
Due to my frustration with RWS that no one would respond to me to service my claim, I decided I could not wait any longer with a feline cancer patient in my house which was exceptionally warm, so I decided on my own to replace my unit. As expected, RWS still never responded to me in the days to come, and the next recorded communication is when I called again on Tuesday, 8/30 to express my extreme displeasure that 8 days had gone by since I was told a second time I would receive a call, and still nothing happened. My claim was completely ignored. At that point, the agent told me that there was a note in my account that I would receive a $1000 buyout. That was the one and only time that I heard about the buyout, and it was due to a call that I made. I thought the $1000 was a fair compromise for the complete disregard for my claim, and therefore there was no further communication on the issue between me and RWS.
Fast forward to 10/17 when I received the check in the mail for a fraction of what I was told I would receive. I immediately contacted RWS which is shown in my call records. The person I spoke with was sympathetic and said unfortunately there had been some bad business practices and people had been removed from the company. He said he would see what he could do about my situation. He called to follow up on 10/18 and said he was still waiting on an answer. He then called again on 10/19 and said there was nothing he could do. Both calls are in my statement, and are the only incoming calls I received from RWS.
The statement below is disturbing, and hopefully it was written by someone confused at RWS and not one of the "bad apples" that should have been removed from the company. Furthermore, I never received any approval for my claim.
"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.
Regarding the last paragraph, I am not claiming I am owed money for the repairs or my new unit or went outside the warranty process and am still requesting payment. I am simply claiming that I called to complain that no one ever responded to me, and the man on the other line said I was receiving a $1000 buyout. This was the first I heard of it. RWS saying they went above and beyond is a joke since my phone records prove I received no communications from them. I had accepted the buyout as a remedy for the situation where RWS completely ignored my claim, never sent me an approval or denial, and did not help when I called back and said my A/C had failed. They forced me to act on my own, and the buyout was a fair remedy to the failed service from RWS.
Finally, I have attached the check I received from RWS. In the call on 8/30 when I found out about the buyout, I was told that per RWS's 30 day check policy, the check would be cut by 10/7. When I received the check on 10/17, I saw it had been cut on 10/13, which was a week late. That is when the agent told me there was a note in my account dated 10/13 explaining the decreased amount on the check. Decreasing the amount on 10/13 is passed the due date to cut my check, so changes should not have been allowed at that time.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com of Central Indiana
151 N Delaware Street #2020
Indianapolis IN 46204
class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Re: Complaint ID [redacted]
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding his
refrigerator claim.
On Saturday August 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm we received a voicemail on our
after hours non emergency voicemail system stating that they just moved into
the home and the refrigerator wasn’t working.
On Monday August 11, 2014 at
9:31 am our office returned his call to let him know that we did not have a
warranty for the property located at [redacted], **
[redacted].
On August 12, 2014 at 9:37 am our office was informed by [redacted]
that the check was issued and mailed to Home Warranty of America (a different
warranty company) for the property located at [redacted], **
[redacted]. At this point [redacted] said that
they would get the funds from Home Warranty of America and issue us a check in
the amount of $395.00 for the home warranty.
We were provided with an image of check #[redacted] payable to Residential
Warranty Services (RWS).
On August 13, 2014 at 10:13 am our office created a warranty for the
property at [redacted]. On August 13, 2014 at 10:17 am our office
created a claim for Mr. [redacted]s refrigerator.
At 10:18 am our office contacted the homeowner to let him know that we
needed a copy of their home inspection report and the signed policy notice
(this is a form that requires a signature prior to filing any claims). The homeowner called RWS at 12:53 pm wanting
to file the claim. He was advised that
the claim had been started, but we cannot move forward until we received the
home inspection report and policy notice.
8/14/14 2:41 pm Received requested information via email from the
homeowner. 8/14/14 2:42 pm our office contacted the homeowner to let him know that he was free
to call the contractor of his choice and to call with the diagnosis and cost to
repair prior to having any work done.
The homeowner refused and wanted us to send out our contractor. On 8/15/14 2:38 pm Homeowner called our
office stating that they have not heard from our contractor yet he was advised
again he was free to use his own contractor and he again refused. We advised we would get in touch with our
contractor, when our office called voicemail picked up and we left all pertinent
information and requested a call back.
8/19/14 4:52 pm Homeowner left a voicemail for the 1 year warranty
manager (her shift ends at 4 pm EST) that he wanted this issue fixed now. 8/20/14
8:35 am The message that was left for the manager was given to the supervisor
to contact the homeowner. When the
supervisor called, he received Mr. [redacted]s voicemail but left a message
letting him know that the appliance repair company that we use in the [redacted] area was booked and were not available until the week of August 25, 2014. He is still free to use his own contractor
and that we would pay anything over his deductible over the phone to the
contractor of his choice. 8/20/14 4:51
pm Homeowner called into our office demanding to know why this hasn’t been
fixed. He claims to never have received
the voicemail left by our office. He was
once again given the option of using his own contractor for the repair.
As of August 21, 2014 RWS has yet to be paid for the home warranty at
[redacted]. We
have gone above and beyond attempting to get the issue resolved for the
homeowner.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience that Mr. [redacted] may have
experienced with his claim; however, Residential Warranty Services made an
exception to typical procedure due to Mr. [redacted]’s circumstances by accepting a
claim prior to the policy being paid for.
[redacted]
Director of Operations
Residential Warranty Services
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 case has not been resolved to my satisfaction at this point. We have not received the $150.00 that they said they would send us in their response.
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
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 had spoken with the "third party" warranty company with full explanation of the item that needed replacing and was verbally told that it is not covered. When I explained the item that needed replacing, the "third party" warranty company they would have stated how the claim should be filed. I was told this cartridge is not covered therefore was no claim was written and no written denial was given.
This item should have been discovered at time of inspection, for which RWS guarantees the home inspectors findings, of which the inspector never checked.
I feel that RWS gives new home owners a false sense of coverage.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you for your
12 November 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. (“RWS”). After
looking into this matter, it appears that the Homeowner called in on Friday (06
November 2015) requesting that RWS pay for her plumbing services directly,
which required prior approval. However,...
even though the approval was granted, this
Revdex.com complaint was filed before the approval could be communicated to the
Homeowner. This is due, in part, to the weekend and Veteran’s Day, making today
only the second business day since the Homeowner’s initial request.However, the
approval had been granted and, if Ms. [redacted] would have her plumber contact
RWS at 1-800-544-8156, payment will be issued. Otherwise, the Director of the
company will be reaching out to her today to ensure that she is taken care of.
We here at RWS apologize for the inconvenience experienced and respectfully ask
that, in the future, if there is a delay in our response regarding an issue, please
contact RWS one last time, prior to filing a Revdex.com complaint, as this was simply
a matter of miscommunication.
Thank you for your time.
As stated earlier:
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.
The homeowner states in his complaint that the home inspector noted the deficiencies with the metal flashing but repair work on the same was completed prior to the home’s purchase. Those deficiencies have...
re-occurred and the homeowner seeks coverage. However, the homeowner’s 90-day policy states “this contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others, regardless of their condition at the time of inspection or whether they were repaired” Therefore, because the homeowner’s roof issue was noted in his inspection report, it does not matter that it was later fixed; it is not covered. Furthermore, the inspection report received by RWS includes the deficiencies and states that the roller asphalt roof coverings are “near the end of their useful life” and that “buckling and wrinkling observed in numerous areas” along with “lifting laps observed in numerous areas”. Additionally, “flashing is missing/damaged and can allow water to enter the roof structure. Recommend repair/replace”. As a side note, the homeowner, in his Revdex.com complaint admitted that the deficiencies were in his inspection report but later claimed that his inspection report states these deficiencies were excluded and the issue was noted to be in “good working condition”. RWS is concerned that you are insinuating you have two separate home inspection reports, from the same company, with one that includes deficiencies and another that excludes them completely. Regardless, due to the inclusion in the inspection report, this claim was denied. Furthermore, the 90-day email is listed at the bottom of the policy and is the quickest way to reach a customer service representative. While our representatives may use their individual accounts to contact a customer who is unavailable or hard to reach via telephone, it is only utilized for information requests to continue processing claims for the convenience of our customers and out of consideration for their schedules. However, by only contacting a single representative and not calling in to RWS or emailing the 90-day email address included on every policy, a customer can run the risk of a particular representative being unavailable and the company being unaware of the missed communications. While we do apologize for this inconvenience, the email address to contact regarding claims is listed on the policy itself and this claim was properly denied due to the roof issues listed specifically in the inspection report.
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 the policy holder, and supporter of RWS for multiple years, and referring clientele to RWS, I understand the policy and the reason RWS thinks they should deny the claim. However there are 3 seperate calls into RWS regarding the AC unit. Every time they sent out a contractor the contractor would say it is only dirty, and RWS does not cover maintenance. Since I was tired of paying for someone to clean a broken unit, I called a contractor out to test the AC system. In fact I had two separate contractors out to assess the situation. In both instances they concluded that the compressor unit had failed. I continued with the repair due to the fact that the hot and humid weather was not healthy for the family.
I hired on of the contractors to complete the job because RWS would have sent a contractor out to say it is dirty and I was over their incompetent contractors.
This is why I believe the contract was not broken by myself but by RWS originally when they refused to replace the broken part due to their contractor not properly testing the system.
As far as yelling, there was none of that, in fact I recorded the calls and had a witness with me on my end. I was trying to explain that after multiple attempt to have RWS send their contractors out and not fix the situation I was tired of not having the AC working.
The representative was interrupting me to raise her voice, then in the middle of my explanation she said she would hand up on me if I did not listen to her. Within 3 seconds she hung up. Ever since then they will not return my calls.
Regards,[redacted]
Thank you for your 14 July 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). I've reviewed the letter and it appears the policyholder violated the terms of his warranty,...
which negates this claim's coverage under the warranty and, as a result of this violation, detailed below, the claim continues to be denied.
The homeowner called RWS 19 June 2015 to ask about reimbursement for his air conditioning claim as detailed in the complaint. Unfortunately, the homeowner broke RWS protocol, which he should have been abundantly aware of as he's had a policy with RWS for over seven (7) years, which negated this particular claim. Specifically, the policy clearly states, in bolded, capitalized font, "DO NOT CALL A CONTRACTOR BEFORE YOU CALL RWS". It goes on to state, "RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the policyholder without prior authorization. Policyholder's contractors contacted prior to making a claim with RWS and without prior authorization will not be considered for servicing any claim, nor will any bill be reimbursed."
In the case at hand, the homeowner contacted a contractor, had the unit REPLACED, and then called RWS after the fact, in direct violation of the policy, for reimbursement. The claim was denied and, on 13 July 2015, when the claims representative tried to again explain the policy denial to the homeowner, which the homeowner should have been familiar with due to his years of contracting with RWS, he began yelling at her and not allowing her to speak.
RWS would like to note here that customer service is one of their highest priorities and any complaint is taken very seriously. However, unfortunately there are customers who feel the right, or the need, to verbally abuse the representatives or receptionists who answer the phones, who are only trying to fix the situation. In these cases, our representatives are informed to bring over a manager or director to witness the abuse. If the manager/director agrees that the abuse has reached a level that the representative is simply being held on the line by the policyholder to be continually abused, with the policyholder refusing to allow the claims representative to explain or gather information to possibly remedy the perceived problem, our representatives are allowed to politely warn of the pending disconnection and, if the abuse continues, to disconnect the call. We do this to protect our representatives who have no other remedy by which to protect themselves from the abuse some policyholders feel they are entitled to dole upon them.
In the case at hand, the claims representative followed protocol completely and, in full view and with the support of her director, informed the homeowner that, should he continue to yell and abuse her verbally, she would be forced to disconnect the call. He continued the abuse and the phone call was subsequently ended.
Notwithstanding the abuse and disconnected telephone call, RWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditions. The policyholder blatantly violated the terms of the warranty and, per the terms of the warranty, RWS is not responsible for paying for a repair for which no prior authorization was given. The claim will continue to be denied.
Sincerely,
Alix L. [redacted] Esq.
Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc.
[redacted]
(317) 573-[redacted] (tel.)
(317) 218[redacted] (fax)
[redacted].com
Mr. [redacted] submitted two claims to RWS, both of which are partially mentioned in his complaint. One claim is clearly outside the scope of the 90 day warranty, which Mr. [redacted] has been informed of and which he agrees, due to it being an issue for homeowner's insurance rather than the 90...
day guarantee. The second claim was approved by RWS and covered for essentially the entire amount asked for (not just 2/3 of the cost as referenced in the complaint). Mr. [redacted] was contacted today by RWS's Director of Operations and has expressed satisfaction with his claim's handling and the amount he is receiving under his 90 day warranty. His check has been turned into accounting and will be processed and mailed accordingly.
The homeowner filed his water heater claim with RWS by stating “I woke up yesterday and my tankless water heater was not working.” While this is important (water heaters are covered under the 90 day warranty up...
to an aggregate of $500, which the homeowner was made aware of) his claim submission continued with “I had a plumber come yesterday evening and he noticed two possible reasons…”.
Unfortunately, this is not what the homeowner’s plumber actually documented. Instead, the Plumber’s invoice, submitted on the same day as the overall claim, noted very clearly “Looked at tankless [water heater] and found tankless [water heater] working at this point.” [emp. added] While the Plumber did note some potential issues that he estimated could "eventually be an issue" [emp. added], there was no evidence of any current failure and so no diagnosis was given.
As a result, the water heater was working and there was no evidence of the failure the homeowner had earlier alleged. A unit that hasn't failed is not covered under the 90 day warranty. As a result, this claim is denied.
If the homeowner would please review the first response letter RWS sent with regards to this complaint, all of the questions being asked now have already been answered therein. As stated earlier, a few times, the homeowner was given a choice of how she wanted to proceed and RWS was happy to oblige, whatever her decision. She made a decision to NOT receive her buyout and instead have her claim reevaluated, as documented in her Revdex.com responses, which the company honored.
Now, it appears she changed her mind with which option she wants, which she has not communicated to RWS in any form (including Revdex.com responses up to this point), instead blaming the company for not moving things forward even when she has been told, repeatedly, that there wasn’t enough information to move forward with the reevaluation, which she was informed of even before she made her decision.
RWS’s answer remains the same. She was given a choice, the choice was made, and the Company awaits the information. The problems with the invoices have been detailed repeatedly, including providing copies of the invoices we have, to illustrate their deficiencies with the policy itself and all the homeowner has to do is submit one itemized estimate. As stated earlier, if she would like to have her contractor contact RWS for exact details of what the policy requires, we’re happy to speak with them.
If the homeowner wants to receive the buyout, an option she declined originally, which is the ONLY reason RWS froze her check, we are happy to oblige – she simply needs to tell us, clearly, which option will settle this issue once and for all. However, due to her changing her mind, refusing to work with RWS, and accusing RWS at every turn of trying to cheat her, there are some stipulations now attached to this buyout. The homeowner must acknowledge, prior to the check being sent, that the $450 check is in full settlement of her claim; that she will seek no other forms of redress against the company. Once this has been received, RWS is more than happy to honor the homeowner's change of mind and process her buyout check, as originally planned, and get it to her as soon as possible. If RWS receives her answer through the Revdex.com by 5pm today, the check will be mailed tomorrow. Otherwise, it will be mailed next week.