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.Okay so let me get this straight!!! When you received the estimates they were good enough to approve us for a ridiculous amount of $450.00 and we followed all that was requested of us. NO one ever said those estimates were not good enough. And we WERE approved and covered on those damages. Maybe you should go back and re read the emails that you company sent, you are back tracking and trying not to pay the claim now. Then when we filed a complaint, you froze the payment and have been talking in circles and refusing to pay a reasonable amount. NOW that we say just pay the original $450.00 that YOUR COMPANY agreed to pay.. NOW those estimates are not good enough. IF You want a breakdown of each estimate then YOU need to call those companies, YOU have all their information. Apparently you don't like the way that 4 companies run their businesses. These companies did give you estimates and are happy to answer any question that you may have in regards to the estimates. So I guess its funny when it's time to pay the original amount of $ 450.00 you don't want to,there was never an issue on that amount. Your reviews speak volume on how you run your company.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com of Central Indiana
151 N Delaware Street
#2020
Indianapolis IN
46204-2599
RE: Complaint
#[redacted]
To Whom It May
Concern:
[redacted] in regards to her foundation issues.
The homeowner states
that on page 3 of the inspection report is show there are no significant cracks
or movement; 2 lines above that it says “see the note(s) under the Structural
section of the Addendum Summary starting on AS-1”. This is where the inspection report
specifically calls out issues with the foundation. Again per our warranty terms we do not cover
items that were found in an inspection.
Our warranty is for new
mechanical/structural failures after the date of inspection. The homeowner states in her Revdex.com response “The
$2000.00 due according to the contract is only a fraction of the cost needed for
the inspection missed item repair”. With that being said this is not a new
structural failure since she is saying that it was missed by the
inspector. The inspection does call out
multiple issues with the foundation.
We sincerely regret any
inconvenience that Ms. ** may have experienced with his claim; however,
Residential Warranty Services made an exception to typical procedures by
covering items that would not normally be covered. The check to the homeowner
in the amount of $500.00 will be issued once the Revdex.com complaint has been
resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Director of Warranty Operations
Residential Warranty Services, INC.
800.544.8156
www.rwswarranty.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.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
FIRST OF ALL the satellite contractor DID NOT REMOVE any shingles or brackets to fix the problem, when he happened to be on the roof he noticed that we had roof damage, NO work or anything was touched on the roof. I immediately called the inspector(Satellite contractor was still at home) he told me to contact RWS because we had a home warranty. Within a day we had licensed and insured roofing companies that came out to inspect the roof, there was more damage to the roof. That had NOTHING to even do with a satellite ( wasn't even near the area of the satellites). They all said it should have been caught by the inspection because it WAS NOTHING HIDDEN.they all seen the issues from standing on the ground. I only needed 1 estimate and I sent your company 4. I have spoken with Maddie, Kate, and Nathan. You do have all 4 estimates with what the contractors have found and all are almost identically with issues that the roof has. After we received the amount we were approved for we did call and ask why so low and kept getting the run around. They told me that they put the amount in system and that kicks out a number to what should be paid. So what is the point of estimates if you are not even going pay for the repairs!!!!RWS is well aware of all the damages, and has the 4 estimates. Yes we want it to be reevaluated and feel that we should be approve for at least the lowest estimates, because none of those companies will fix the problem for the ridiculous amount that your company is saying it should cost to fix the repairs. ALL the estimates came back within a couple hundred dollars of each other, and none of the them were near $450.00 to fix roofing issues.Estimates were from $1000.00-$1500.00 if you need to look back at those Maddie in the 90 day department has them, I also have complete copies of all emails, and estimates that was sent to RWS.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I want to also inform you and RWS, that I placed this complaint in the morning and spoke with Mr.[redacted] in the afternoon. It took this situation 5 months to be resolved. I have been working very hard and at my day job and I am currently out of town on business. I had not had a chance to write back to the Revdex.com to update them on our conversation. I do apologize for that. I am so glad Mr. [redacted] decided to help us 5 months later and blame us for their mistake. Our Family of 6 mouths to feed are very much appreciatiative. Thanks to the Revdex.com for your prompt action in this situation.
Regards,
[redacted]
This homeowner has already retained an attorney so all communications between the company and himself will need to be via his, and our, legal...
counsel/department. However, as a quick recap (and reminder) to the homeowner regarding this claim, in order to mitigate this situation before this claim is transferred to legal: Firstly, the claim was filed 1 February 2016 and the homeowner contacted RWS on 8 February 2016 requesting a buyout in lieu of a repair, but RWS was unable to process it at that time due to not having received an invoice. The homeowner had a contractor out on 1 March 2016 but the complete invoice was not emailed to RWS until 18 April 2016. On 21 April 2016, RWS approved the buyout for $450. The homeowner has repeatedly claimed that he was made to wait for months when the reality is much simpler: the claim was filed and the homeowner took 1 month to have a contractor out and another month and a half to get RWS a complete estimate with accurate contact information for the contractor. The claim was approved 3 days after all necessary information was received.
Secondly, the homeowner has the incorrect assumption that his Simple Warranty will blindly replace an entire unit that fails when, in reality, the policy repairs/replaces the broken part; not the entire unit. As there were a multitude of parts that had failed, each part was appraised separately for the buyout, which was requested, on 08 February 2016 by the homeowner. The policy states: “Should the Contract Holder wish to replace a repairable item, at their election, the Contract Holder may choose to receive a cash payment or allowance in lieu of repair. In such cases, the cash payment shall be made in accordance with RWS negotiated service and repair rates and may be less than retail”. Finally, while RWS can appreciate the homeowner being upset at the multiple deductibles; the policy clearly states “a service call fee applies to each mechanical malfunction breakdown, for each distinct malfunction. At times, multiple malfunctions may be discovered in the same component. A service call fee would apply for each repair or the actual cost to repair, whichever is less”. Because the homeowner’s unit had multiple failures, multiple service call fees were required and while the homeowner may not be happy with this provision, it is clearly stated in the policy and will be adhered to in regards to his claim.
His buyout has been turned in to processing, of which he was informed and, due to his having retained an attorney, his lawyer will need to contact RWS’s legal department for any information regarding this claim as we are unable to respond further due to the pending litigation.
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. 1. The respondent RWS denies that contract breaches occurred and they have never failed to pay a claim. This is false. RWS had an enforceable legal duty to pay the claim for the garage door in September of 2015. In their letter dated September 24, 2015, they agreed to pay the claim within 30 days: Your check will be issued up to 30 business days from the date of this letter." They did not. Here we are FOUR MONTHS after that letter was sent and I have still not been paid. After repeated phone calls and emails, RWS continued to promise that the check would be forthcoming. It never was. That is a breach and that is a failure to pay. Moreover, they also were required to contact the claimant within a specific period of time: "You will be contacted by a RWS representative within 72 hours of all items being submitted." This also did not occur as promised, which is the second breach of contract. 2. RWS also promised me again in December to have someone call me about my other claims. No one ever did despite their repeated promises someone would. Moreover, I never received any letters from RWS except one: their letter promising to pay for the garage door. In fact, I have asked repeatedly to have responses in writing to my claims and they have not done so.Their claim that I was notified is not supported by the facts. It is difficult for claimants to respond to denial of claims without receiving notice of the denial and the reasons for such denial.I continued to let them know I had not received any of the letters they now claim to have sent. 3. RWS seeks to avoid payment for any electrical claims at all by pointing to a comment by the inspector that one of the breakers in the electrical box was double wired and should be evaluated. But while that may indeed pose a SAFETY hazard, but what this has to do with OPERATION is unclear. Moreover, the breaker that has a double wire is not connected to the electrical claims I made --if this were permitted to stand, warranty companies would seek to avoid coverage of ANY appliance or equipment that used electricity. Several telephone jacks for DSL use are not working and it has nothing to do with wires being doubled up in a breaker. 4. Where in the inspection report did the home inspection clearly note "that the light was not in working order at the time of the inspection" as RWS claims? 5. Structural claims. Their warranty contains the following coverage, and any ambiguity will be held against the drafter of the warranty document. Nevertheless, their own policy states: "Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall Foundations. Floor joists, bottom and top plates, and wall members . . .". My complaints were about the flooring, had they bothered to return my telephone calls I could have discussed this very situation that concerns me: the floor joists. 6. At the end of the day, a Revdex.com complaint could have been avoided had RWS actually responded to my inquiries and repeated telephone calls to enable me to discuss my claims. I only received one letter from them, and that was the letter dated September 24, 2015 promising me that I would receive payment for my garage claim within 30 days of the letter. In November I did not receive the check. In December I did not receive (I was even promised that when I called in mid-December that the check would go out in a week. I called again in early January and the Director said that I should have received it. He further was unaware that I had also had other claims and was told someone would call me. They never did. Here we are January 23, 2016 -- 4 months later and no check, only promises that it is in the mail. 7. Here is what is needed: a) overnight the check and provide me a tracking number by email (my email works fine, I just wish they had used it to follow up with me as I had requested). b) email me written responses regarding my flooring claims and how my concerns about the joists are apparently now not covered by the warranty that applies to: "Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall Foundations. Floor joists, bottom and top plates, and wall members . . .".;
c) Have RWS identify where in the inspection report did the home inspection clearly note "that the light was not in working order at the time of the inspection" as RWS claims, and how does that relate to the DSL telephone jacks that are not working?
Thank you.
First of all, they don't accept any claim until you get a detailed estimate. Good luck with that. 99% of contractors charge you to come and give you an estimate, so if you end up getting anything for your claim, it will just cover the estimate. They approved only a portion of my plumbing claim. What kind of plumber can you get to come out and fix a leak for only $94.00?
RWS takes forever to process and approve or deny your claims, then take even longer to pay them. I had to call them again and again and again to get closure. They don't return emails or phone calls and are very late with payments. Not until I threatened to get the Revdex.com and lawsuits involved did I get anywhere with the overdue payments that they approved months earlier.
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. If I dont receive the check in 45 days, I will file a new complaint on this.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner submitted this claim on 22 August 2016. As stated in her Revdex.com complaint, there was no “failure”, the claim was for a voluntary inspection and tune-up, requested by the homeowner, that resulted in various...
“recommended repairs” by the contractor. The homeowner admits this by calling in a claim for an “inspection” and the contractor supports this by stating, as the cause of their visit “tune-up” going further as to state “no issues reported”. However, the homeowner needs to be aware that her policy doesn’t cover “recommended repairs” for tune-ups, rather it covers failures that have already occurred – more specifically, a claim is “any time a current, covered failure, is reported to RWRS by the Contract Holder”. Furthermore, while the contractor’s invoice indicated 4 recommended repairs, it only lists 2 potential failures – “indoor coil icing up – possible low refrigerant” and “blower capacitor weak”. While neither are failures, RWS went above and beyond their obligations by covering the replacement of the capacitor and paying for a refill of Freon. However, the other two recommended repairs were not covered because there was no indication that there was any failure. As a result, due to there being no actual failures, RWS covered the Freon, capacitor, and labor to install both, minus the homeowner’s service call fee, for a total of $320.00, which was received by the homeowner. It is vital that the homeowner note, in their policy, that “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a Contract Holder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s)” and that “cash payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail”. It should also be noted that the 22 August claim lists no failures or issues, and neither does the corresponding contractor’s invoice. Yet, in her Revdex.com complaint, the homeowner is stating that her entire system failed not even 3 days later, at which point she chose to replace it in its entirety, instead of filing a second claim and having a contractor return to the home to determine what caused the entire unit to fail completely. Had the homeowner done this, thereby following warranty procedures, there is a strong possibility that her warranty would have resulted in a higher buyout check or even covered the entire replacement of her A/C unit. Instead, she took a system that had no failures 3 days prior and replaced it without diagnosis and without informing RWS. “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the Contract Holder without prior authorization” and “Contract Holder’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”. As a result, RWS can only base their decision on the information provided in accordance with the homeowner’s policy, namely the tune-up claim and corresponding invoice. As the homeowner was told each time she called into RWS that, due to there being no actual failures related to her claim, RWS already went above and beyond her policy by covering the Freon refill and capacitor replacement. 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.
This homeowner submitted her all of her claims in June and was notified of every denial and approval as soon as it was available based on the timeliness of the information she provided us. RWS has ample documentation...
of her receipt of these notifications as she was in communication with our claims representatives consistently through these processes – for her to claim otherwise is concerning but, in order to ensure complete customer satisfaction, here is a breakdown of the homeowner's claims: 1. AC – Approved. Approval for $500.00 was sent to the homeowner on 12 September 2016 and a check will be issued within 45 days. 2. Stove – Denied. The claim was denied, and homeowner sent notice of the same, on 29 July 2016. While RWS attempted to re-open the claim after receiving this Revdex.com complaint, simply to re-process the claim to ensure complete customer satisfaction, due to the AC approval below this homeowner has reached the maximum mechanical coverage under the policy and so this claim is unable to be re-opened as it would be denied regardless. All mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $500.00 3. Electrical – Denied. Denial was mailed 09 September due to the homeowner already reaching the mechanical aggregate limit on the 90-day policy. All mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $500.00 4. Termite – The 90 Day policy itself offers no termite coverage and the Inspector elected not to provide our special Termite Protection Plan add-on. As a result, the homeowner has no termite coverage, resulting in an immediate denial of their termite claim. This service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all others. If the homeowner has any further questions, they may reach out directly to the Company Director, Lane C[redacted], and he will look into any further concerns they may have.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
We purchased our home along with home warranty titled "SIMPLE warranty" on 12/17/15. On 12/21/15 while installing our washer the water line/ valve came off while screwing on hose. This caused water to shoot out into laundry room and hall. We had to go out and shut off main water line in yard to stop water flow to entire house. We contacted company about having fixed and were told to have repair done email them the invoice and we would get reimbursed. The same day we had plumber out to fix issue and were informed that valve had not been properly welded and issue was resolved. We emailed invoice to C. [redacted] as instructed. That same day we were told in email at 3:59 PM that it would be "processed tomorrow and we have 30 business days to get payment out." On 1/29 I followed up with same person by email and was told they were still waiting for payment confirmation from title company and that they would follow up with title company. At this time I emailed them receipt from title company. That is the last I have heard from this individual. I have emailed twice sense including front page of notebook they sent stating that policy start date was 12/17/15. It is now 3/17/16, three months of having policy and have yet to receive reimbursement. I would caution anyone thinking of using this company and strongly encourage them to save their money and look elsewhere. Read the reviews!
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.]
I am fine to have the machine fixed if you're going to pay for it. All I am asking is to be made whole. If it is repaired, I want it to work. If it is replaced, I want a fair value to replace it with a comparable dishwasher. I have repeated said I will settle for $500.
The facts from the beginning are this: I contacted RWS when my dishwasher broke. This is the first time I've used a home warranty. I spoke with Katie, and she told me it would be best to contact my own repair service for the estimate. I reached out to a local appliance repair company. They came out and gave me an estimate of $1,073. When I sent you this estimate, I noted that it would save you money just to replace it and pasted a link to a comparable machine valued around $710. You offered me $200. You said that because there were two broken components, I owed two deductibles even though it was for one service call. We have since gone back-and-forth. You suggested I called a repair man of your choice. I have done that. He suggested he can fix it for less than the original estimate (He has not seen the machine yet). I am happy to have him do that if you are going to pay for it. Otherwise, I would accept $500 to replace the dishwasher. A new dishwasher is going to cost me slightly over $700. If we take $700 and minus the 150 deductible, it is $550. I am asking for $500. If you believe it will save you money to repair the machine, I can give your mechanic a call back and set up a time for him to see the machine.
Ms. [redacted] states that she “never made any statements to RSW [sic] about having another company look at the problem” yet we spoke to her on 11 May 2016 wherein she stated that another company came out and ran a camera through the pipes, a service [redacted] does not offer at this time. Based on [redacted]’s notes, this third company was [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] then told both us and [redacted], separately, that [redacted] believed the issue to be a city issue due to the video findings, and urged her to contact the city to investigate. As a result, RWS was waiting to hear from the homeowner as to whether the city needed to fix the issue. We heard nothing from the homeowner until this Revdex.com complaint was filed.
As this was indicated, by the homeowner and a contractor, to be a city issue, RWS cannot move forward with the repair until the city has investigated. Ms. [redacted] was informed of this on 17 June 2016, prior to her most recent response wherein she stated she was going to gather more information to supplement her report to the city. Despite this notification, she still filed a Revdex.com response a few days later claiming otherwise. At this point, the homeowner has still not informed us of the city’s investigation, nor provided any documentation of the same but, as soon as we are provided their findings, we will most certainly move forward with Ms. [redacted]’s claim to get her taken care of.
I was not made aware in the multiple times I called that the check had been mailed once already. That would have been nice to know.
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 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 3 garage door openers.
Homeowner called in the
complaint with the garage door openers on 7/23/14 @ 12:15:47 pm stating that
all 3 openers were not opening.
On 7/31/14 @ 2:23 pm
Our office spoke to the contractor that the homeowner had chosen. Our office was told by the contractor that on
7/22/14 there had been an electrical storm and it looked like the 3 units had
been struck by lightning. At this point
in time we denied his claim.
On 8/1/14 @ 4:33 pm Homeowner
called in and said that he contractor was incorrect. At this point he was transferred to the
claims manager voicemail (she leaves at 4p EST daily).
On 8/4/14 @ 9:08 am
(next business day) The claims manager called, she received Mr. B[redacted]’s
voicemail and left a message stating that she was returning his call and for
him to call her back.
On 8/7/14 1:47 pm The
claims manager spoke to the homeowner and Mr. B[redacted] stated that the lightning
storm was after he had filed his claim.
At this point a copy of the home inspection was requested.
On 8/8/14 Our office
received a copy of the home inspection.
On 8/11/14 11:47 pm The
claims manager called, she received Mr. B[redacted]’s voicemail and left a
message stating that she had further questions about his claim and to please
call back.
On 8/21/14 5:47 pm
Received invoice from the contractor that the homeowner chose stating that all
3 motors were bad. RWS relayed to Mr.
B[redacted] that our cost for failed motors on garage doors is $195 per opener
and that there is a deductible ($75) per mechanical failure.
The warranty states
that “Each and every distinct breakdown
of any part or component of any covered mechanical system as determined by an
authorized contractor constitutes a distinct claim.” The homeowner had 3 separate garage door
openers that failed which would require 3 $75 deductibles.
The limits of liability
#9 & #10 state:
#9. “RWS
reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of
repair/replacement for the defective part(s).
The payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less
than retail.”
#10. RWS shall be responsible
only for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete
or unavailable part.”
We sincerely regret any
inconvenience that Mr. B[redacted] experienced; however, Residential Warranty
Services followed the terms of our warranty.
I have attached the specific pages of the warranty for your reference.
Sincerely,
John S[redacted]
Director of Operations
Residential Warranty
Services
I have had RWS for 3 going on 4 years. Every time I have had a service call they have gotten someone out there that day or the next day depending on time of day that I have called. Their technicians always fixed the problem or RWS replaced it. I have referred a family member and a few friends whom have also had a great experience with the company.
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.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] first of all my repair were to replace leaking cooling coils in 2 units 1-2.5 ton heil and 1-4.0 ton heil and parts and labor were in excess of 4000.00 . RWS was aware of this and I was led to believe they would be sending the maximum amount covered at 2500.00. I was never told anything about a 1800.00 the parts alone were over 2000.00 plus labor for 2 men over 2000.00. RWS is full of ** regarding this amount being over their cost. I would be happy to provide written cost of these items. I would never agree to allow RWS or anyone associated with them on my property. I would also, add that they have had other unresolved complaints as per my realtor. Realtor refuses to use this company any longer. RWS has no customer service and would not even return my phone calls regarding this matter. Thanks Revdex.com for your assistance in contacting RWS . I will proceed to file complaint with state of Tennessee and contact an attorney for advise in filing small claims against RWS. I HAVE A CONTRACT AND IT IS ENFORCEABLE. I will make known via social media the pitfalls of using RWS as a home warranty company. BUYER BEWARE OF RWS
Regards,
[redacted]
This claim was called in 18 February 2016 and the homeowner was given permission to use her own contractor, so long as they submitted a diagnosis and estimate to us before any work was...
completed. The next day we were contacted by a panicked homeowner, who told us that her contractor (to whom she had already paid a 50% deposit for the entirety of his proposed estimate) had damaged her home and, while she couldn’t work with him, he wouldn’t return her money.
On her behalf, our Director of Operations went above and beyond his required job duties and called this contractor, with whom we had no previous relationship, and convinced him to return ALL of her money. At that point, due to the homeowner wanting to work with another contractor, a new diagnosis and estimate was required, which were submitted in late March. At that point, based on the new estimate, it was clear that the damage was not covered under her policy and so it was denied.
We here at RWS are honestly surprised to hear the allegations put forth by this homeowner, especially after we intervened and saved her over a thousand dollars due to her own contractor’s mistake because at no point has anyone ever been told they would automatically receive the maximum amount under a claim or that we have no approval process. It seems disingenuous to assert an honest belief that a home warranty company, once contacted with a claim, would automatically issue the maximum amount of coverage with the homeowner simply having to turn in an invoice after the fact.
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.Okay so let me get this straight!!! When you received the estimates they were good enough to approve us for a ridiculous amount of $450.00 and we followed all that was requested of us. NO one ever said those estimates were not good enough. And we WERE approved and covered on those damages. Maybe you should go back and re read the emails that you company sent, you are back tracking and trying not to pay the claim now. Then when we filed a complaint, you froze the payment and have been talking in circles and refusing to pay a reasonable amount. NOW that we say just pay the original $450.00 that YOUR COMPANY agreed to pay.. NOW those estimates are not good enough. IF You want a breakdown of each estimate then YOU need to call those companies, YOU have all their information. Apparently you don't like the way that 4 companies run their businesses. These companies did give you estimates and are happy to answer any question that you may have in regards to the estimates. So I guess its funny when it's time to pay the original amount of $ 450.00 you don't want to,there was never an issue on that amount. Your reviews speak volume on how you run your company.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com of Central Indiana
151 N Delaware Street
#2020
Indianapolis IN
46204-2599
RE: Complaint
#[redacted]
To Whom It May
Concern:
[redacted] in regards to her foundation issues.
The homeowner states
that on page 3 of the inspection report is show there are no significant cracks
or movement; 2 lines above that it says “see the note(s) under the Structural
section of the Addendum Summary starting on AS-1”. This is where the inspection report
specifically calls out issues with the foundation. Again per our warranty terms we do not cover
items that were found in an inspection.
Our warranty is for new
mechanical/structural failures after the date of inspection. The homeowner states in her Revdex.com response “The
$2000.00 due according to the contract is only a fraction of the cost needed for
the inspection missed item repair”. With that being said this is not a new
structural failure since she is saying that it was missed by the
inspector. The inspection does call out
multiple issues with the foundation.
We sincerely regret any
inconvenience that Ms. ** may have experienced with his claim; however,
Residential Warranty Services made an exception to typical procedures by
covering items that would not normally be covered. The check to the homeowner
in the amount of $500.00 will be issued once the Revdex.com complaint has been
resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Director of Warranty Operations
Residential Warranty Services, INC.
800.544.8156
www.rwswarranty.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.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
FIRST OF ALL the satellite contractor DID NOT REMOVE any shingles or brackets to fix the problem, when he happened to be on the roof he noticed that we had roof damage, NO work or anything was touched on the roof. I immediately called the inspector(Satellite contractor was still at home) he told me to contact RWS because we had a home warranty. Within a day we had licensed and insured roofing companies that came out to inspect the roof, there was more damage to the roof. That had NOTHING to even do with a satellite ( wasn't even near the area of the satellites). They all said it should have been caught by the inspection because it WAS NOTHING HIDDEN.they all seen the issues from standing on the ground. I only needed 1 estimate and I sent your company 4. I have spoken with Maddie, Kate, and Nathan. You do have all 4 estimates with what the contractors have found and all are almost identically with issues that the roof has. After we received the amount we were approved for we did call and ask why so low and kept getting the run around. They told me that they put the amount in system and that kicks out a number to what should be paid. So what is the point of estimates if you are not even going pay for the repairs!!!!RWS is well aware of all the damages, and has the 4 estimates. Yes we want it to be reevaluated and feel that we should be approve for at least the lowest estimates, because none of those companies will fix the problem for the ridiculous amount that your company is saying it should cost to fix the repairs. ALL the estimates came back within a couple hundred dollars of each other, and none of the them were near $450.00 to fix roofing issues.Estimates were from $1000.00-$1500.00 if you need to look back at those Maddie in the 90 day department has them, I also have complete copies of all emails, and estimates that was sent to RWS.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I want to also inform you and RWS, that I placed this complaint in the morning and spoke with Mr.[redacted] in the afternoon. It took this situation 5 months to be resolved. I have been working very hard and at my day job and I am currently out of town on business. I had not had a chance to write back to the Revdex.com to update them on our conversation. I do apologize for that. I am so glad Mr. [redacted] decided to help us 5 months later and blame us for their mistake. Our Family of 6 mouths to feed are very much appreciatiative. Thanks to the Revdex.com for your prompt action in this situation.
Regards,
[redacted]
This homeowner has already retained an attorney so all communications between the company and himself will need to be via his, and our, legal...
counsel/department. However, as a quick recap (and reminder) to the homeowner regarding this claim, in order to mitigate this situation before this claim is transferred to legal: Firstly, the claim was filed 1 February 2016 and the homeowner contacted RWS on 8 February 2016 requesting a buyout in lieu of a repair, but RWS was unable to process it at that time due to not having received an invoice. The homeowner had a contractor out on 1 March 2016 but the complete invoice was not emailed to RWS until 18 April 2016. On 21 April 2016, RWS approved the buyout for $450. The homeowner has repeatedly claimed that he was made to wait for months when the reality is much simpler: the claim was filed and the homeowner took 1 month to have a contractor out and another month and a half to get RWS a complete estimate with accurate contact information for the contractor. The claim was approved 3 days after all necessary information was received.
Secondly, the homeowner has the incorrect assumption that his Simple Warranty will blindly replace an entire unit that fails when, in reality, the policy repairs/replaces the broken part; not the entire unit. As there were a multitude of parts that had failed, each part was appraised separately for the buyout, which was requested, on 08 February 2016 by the homeowner. The policy states: “Should the Contract Holder wish to replace a repairable item, at their election, the Contract Holder may choose to receive a cash payment or allowance in lieu of repair. In such cases, the cash payment shall be made in accordance with RWS negotiated service and repair rates and may be less than retail”. Finally, while RWS can appreciate the homeowner being upset at the multiple deductibles; the policy clearly states “a service call fee applies to each mechanical malfunction breakdown, for each distinct malfunction. At times, multiple malfunctions may be discovered in the same component. A service call fee would apply for each repair or the actual cost to repair, whichever is less”. Because the homeowner’s unit had multiple failures, multiple service call fees were required and while the homeowner may not be happy with this provision, it is clearly stated in the policy and will be adhered to in regards to his claim.
His buyout has been turned in to processing, of which he was informed and, due to his having retained an attorney, his lawyer will need to contact RWS’s legal department for any information regarding this claim as we are unable to respond further due to the pending litigation.
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. 1. The respondent RWS denies that contract breaches occurred and they have never failed to pay a claim. This is false. RWS had an enforceable legal duty to pay the claim for the garage door in September of 2015. In their letter dated September 24, 2015, they agreed to pay the claim within 30 days: Your check will be issued up to 30 business days from the date of this letter." They did not. Here we are FOUR MONTHS after that letter was sent and I have still not been paid. After repeated phone calls and emails, RWS continued to promise that the check would be forthcoming. It never was. That is a breach and that is a failure to pay. Moreover, they also were required to contact the claimant within a specific period of time: "You will be contacted by a RWS representative within 72 hours of all items being submitted." This also did not occur as promised, which is the second breach of contract. 2. RWS also promised me again in December to have someone call me about my other claims. No one ever did despite their repeated promises someone would. Moreover, I never received any letters from RWS except one: their letter promising to pay for the garage door. In fact, I have asked repeatedly to have responses in writing to my claims and they have not done so.Their claim that I was notified is not supported by the facts. It is difficult for claimants to respond to denial of claims without receiving notice of the denial and the reasons for such denial.I continued to let them know I had not received any of the letters they now claim to have sent. 3. RWS seeks to avoid payment for any electrical claims at all by pointing to a comment by the inspector that one of the breakers in the electrical box was double wired and should be evaluated. But while that may indeed pose a SAFETY hazard, but what this has to do with OPERATION is unclear. Moreover, the breaker that has a double wire is not connected to the electrical claims I made --if this were permitted to stand, warranty companies would seek to avoid coverage of ANY appliance or equipment that used electricity. Several telephone jacks for DSL use are not working and it has nothing to do with wires being doubled up in a breaker. 4. Where in the inspection report did the home inspection clearly note "that the light was not in working order at the time of the inspection" as RWS claims? 5. Structural claims. Their warranty contains the following coverage, and any ambiguity will be held against the drafter of the warranty document. Nevertheless, their own policy states: "Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall Foundations. Floor joists, bottom and top plates, and wall members . . .". My complaints were about the flooring, had they bothered to return my telephone calls I could have discussed this very situation that concerns me: the floor joists. 6. At the end of the day, a Revdex.com complaint could have been avoided had RWS actually responded to my inquiries and repeated telephone calls to enable me to discuss my claims. I only received one letter from them, and that was the letter dated September 24, 2015 promising me that I would receive payment for my garage claim within 30 days of the letter. In November I did not receive the check. In December I did not receive (I was even promised that when I called in mid-December that the check would go out in a week. I called again in early January and the Director said that I should have received it. He further was unaware that I had also had other claims and was told someone would call me. They never did. Here we are January 23, 2016 -- 4 months later and no check, only promises that it is in the mail. 7. Here is what is needed: a) overnight the check and provide me a tracking number by email (my email works fine, I just wish they had used it to follow up with me as I had requested). b) email me written responses regarding my flooring claims and how my concerns about the joists are apparently now not covered by the warranty that applies to: "Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall Foundations. Floor joists, bottom and top plates, and wall members . . .".;
c) Have RWS identify where in the inspection report did the home inspection clearly note "that the light was not in working order at the time of the inspection" as RWS claims, and how does that relate to the DSL telephone jacks that are not working?
Thank you.
First of all, they don't accept any claim until you get a detailed estimate. Good luck with that. 99% of contractors charge you to come and give you an estimate, so if you end up getting anything for your claim, it will just cover the estimate. They approved only a portion of my plumbing claim. What kind of plumber can you get to come out and fix a leak for only $94.00?
RWS takes forever to process and approve or deny your claims, then take even longer to pay them. I had to call them again and again and again to get closure. They don't return emails or phone calls and are very late with payments. Not until I threatened to get the Revdex.com and lawsuits involved did I get anywhere with the overdue payments that they approved months earlier.
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. If I dont receive the check in 45 days, I will file a new complaint on this.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner submitted this claim on 22 August 2016. As stated in her Revdex.com complaint, there was no “failure”, the claim was for a voluntary inspection and tune-up, requested by the homeowner, that resulted in various...
“recommended repairs” by the contractor. The homeowner admits this by calling in a claim for an “inspection” and the contractor supports this by stating, as the cause of their visit “tune-up” going further as to state “no issues reported”. However, the homeowner needs to be aware that her policy doesn’t cover “recommended repairs” for tune-ups, rather it covers failures that have already occurred – more specifically, a claim is “any time a current, covered failure, is reported to RWRS by the Contract Holder”. Furthermore, while the contractor’s invoice indicated 4 recommended repairs, it only lists 2 potential failures – “indoor coil icing up – possible low refrigerant” and “blower capacitor weak”. While neither are failures, RWS went above and beyond their obligations by covering the replacement of the capacitor and paying for a refill of Freon. However, the other two recommended repairs were not covered because there was no indication that there was any failure. As a result, due to there being no actual failures, RWS covered the Freon, capacitor, and labor to install both, minus the homeowner’s service call fee, for a total of $320.00, which was received by the homeowner. It is vital that the homeowner note, in their policy, that “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a Contract Holder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s)” and that “cash payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail”. It should also be noted that the 22 August claim lists no failures or issues, and neither does the corresponding contractor’s invoice. Yet, in her Revdex.com complaint, the homeowner is stating that her entire system failed not even 3 days later, at which point she chose to replace it in its entirety, instead of filing a second claim and having a contractor return to the home to determine what caused the entire unit to fail completely. Had the homeowner done this, thereby following warranty procedures, there is a strong possibility that her warranty would have resulted in a higher buyout check or even covered the entire replacement of her A/C unit. Instead, she took a system that had no failures 3 days prior and replaced it without diagnosis and without informing RWS. “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the Contract Holder without prior authorization” and “Contract Holder’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”. As a result, RWS can only base their decision on the information provided in accordance with the homeowner’s policy, namely the tune-up claim and corresponding invoice. As the homeowner was told each time she called into RWS that, due to there being no actual failures related to her claim, RWS already went above and beyond her policy by covering the Freon refill and capacitor replacement. 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.
This homeowner submitted her all of her claims in June and was notified of every denial and approval as soon as it was available based on the timeliness of the information she provided us. RWS has ample documentation...
of her receipt of these notifications as she was in communication with our claims representatives consistently through these processes – for her to claim otherwise is concerning but, in order to ensure complete customer satisfaction, here is a breakdown of the homeowner's claims: 1. AC – Approved. Approval for $500.00 was sent to the homeowner on 12 September 2016 and a check will be issued within 45 days. 2. Stove – Denied. The claim was denied, and homeowner sent notice of the same, on 29 July 2016. While RWS attempted to re-open the claim after receiving this Revdex.com complaint, simply to re-process the claim to ensure complete customer satisfaction, due to the AC approval below this homeowner has reached the maximum mechanical coverage under the policy and so this claim is unable to be re-opened as it would be denied regardless. All mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $500.00 3. Electrical – Denied. Denial was mailed 09 September due to the homeowner already reaching the mechanical aggregate limit on the 90-day policy. All mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $500.00 4. Termite – The 90 Day policy itself offers no termite coverage and the Inspector elected not to provide our special Termite Protection Plan add-on. As a result, the homeowner has no termite coverage, resulting in an immediate denial of their termite claim. This service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all others. If the homeowner has any further questions, they may reach out directly to the Company Director, Lane C[redacted], and he will look into any further concerns they may have.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
We purchased our home along with home warranty titled "SIMPLE warranty" on 12/17/15. On 12/21/15 while installing our washer the water line/ valve came off while screwing on hose. This caused water to shoot out into laundry room and hall. We had to go out and shut off main water line in yard to stop water flow to entire house. We contacted company about having fixed and were told to have repair done email them the invoice and we would get reimbursed. The same day we had plumber out to fix issue and were informed that valve had not been properly welded and issue was resolved. We emailed invoice to C. [redacted] as instructed. That same day we were told in email at 3:59 PM that it would be "processed tomorrow and we have 30 business days to get payment out." On 1/29 I followed up with same person by email and was told they were still waiting for payment confirmation from title company and that they would follow up with title company. At this time I emailed them receipt from title company. That is the last I have heard from this individual. I have emailed twice sense including front page of notebook they sent stating that policy start date was 12/17/15. It is now 3/17/16, three months of having policy and have yet to receive reimbursement. I would caution anyone thinking of using this company and strongly encourage them to save their money and look elsewhere. Read the reviews!
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.]
I am fine to have the machine fixed if you're going to pay for it. All I am asking is to be made whole. If it is repaired, I want it to work. If it is replaced, I want a fair value to replace it with a comparable dishwasher. I have repeated said I will settle for $500.
The facts from the beginning are this: I contacted RWS when my dishwasher broke. This is the first time I've used a home warranty. I spoke with Katie, and she told me it would be best to contact my own repair service for the estimate. I reached out to a local appliance repair company. They came out and gave me an estimate of $1,073. When I sent you this estimate, I noted that it would save you money just to replace it and pasted a link to a comparable machine valued around $710. You offered me $200. You said that because there were two broken components, I owed two deductibles even though it was for one service call. We have since gone back-and-forth. You suggested I called a repair man of your choice. I have done that. He suggested he can fix it for less than the original estimate (He has not seen the machine yet). I am happy to have him do that if you are going to pay for it. Otherwise, I would accept $500 to replace the dishwasher. A new dishwasher is going to cost me slightly over $700. If we take $700 and minus the 150 deductible, it is $550. I am asking for $500. If you believe it will save you money to repair the machine, I can give your mechanic a call back and set up a time for him to see the machine.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] states that she “never made any statements to RSW [sic] about having another company look at the problem” yet we spoke to her on 11 May 2016 wherein she stated that another company came out and ran a camera through the pipes, a service [redacted] does not offer at this time. Based on [redacted]’s notes, this third company was [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] then told both us and [redacted], separately, that [redacted] believed the issue to be a city issue due to the video findings, and urged her to contact the city to investigate. As a result, RWS was waiting to hear from the homeowner as to whether the city needed to fix the issue. We heard nothing from the homeowner until this Revdex.com complaint was filed.
As this was indicated, by the homeowner and a contractor, to be a city issue, RWS cannot move forward with the repair until the city has investigated. Ms. [redacted] was informed of this on 17 June 2016, prior to her most recent response wherein she stated she was going to gather more information to supplement her report to the city. Despite this notification, she still filed a Revdex.com response a few days later claiming otherwise. At this point, the homeowner has still not informed us of the city’s investigation, nor provided any documentation of the same but, as soon as we are provided their findings, we will most certainly move forward with Ms. [redacted]’s claim to get her taken care of.
Revdex.com:
I was not made aware in the multiple times I called that the check had been mailed once already. That would have been nice to know.
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 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 3 garage door openers.
Homeowner called in the
complaint with the garage door openers on 7/23/14 @ 12:15:47 pm stating that
all 3 openers were not opening.
On 7/31/14 @ 2:23 pm
Our office spoke to the contractor that the homeowner had chosen. Our office was told by the contractor that on
7/22/14 there had been an electrical storm and it looked like the 3 units had
been struck by lightning. At this point
in time we denied his claim.
On 8/1/14 @ 4:33 pm Homeowner
called in and said that he contractor was incorrect. At this point he was transferred to the
claims manager voicemail (she leaves at 4p EST daily).
On 8/4/14 @ 9:08 am
(next business day) The claims manager called, she received Mr. B[redacted]’s
voicemail and left a message stating that she was returning his call and for
him to call her back.
On 8/7/14 1:47 pm The
claims manager spoke to the homeowner and Mr. B[redacted] stated that the lightning
storm was after he had filed his claim.
At this point a copy of the home inspection was requested.
On 8/8/14 Our office
received a copy of the home inspection.
On 8/11/14 11:47 pm The
claims manager called, she received Mr. B[redacted]’s voicemail and left a
message stating that she had further questions about his claim and to please
call back.
On 8/21/14 5:47 pm
Received invoice from the contractor that the homeowner chose stating that all
3 motors were bad. RWS relayed to Mr.
B[redacted] that our cost for failed motors on garage doors is $195 per opener
and that there is a deductible ($75) per mechanical failure.
The warranty states
that “Each and every distinct breakdown
of any part or component of any covered mechanical system as determined by an
authorized contractor constitutes a distinct claim.” The homeowner had 3 separate garage door
openers that failed which would require 3 $75 deductibles.
The limits of liability
#9 & #10 state:
#9. “RWS
reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of
repair/replacement for the defective part(s).
The payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less
than retail.”
#10. RWS shall be responsible
only for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete
or unavailable part.”
We sincerely regret any
inconvenience that Mr. B[redacted] experienced; however, Residential Warranty
Services followed the terms of our warranty.
I have attached the specific pages of the warranty for your reference.
Sincerely,
John S[redacted]
Director of Operations
Residential Warranty
Services
I have had RWS for 3 going on 4 years. Every time I have had a service call they have gotten someone out there that day or the next day depending on time of day that I have called. Their technicians always fixed the problem or RWS replaced it. I have referred a family member and a few friends whom have also had a great experience with the company.
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.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] first of all my repair were to replace leaking cooling coils in 2 units 1-2.5 ton heil and 1-4.0 ton heil and parts and labor were in excess of 4000.00 . RWS was aware of this and I was led to believe they would be sending the maximum amount covered at 2500.00. I was never told anything about a 1800.00 the parts alone were over 2000.00 plus labor for 2 men over 2000.00. RWS is full of ** regarding this amount being over their cost. I would be happy to provide written cost of these items. I would never agree to allow RWS or anyone associated with them on my property. I would also, add that they have had other unresolved complaints as per my realtor. Realtor refuses to use this company any longer. RWS has no customer service and would not even return my phone calls regarding this matter. Thanks Revdex.com for your assistance in contacting RWS . I will proceed to file complaint with state of Tennessee and contact an attorney for advise in filing small claims against RWS. I HAVE A CONTRACT AND IT IS ENFORCEABLE. I will make known via social media the pitfalls of using RWS as a home warranty company. BUYER BEWARE OF RWS
Regards,
[redacted]
This claim was called in 18 February 2016 and the homeowner was given permission to use her own contractor, so long as they submitted a diagnosis and estimate to us before any work was...
completed. The next day we were contacted by a panicked homeowner, who told us that her contractor (to whom she had already paid a 50% deposit for the entirety of his proposed estimate) had damaged her home and, while she couldn’t work with him, he wouldn’t return her money.
On her behalf, our Director of Operations went above and beyond his required job duties and called this contractor, with whom we had no previous relationship, and convinced him to return ALL of her money. At that point, due to the homeowner wanting to work with another contractor, a new diagnosis and estimate was required, which were submitted in late March. At that point, based on the new estimate, it was clear that the damage was not covered under her policy and so it was denied.
We here at RWS are honestly surprised to hear the allegations put forth by this homeowner, especially after we intervened and saved her over a thousand dollars due to her own contractor’s mistake because at no point has anyone ever been told they would automatically receive the maximum amount under a claim or that we have no approval process. It seems disingenuous to assert an honest belief that a home warranty company, once contacted with a claim, would automatically issue the maximum amount of coverage with the homeowner simply having to turn in an invoice after the fact.