*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** Re.: Complainant: *** *** Service Provider: Service Net Warranty, LLC Claim Nos: *** Revdex.com File No: *** Our File No:
*** Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Incregarding an LG Service Contract (“the Plan”) that is administered by Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”). The Complainant contends that she requested service on her dryer, but service could not be scheduled. Further, the Complainant demands a service appointment to fix her dryer or a full refund of the Plan purchase price. The record shows that the Complainant contacted SNW on February 1, 2018, to initiate a claim on her dryer reporting that it was not drying properly. During this call, the Complainant was advised that the Plan did not show the product retail amount and this information would be required from her via a product proof of purchase receipt before a claim for service could be initiated. The Complainant advised she would call back to have someone else schedule a service appointment. On February 2, 2018, the Complainant contacted SNW to request her service appointment information. The Complainant was again advised by SNW that the Plan did not show the product retail amount and the product proof of purchase receipt was required to be sent in before service could be initiated. In turn, the Complainant requested for the Plan to be cancelled. SNW advised the Complainant that she would need to submit a cancellation letter to cancel the Plan. The Complainant called back later this same date to inquire if SNW had received her email with the product proof of purchase receipt, but SNW was unable to verify it had received the email while on the phone with the Complainant. SNW submitted a request to obtain confirmation that the Complainant’s email had been received with the product proof of purchase receipt. SNW confirmed it had received the Complainant’s email along with the product proof of purchased receipt on February 5, 2018. On the same date, SNW updated the product retail amount for the Plan and initiated a claim for service on the dryer with the Complainant. A service appointment was scheduled for the Complainant with XP Electronics LLC on February 7, 2018. We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, *** ** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The only way that this can be properly resolve is for me to get a full refund for $*** that I paidThe company had no intentions on covering my microwave for a full yearSpeaking with the company, I learned that they only intended on fixing my microwave the one timeThis is not the first time that I have purchased a warrantyHowever, it is the first time, I relieve that the company was deceitful when it ask me to purchase the warrantyEverything that I was told from the sales person, contradicts this company full intentionI would have never spent $on a faulty warranty to cover only one serviceIt should not matter how much it will cost to get my microwave fix, a warranty is suppose to cover itThe salesperson lied to me real goodTelling me I would not have any more worriesThe exact opposite happened to meI am demanding a full refundI will get my own microwave fix, which is what I have to do now, that the company is not sticking my what was told to me from the salespersonI will not replace my microwaveI have a problem with it, and it is fixableI have had two(2) different Service Companies to look it at and give me a quoteI just need my full refund so that I can take care of the problem myselfThis is highway robbery and I can not afford to waste money of lies told by the company to get money from people, by whatever means necessaryI just would like my full refund as I have stated and nothing else mattersThe company did not honor Service as stated by salesperson and I demand a full refund
Regards,
*** ***
March 24, 2017 Revdex.com, Inc. Conciliation Department 844 S. 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203-2186 Re: Complainants: [redacted] Company: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: [redacted] ...
Dear Sir or Madam: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a [redacted] Extended Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant requests a new refrigerator other than a [redacted], as the current unit is not functioning properly after several repair attempts. AWG records reflect that on 8/24/16, the Complainant placed a call to AWG to initiate a claim for the refrigerator as it was leaking from the bottom. The claim was subsequently assigned to [redacted] Appliances (“[redacted]”) to schedule a service appointment. On 8/25/16, AWG contacted [redacted] since they had not accepted the claim. AWG spoke with a [redacted] representative who indicated the claim was accepted. On 8/31/16, the Complainant called AWG to indicate that no service appointment had been scheduled yet. The Complainant further stated that each time he called [redacted] he was informed he would be called back but was never contacted. AWG subsequently contacted [redacted] on this same date and was advised that they had just spoken to the Complainant and advised him that a service appointment would be scheduled on 9/1/16 or 9/2/16. On 9/3/16, the Complainant contacted AWG to request a new service provider as [redacted] did not call or show on 9/1/16 or 9/2/16. AWG reassigned the claim to [redacted] Appliance (“[redacted]”) pursuant to the Complainant’s request. On 9/15/16, the Complainant contacted AWG to indicate he had not been contacted by [redacted]. AWG subsequently contacted [redacted] for a status and was advised that the claim was not received in their system. The claim was resent to [redacted] and the Complainant was advised of this status and that he would be placed on a standby list for an appointment. On 9/20/16, the Complainant called AWG again to state no service appointment had been scheduled. AWG resent the claim a second time to [redacted] and provided the Complainant with [redacted]’s contact number to call for an appointment. On 9/26/16 and 9/27/16, the Complainant contacted AWG to request reimbursement for his damaged floor as a result of his unit leaking. The Complainant was advised that AWG is unable to reimburse him for any costs outside of the costs to repair or replace the refrigerator according to the terms and conditions of the Plan, specifically under Section 14, subsection y, which states: 14. What is Not Covered – Your Service Plan does not cover: y. Consequential damage. On 10/4/06, an on-site technician from [redacted] visited the Complainant’s home to replace the control on the unit and completed repairs. [redacted] reported to AWG that the unit was functioning properly. On 1/9/17, the Complainant contacted AWG to indicate the unit’s control panel was not operating correctly. A new claim was initiated and assigned to [redacted] for a service appointment scheduled for 1/12/17. The Complainant called AWG on 1/10/17, to initiate a food loss claim under the Plan. The completed food loss form was received by AWG from the Complainant on 3/15/17, and is currently being processed. The Complainant can expect a check within 30 days. During the 1/12/17, on-site visit by [redacted], the technician reconnected and secured a loose user interface wire connection. [redacted] reported to AWG that the unit was tested and found to be functioning properly. On 2/27/17, the Complainant contacted AWG to indicate his refrigerator was still not functioning properly and a service repair appointment was scheduled with [redacted] for 3/1/17. During this call, the Complainant requested a lemon review and AWG initiated this review under the Plan. Upon inspection of the unit by [redacted] on 3/1/17, it was determined that additional parts were needed to complete the repair. The necessary parts were subsequently ordered. The Complainant contacted AWG on 3/7/17, for a status of his claim with [redacted]. AWG informed the Complainant that [redacted] ordered the necessary parts to repair the unit which would be delivered in two (2) days. AWG completed the Complainant’s lemon review on 3/7/17, and determined that the unit did not qualify as a lemon under the No Lemon Guarantee section of the Plan since, according to Section 5, the same component must fail three (3) times and require a fourth (4th) repair. At the time of this review, AWG records showed that each claim for repair of the unit had different part numbers replaced during the servicing event and therefore did not meet the Plan’s specifications. On 3/9/17, the Complainant called AWG to report that [redacted] had attempted to repair the unit; however, they determined it was unrepairable. AWG contacted [redacted] to confirm whether the unit was unrepairable. [redacted] advised that additional parts needed to be ordered to complete the repairs and the necessary parts were ordered on 3/10/17. AWG contacted [redacted] again on 3/13/17, and was advised that two parts would be delivered that day, but two other parts that were ordered from Whirlpool did not have an estimated time of arrival. In light of the uncertainty regarding the delivery of the two additional repair parts from Whirlpool and in order to bring resolution to this matter, AWG has reviewed the Complainant’s claim for an alternate solution and made the decision to offer the Complainant a buyout settlement of the unit. Pursuant to the Plan’s terms and conditions under Section 5. Product Coverage and subsection Repair Plan, it states: “… We have the option, at Our sole discretion, to replace Your covered Product with a cash settlement or gift card based on the price of a replacement product or provide a replacement product of similar features and functionality, not including delivery/installation fees. The value of the case settlement or gift card will be determined according to the age of the covered Product using the following schedule: Product Age Reimbursement Amount 1-5 years 75% of purchase price of the replacement product…” Since the Complainant’s unit was purchased in 2012, it falls within the 1-5 year range with a reimbursement amount of 75% of the retail value of the unit which is $2,011.06. Based on this analysis, AWG has offered a buyout settlement to the Complainant for the unit in the amount of $1,508.30 ($2,011.06 x 75% = $1,508.30). AWG contacted the Complainant on 3/15/17 to extend the buyout settlement offer, which he accepted. The buyout settlement check was processed on 3/15/17, and check #212022 in the amount of $1,508.30 was issued to the Complainant on 3/16/17. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
SEE ATTACHMENTS.January 17, 2017 Revdex.com, Inc. 844 S. 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203 Re: Complainant: [redacted] Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Claim No.: [redacted] [redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his LG Extended Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends his television is in need of repair, contests the claim denial to repair the unit and further requests for service repair under the Plan. Our records reflect that on December 15, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim for his LG television, noting that upon attempting to insert a cord into the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (“HDMI”) port on the back of the television, the HDMI port broke. Based on the information provided by the Complainant, SNW denied the claim as physical damage pursuant to section 17, subsection C and K of the Plan. The Complainant was advised of the denial and understood. In light of this complaint, SNW re-evaluated the claim denial and approved for a service technician to diagnose the issue with the Complainant’s television. On January 10, 2017, SNW referred the claim to [redacted] Electronics, Inc. (“[redacted]”) who contacted the Complainant and determined that the main motherboard was required to complete repairs on the unit. The part was ordered and received by [redacted] on January 13, 2017. [redacted] installed the main motherboard part on January 14, 2017, and confirmed that the unit was repaired and operating normally. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the Complainant and trust that the inquiry has been responded to satisfactorily. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]. Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted] WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“[redacted]”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) regarding his Whirlpool Service Contracts (“the Plan[s]”). The Complainant requests full refunds for the amounts paid on each Plan. Our...
records reflect that on May 19, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim for the refrigerator, indicating that the unit was leaking water underneath, and into the produce drawers. The claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“[redacted]”) and a service appointment was scheduled for May 23, 2016. Due to an emergency experienced by the [redacted] technician, on May 23, 2016, [redacted] contacted the Complainant to reschedule the appointment at a later time on the same day. As a result of the rescheduled attempt, the Complainant contacted [redacted]’s customer service department to speak with a supervisor and the [redacted] appointment was cancelled. Per the Complainant’s request, on May 25, 2016, Plan nos. [redacted], and [redacted] were cancelled. A refund amount totaling $307.98 is due to the Complainant for the three Plans. Full refunds for Plan [redacted] in the amount of $142.84 and Plan [redacted] in the amount of $46.17 were processed and sent to the Complainant under check #[redacted] in the amount of $189.01 on June 8, 2016. The refund for third Plan [redacted] totaling $118.97 represents the purchase price of $277.02 less a proration of $73.05 and a prior incurred claim expense of $85.00. Per the Plan, upon cancellation, a refund will be issued, less any claims paid. A partial refund for this Plan in the amount of $3.01 was processed and issued to the Complainant under check #[redacted] on June 8, 2016. The remaining portion of the refund in the amount of $115.96 is being processed and will be issued to the Complainant within the next 8 business days. We will update the Revdex.com upon issuance of the last refund payment for $115.96. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]. Sincerely,See attachments
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I have received the refund for the warranty contract. But at this time I cannot in good conscience accept their statements, as they are still untrue.First, I received no mail solicitation offering a warranty for two appliances, as was stated by the Company.I was instead called on the phone shortly after purchasing my three appliances. The short conversation with the support representative over the phone, I was led to believe the following:1. The warranty would cover all three appliances, which had been purchased simultaneously.2. The warranty was a genuine [redacted] warranty, from [redacted] themselves, and would extend my factory warranty an additional four years (totaling 5 years).3. I was unable to take time to review the offer. The representative said this was a one-time offer and I would not be able to receive the same offer at a later time, even if I attempted to reach back out to them. When the Company reached back out to me recently (after the Revdex.com complaint), they told me that they had no records of my phone conversation with the representative, and that I would not be able to put the third appliance on the extended warranty contract. From these conversations and additional research, I have concluded that the Company is being dishonest:1. It does not disclose its identity when cold-calling customers. This is deceitful.2. They claim to extend the manufacturer's warranty. This is false claim. 3. They make additional commitments that they cannot keep (covering the third appliance)They pressure customers to purchase on-the-spot, preventing them from being able to research the situation in full. If they were to allow a customer to consider the offer (even for a day), that customer would determine (as I have) that the company is (1) not acting as [redacted] or [redacted], (2) offering services that they cannot legitimately offer, and (3) have poor service, given other customer reviews. I challenge the company to present evidence of:1. The mailing that the reportedly sent to me offering the warranty on only two of the three appliances.2. The recording of the call made to me to offer the product. (The call was received May 16 2017 at 11:13am CDT from 800-253-1301 and lasted 13 minutes.) I welcome them to make the necessary changes to add the third appliance. If they sincerely cannot (or will not) do that, then I will retain the refund they have disbursed.
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam:
Service Net Warranty, LLC ("SNW") has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a claim under his Repair Coverage Service Plan ("the Plan"). The Complainant contends that damage to his laptop...
computer should be covered under the Plan.
Our records reflect that the Complainant first contacted SNW to initiate a claim for damage sustained to his laptop computer on November 14, 2014. The Complainant explained that he had lent his computer to a friend who left it on top of a car and then drove off, causing the damage.
Given this information, SNW denied this claim on December 3, 2014, as the Plan does not cover any losses due to negligence. In pertinent part, the plan states:
12. LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE FOR YOUR PRODUCT. THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT COVER:
C. Any Product failure related to external causes such as, but not limited to, improper storage, improper ventilation, reconfiguration of equipment, theft, loss, abuse, negligence
, vandalism, acts of war, fire, weather related damage, or acts of God.
Upon further review, SNW maintains the denial of this claim as leaving the computer on the roof of a car is considered negligence since the computer was placed in a position where it could be easily damaged.
I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
Still haven't addressed the fact that the entire unit was assigned as a part by the [redacted]. Ergo part and component can't be used interchangeably. After explaining this point to [redacted], they told me that I was eligible for a replacement from AIG. AIG continues to twist facts. I did not complain about fan noise specifically. After the 4th issue, I pointed out that a loud humming noise (I'm not sure if it's the fan or another unit) may be indicative of an underlying problem. Regardless that issue was after the 4th repair. It should never have been discussed. A replacement should have been sent because part [redacted] was repaired 3 times and required a 4th repair. Answer the question directly. Was the entire laptop assigned as a part?
Revdex.com, Inc. 844 S. 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203-2186 Re.: Complainants: Albert and Irina Hakimi Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Certificate Nos.: [redacted] Your Case No.: [redacted] Our File...
No: [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc., regarding an LG Extended Service Contract (“Plan [redacted]”). The Complainants contend that there has been a delay in completing repairs on their refrigerator and request a full refund of Plan purchase price or a replacement unit. SNW records reflect that on June 6, 2017, the Complainants reported a problem with the refrigerator stating that the ice maker was not working. A claim was set-up under Plan [redacted] and the refrigerator was serviced on June 8, 2017, by a service technician from Dependable Appliance Service. On July 23, 2017, the Complainants contacted SNW to report that the ice maker was still not working properly and they were having issues with the refrigerator light going on and off. SNW initiated a rework order, a period of time the servicer warranties its work, with Dependable Appliance Service for a service appointment on August 4, 2017. Dependable Appliance Service advised SNW that this appointment was cancelled and the defective ice maker was later replaced on August 18, 2017. Dependable Appliance Service contacted SNW on September 6, 2017, to advise that additional parts were needed for continued repair on the refrigerator and a service appointment was scheduled for September 11, 2017. The Complainants contacted SNW on September 29, 2017, stating that repair parts have been hard to find for the unit and the service technician from Dependable Appliance Service ordered the wrong parts after the last service appointment. Additionally, the Complainants stated that Plan 165351742 with the claim for repair expired on September 30, 2017, and SNW advise that it was their decision whether or not to renew the Plan. On September 30, 2017, the Complainants made the decision to purchase a renewal contract on the refrigerator under Plan 216142662 with an effective date of October 1, 2017, and expiring on October 1, 2018. On October 10, 2017, SNW contacted Dependable Appliance Service regarding the status of the ordered parts and was advised that their record showed that the parts were received. Dependable Appliance Service stated that it contacted the Complainants to confirm delivery of the parts and schedule an appointment for installation, but the Complainants did not respond. Subsequently, SNW contacted the Complainants, but they were unavailable so a voicemail was left to inquire if they wanted to move forward with repairs. In this message, the Complainants were also informed that the claim could be reviewed for alternate solution if they did not want to continue with repairs. The Complainants returned the call to SNW on October 11, 2017, and were advised to expect a call back within 3 to 5 business days regarding the decision for an alternate solution. SNW also informed the Complainants that since the claim is being reviewed for an alternate solution under Plan 165351742, they should cancel the renewal contract under Plan 216142662 before expiration of 60 days from the date of purchase in order to get a full refund of the purchase price. On October 17, 2017, SNW contacted the Complainants and offered a buyout settlement of the refrigerator in the amount of $1,411.01 pursuant to the Plan terms under Section 21. Buyout, which states the following: 21. BUYOUT. We may elect, at Our option, to buyout the Contract during the coverage term for the lesser of (I) current market value of a Product with comparable specifications or (II) purchase price of Your Product minus sales tax and claims paid. You have up to forty-five (45) days from the date of authorization to complete your product buyout transaction. We will have satisfied all obligations owed under this Contract if any one of the buyout options is accepted by You. The Complainants accepted the buyout offer on October 19, 2017. SNW informed the Complainants that a buyout letter would need to be signed and returned before the buyout check could be processed. The buyout letter was emailed to the Complainants this same date. Upon receipt of the signed buyout letter from the Complainants, SNW will move forward with processing the buyout check. To date, the signed buyout letter has not been received by SNW. Pursuant to the Complainants request, SNW cancelled the renewal contract under Plan 216142662 on October 19, 2017, and a full refund of the Plan purchase price in the amount of $228.64 was issued back to the Complainants credit card on file on October 20, 2017. A copy of the credit card refund is attached for your convenience. We will supplement our response as soon as we receive the signed buyout letter from the Complainants. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, [redacted] Enclosures
AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Whirlpool Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that there has been a delay in repairing her washer and...
that the unit is still in need of repair or replacement. Our records reflect that on July 16, 2016, the Complainant contacted Whirlpool directly regarding her washer, which was not working properly and making a loud noise. Whirlpool offered the Complainant a plan that would cover the initial repair of the washer along with coverage for an additional year. . A claim was initiated on July 16, 2016, for the Complainant’s washer and assigned to Fox TV and Appliance (“Fox”) for repair services. An onsite service appointment was scheduled for July 19, 2016, for the repair to take place. On August 12, 2016, the Complainant called to indicate that issue with the washer persisted. A rework order was set up and assigned to Fox. A service repair was scheduled for August 15, 2016, and the necessary repair part was subsequently ordered. However, there was a delay in Fox receiving the part, which was the outer tub of the washer. On August 31, 2016, and September 7, 2016, AWG contacted Fox for an update on the repair part and advised them to contact the Complainant. On September 21, 2016, Fox received the part from Whirlpool; however, AWG was advised that it was damaged upon receipt. The part was reordered with delivery expected within one to two weeks. The Complainant was contacted on September 22, 2016, and was advised of this information. However, the Complainant advised that the repair had already taken too long and requested a replacement. On September 27, 2016, AWG was contacted by Fox who advised that the washer had been deemed not cost effective to be repaired. AWG subsequently instructed Fox to cancel the order for the repair part. After reviewing alternate solutions, AWG contacted the Complainant on October 7, 2016, and offered a buyout of the washer in the amount of $677.00 pursuant to the Plan terms. The Complainant accepted the buyout offer on October 10, 2016. On October 13, 2016, payment was issued to the Complainant in the amount of $677.00, under check no. 193157. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
[redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Repair Coverage Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant is requesting a full refund of the Plan that was purchased for her [redacted] laptop (the “laptop”). By way of background, on October 12, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted]) with SNW reporting that her laptop would not hold a charge and ** Services, Inc. (“** Services”) was assigned to the claim. The Complainant was advised that a box and a prepaid [redacted] label were being sent to her so that she could send the laptop to ** Services for repair. ** Services received the laptop on October 25, 2016, and a diagnostic report detected that the Logic Board had a broken DC jack and the bottom case had broken grommets. On November 4, 2016, ** Services completed the repairs and shipped the laptop back to the Complainant. On November 7, 2016, the Complainant contacted SNW stating the laptop would still not hold a charge. On this same date, the Complainant requested a refund of the Plan’s purchase price. SNW has processed the refund request and the Complainant will be refunded the Plan’s purchase price of $59.00. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted] Sincerely, [redacted]
On behalf of Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”), we are supplementing our previous response dated August 26, 2015, with a status update regarding the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed in the name of the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a Repair Coverage...
Service Plan owned by [redacted]“the Plan”).In our previous letter, it was indicated that given the circumstances surrounding this claim, specifically the identity of the contract holder, a further review was being conducted before any final solution can be processed, per SNW claims guidelines. Upon review and after speaking with the Complainant to verify her identity and the circumstances surrounding the filing of her claim and subsequent status calls involving her and/or her sister, SNW made a decision to fulfill the replacement request for the individual calling in as Ms. [redacted]. The replacement television was purchased on September 22, 2015, and was shipped on September 24, 2015, via UPS. As per the Complainant’s request, the unit was shipped to her sister, Ms. [redacted].I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.Sincerely,[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Overlooking the fact I live in Richmond, VA, the capital of Virginia with a population of 200,000+ and hardly a "remote area", my refrigerator has not been fixed as of 5-13-16, 18 days since filing a claim. Securing a second service provider is very different than fixing, replacing, or buying out the appliance for which I purchased a warranty.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”)...
has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Easy Exchange Plus Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that there has been a delay in processing a refund of the Plan’s deductible. Our records reflect that on October 1, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW to set up a claim under the Plan. At this time, the Complainant was advised that a $35.00 deductible was required pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Plan. The Complainant declined claim setup. On December 4, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW, provided payment of the $35.00 deductible, and a claim was set up. The Complainant stated that half of his cell phone screen was black due to the unit being dropped. Later that same day, the Complainant again contacted SNW advising that he found a replacement phone that was less than the deductible charged. The Complainant cancelled the claim previously set up that day and requested a refund of the deductible from SNW. A refund for the $35.00 deductible was requested and the Complainant was advised to expect the refund issued back to the credit card on file within 48-72 hours. The Complainant called SNW on December 9, 2015, to indicate that he had requested a refund of the Plan’s deductible with the expectation that it would be issued within 48-72 hours. After further review, SNW found that no refund had been issued to date due to system errors. SNW sent a second request for a refund of the $35.00 deductible and the Complainant was again advised to expect a refund within 48-72 hours. On December 11, 2015, SNW received the Revdex.com complaint in which the Complainant requested refund of the $35.00 deductible and a return of the premium paid for the Plan. SNW sent the refund of premium request to TracFone and followed up on the deductible refund requestOn December 14, 2015, SNW issued and verified payment for the deductible, in the amount of $35.00 back to the Complainant’s credit card on file. On December 16, 2015, SNW received verification from TracFone that they would be issuing a refund to the Complainant of the full retail premium of $19.99 paid on the Plan. The premium refund was approved by TracFone management on December 18, 2015. On December 22, 2015, SNW received confirmation that a full refund of total premium paid of $19.99 was being processed and that payment in the amount of $2.19 will be issued back to the Complainant’s credit card on file. The remaining $17.80 will be issued to the Complainant, via check, within 30 days. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused the Complainant. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
March 10, 2017 [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc. (“Revdex.com”) regarding a [redacted] Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that his dryer is in need of repair and requests for the Plan he purchased to be honored so that a claim can be set up for the dryer repair. Our records reflect that on December 15, 2016, the Complainant purchased the Plan for his dryer online. During the online purchase, the Complainant entered a date of purchase for the dryer as May 13, 2016, and the Plan was issued with an effective date of May 14, 2017. On December 16, 2016, the Complainant contacted AWG to advise that the date of purchase for the dryer was incorrectly stated on the Plan as May 13, 2016. AWG contacted [redacted] and verified that the date of purchase for the dryer was February 17, 2012. Based on this information, AWG advised the Complainant that the Plan he purchased was invalid due to the incorrect date of purchase being entered for the dryer. AWG further explained to the Complainant that he would need to cancel the Plan he purchased on December 15, 2016, and purchase a new plan with the dryer’s correct date of purchase. The Complainant inquired about the cost of a new plan and AWG transferred him to the pertinent department for this information. The Complainant contacted AWG again on January 21, 2017, to set up a claim on his dryer for repair. AWG denied the claim because the contract was invalid due to the incorrect date of purchase on the Plan. Between January 21, 2017, and March 1, 2017, the Complainant requested to have the date of purchase for the dryer corrected on the Plan so he could set up a claim for repair. AWG advised the Complainant that it was unable to change the date of purchase on the Plan and further informed the Complainant that he must cancel the Plan then purchase a new plan with the dyer’s correct date of purchase. The reason this is required is because the price of the plan is necessarily determined by the age of the product. Therefore, a plan covering a dryer purchased in 2016 does not have the same cost as a plan covering a dryer purchased in 2012. AWG cannot simply update the purchase date; a new, valid contract must be purchased. On March 2, 2017, the Complainant submitted a written request to AWG to have the Plan cancelled. In turn, AWG cancelled the Plan on March 2, 2017, and a full refund was credited back to the Complainant’s credit card on file in the amount of $122.32. As stated above, the Complainant must purchase a new plan with the correct date of purchase for the dryer in order to set up a claim for repair. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, 70256. Sincerely, [redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the above- captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Repair Coverage Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant asserts that SNW should replace an original part of this...
computer.
Our records reflect that on May 30, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for his laptop computer, citing that the space key was damaged. The claim was assigned to VT Services and SNW advised the Complainant to send the computer in a provided shipping box for repair. VT Services received the computer on June 5, 2015, and requested the necessary repair part from the manufacturer, MSI, on June 15, 2015.
VT services received the repair part on July 23, 2015; however, the part was sent in the incorrect color. VT Services contacted SNW who advised the part with the correct color was available, but would take an additional 3-4 weeks to receive. SNW granted approval for VT Services to complete the repair with part received despite the incorrect color. It was determined that this issue was cosmetic, the repair would return the computer to full functionality, and the customer would be returned a fully functioning computer in the shortest amount of time. VT Services completed the repair and shipped the computer back to the Complainant.
On July 27, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW and indicated that he received his computer but his keyboard bezel was the incorrect color. He requested to have his original bezel returned but was advised that since the unit is functional, this would not be an option as the color issue is cosmetic.
After discussion with VT Services, while they cannot guarantee that the original bezel color will be available or sent by MSI, in an effort to accommodate the customer, they have offered to preorder the part, wait for that to come in (approximately 4-6 weeks), and then have the Complainant send the unit in after the part arrives. However, if this is agreed upon, the current bezel must be unblemished upon its return to VT Services.
SNW contacted the Complainant and presented him with options for the repair with VT Services or to have the original bezel returned to him. He has accepted the repair option. VT Services has been contacted and they are in the process of preordering the part.
I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Extended Warranty Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that his washer is still in need of repair and has requested a...
refund for both of the purchased ** units (washer and dryer). Our records reflect that the Complainant purchased the Plan for his washer and dryer, LG model numbe[redacted] and [redacted], on January 15, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for his washer, indicating that the unit was not filling with water. The claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“**”) and on February 7, 2014, during an on-site visit, the ** technician restored the unit to operating per the manufacturer’s specifications. On September 23, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for both units (claim no.’s [redacted] and [redacted]), indicating that the washer was vibrating and the clothes were catching on the paddles in the dryer which was causing them to knot up. The claim was referred to ** Factory Service (“[redacted]”). On September 24, 2014, [redacted] notified SNW that the Complainant’s geographical area was no longer serviced by [redacted]. SNW then referred the claim to **. On October 16, 2014, an ** technician tightened the front legs of the washer and on October 30, 2014, an ** technician replaced the Holder on the dryer. Both units were successfully repaired during these onsite visits. On January 2, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for the washer (claim number [redacted]), indicating that the unit would stop during the cycle and displayed an “OE” code. On January 6, 2015, the claim was referred to [redacted] ** Appliance Service, Inc. (“**”) and a service appointment was scheduled for January 8, 2015. While at the Complainant’s home on January 8, 2015, the ** service technician noted that the Complainant had sourced a pump that was needed for the repair. The ** service technician installed the pump and the unit was functioning properly. On February 4, 2015, SNW received an invoice in the amount of $97.89, for the part purchased by the Complainant. Payment in the amount of $97.89 was issued to the Complainant on February 19, 2015, via check number 139459. On August 22, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted]), reporting that the washer was stopping during the cycle, and producing a loud grinding noise. For products that have past claims, and previous repair services, it is SNW’s standard business procedure to conduct an internal review. The internal review process is completed within 7- 10 days. Upon review, SNW determined that the units do not qualify for a refund. As per the Plan, Section 18, the units are not eligible for the No Lemon Guarantee. In order to qualify as a lemon, the units would have had to have had three repairs for the same issue and with the same parts replaced each time, and a fourth reported for the same issue as the other three repairs. Additionally, as per Section 14 of the Plan, the units have not been: 1) deemed irreparable by a networked service provider 2) found to be in need of parts that are no longer available and 3) determined to be beyond economical repair. Based on the aforementioned, the Complainant is not eligible for the reimbursement cost of the washer and dryer. SNW will continue to service the units to maintain proper functioning. On August 31, 2016, SNW contacted the Complainant, via telephone, leaving a voicemail advising that a service appointment is scheduled on September 7, 2016, and an ** service technician will be onsite to repair the units. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]0. Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12006722, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I have been informed I will receive a refund for the warranty. However, the "repair" did not fix the problem. Furthermore, the computer froze twice within the first 20 minutes of starting it. It clearly was not checked for qulaity control after "repairs" were made and it was shipped back to me. I now have had to package it back up, wait 2 days for Fed Ex to pick it up, and additional days for replacement of the hard drive. As noted in the business response, I have not been able to use the computer since 1/30/17. It is now 3/2/17, and this computer is a vital part of my business.I will never purchase a warranty with this [redacted] again, and will inform [redacted] of these problems so they can offer superior warranties.
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”), please accept this letter in response to the follow-up inquiry submitted on behalf of the Complainant regarding his Easy Exchange Plus Service Contract (“the Plan”). In a rebuttal to our response dated 4/22/16, the Complainant contends we have not resolved his initial complaint regarding the replacement of his damaged cell phone. In our previous response letter, it was indicated that once the damaged phone was received, the fulfillment voucher in the amount of $400.00 would be processed and the Complainant should receive it within 24 – 48 hours. SNW subsequently contacted the Complainant to provide this update and confirmed his email address where the fulfillment voucher would be sent was correct. The voucher was processed on April 22, 2016. On April 25, 2016, the Complainant attempted to use the voucher on [redacted]’s website but received an invalid code message. Upon further review of this matter, SNW opted to refund the Complainant manually. A check in the amount of $465.00 was sent to the Complainant via USPS on April 29, 2016, and should be received within 3-5 business days. This payment represents $400.00 owed under the Plan to replace the damaged phone in lieu of the voucher. The additional $65.00 is intended to reimburse the Complainant for the cost of a temporary mobile phone he was forced to purchase due to claim fulfillment delays that were out of his control. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience to the Complainant in the handling of this matter. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC ("SNW") has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Repair Coverage Service Plan ("the Plan"). The Complainant requests that he be reimbursed for the full market...
value of his television.
Our records reflect that on March 16, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for his television, citing that there were lines on the screen. The claim was assigned to [redacted] ("[redacted]") for repair. SNW received repair approval requests from [redacted] on March 25, 2015, and April 9, 2015. However, the additional part needed to complete the repair was no longer available. An additional claim was generated to formulate an alternative solution for the Complainant’s defective television.
After conducting research, SNW found that [redacted] model [redacted] was comparable to the Complainant’s current television. SNW contacted [redacted] directly, and was advised that a refurbished version of this model was available for $900. On April 14, 2015, SNW contacted the Complainant and offered the option of either the replacement television noted above or a buy-out in the amount of $900, which is the value of the replacement. This offer was made pursuant to the Plan section titled "6. UNABLE TO REPAIR
." However, the Complainant declined both choices.
Upon further review, SNW maintains that model [redacted] is a comparable replacement and that it is the direct upgraded model of the Complainant’s current television based upon the technical specifications listed. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Complainant’s Plan, if we are unable to repair the product, he is entitled to the lesser of the current market value of a comparable product or the retail price paid for the product, minus tax and claims paid. At this time, the options will remain the same as previously offered.
I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]
*** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** Re.: Complainant: *** *** Service Provider: Service Net Warranty, LLC Claim Nos: *** Revdex.com File No: *** Our File No:
*** Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Incregarding an LG Service Contract (“the Plan”) that is administered by Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”). The Complainant contends that she requested service on her dryer, but service could not be scheduled. Further, the Complainant demands a service appointment to fix her dryer or a full refund of the Plan purchase price. The record shows that the Complainant contacted SNW on February 1, 2018, to initiate a claim on her dryer reporting that it was not drying properly. During this call, the Complainant was advised that the Plan did not show the product retail amount and this information would be required from her via a product proof of purchase receipt before a claim for service could be initiated. The Complainant advised she would call back to have someone else schedule a service appointment. On February 2, 2018, the Complainant contacted SNW to request her service appointment information. The Complainant was again advised by SNW that the Plan did not show the product retail amount and the product proof of purchase receipt was required to be sent in before service could be initiated. In turn, the Complainant requested for the Plan to be cancelled. SNW advised the Complainant that she would need to submit a cancellation letter to cancel the Plan. The Complainant called back later this same date to inquire if SNW had received her email with the product proof of purchase receipt, but SNW was unable to verify it had received the email while on the phone with the Complainant. SNW submitted a request to obtain confirmation that the Complainant’s email had been received with the product proof of purchase receipt. SNW confirmed it had received the Complainant’s email along with the product proof of purchased receipt on February 5, 2018. On the same date, SNW updated the product retail amount for the Plan and initiated a claim for service on the dryer with the Complainant. A service appointment was scheduled for the Complainant with XP Electronics LLC on February 7, 2018. We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, *** ** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The only way that this can be properly resolve is for me to get a full refund for $*** that I paidThe company had no intentions on covering my microwave for a full yearSpeaking with the company, I learned that they only intended on fixing my microwave the one timeThis is not the first time that I have purchased a warrantyHowever, it is the first time, I relieve that the company was deceitful when it ask me to purchase the warrantyEverything that I was told from the sales person, contradicts this company full intentionI would have never spent $on a faulty warranty to cover only one serviceIt should not matter how much it will cost to get my microwave fix, a warranty is suppose to cover itThe salesperson lied to me real goodTelling me I would not have any more worriesThe exact opposite happened to meI am demanding a full refundI will get my own microwave fix, which is what I have to do now, that the company is not sticking my what was told to me from the salespersonI will not replace my microwaveI have a problem with it, and it is fixableI have had two(2) different Service Companies to look it at and give me a quoteI just need my full refund so that I can take care of the problem myselfThis is highway robbery and I can not afford to waste money of lies told by the company to get money from people, by whatever means necessaryI just would like my full refund as I have stated and nothing else mattersThe company did not honor Service as stated by salesperson and I demand a full refund
Regards,
*** ***
March 24, 2017 Revdex.com, Inc. Conciliation Department 844 S. 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203-2186 Re: Complainants: [redacted] Company: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: [redacted] ...
Dear Sir or Madam: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a [redacted] Extended Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant requests a new refrigerator other than a [redacted], as the current unit is not functioning properly after several repair attempts. AWG records reflect that on 8/24/16, the Complainant placed a call to AWG to initiate a claim for the refrigerator as it was leaking from the bottom. The claim was subsequently assigned to [redacted] Appliances (“[redacted]”) to schedule a service appointment. On 8/25/16, AWG contacted [redacted] since they had not accepted the claim. AWG spoke with a [redacted] representative who indicated the claim was accepted. On 8/31/16, the Complainant called AWG to indicate that no service appointment had been scheduled yet. The Complainant further stated that each time he called [redacted] he was informed he would be called back but was never contacted. AWG subsequently contacted [redacted] on this same date and was advised that they had just spoken to the Complainant and advised him that a service appointment would be scheduled on 9/1/16 or 9/2/16. On 9/3/16, the Complainant contacted AWG to request a new service provider as [redacted] did not call or show on 9/1/16 or 9/2/16. AWG reassigned the claim to [redacted] Appliance (“[redacted]”) pursuant to the Complainant’s request. On 9/15/16, the Complainant contacted AWG to indicate he had not been contacted by [redacted]. AWG subsequently contacted [redacted] for a status and was advised that the claim was not received in their system. The claim was resent to [redacted] and the Complainant was advised of this status and that he would be placed on a standby list for an appointment. On 9/20/16, the Complainant called AWG again to state no service appointment had been scheduled. AWG resent the claim a second time to [redacted] and provided the Complainant with [redacted]’s contact number to call for an appointment. On 9/26/16 and 9/27/16, the Complainant contacted AWG to request reimbursement for his damaged floor as a result of his unit leaking. The Complainant was advised that AWG is unable to reimburse him for any costs outside of the costs to repair or replace the refrigerator according to the terms and conditions of the Plan, specifically under Section 14, subsection y, which states: 14. What is Not Covered – Your Service Plan does not cover: y. Consequential damage. On 10/4/06, an on-site technician from [redacted] visited the Complainant’s home to replace the control on the unit and completed repairs. [redacted] reported to AWG that the unit was functioning properly. On 1/9/17, the Complainant contacted AWG to indicate the unit’s control panel was not operating correctly. A new claim was initiated and assigned to [redacted] for a service appointment scheduled for 1/12/17. The Complainant called AWG on 1/10/17, to initiate a food loss claim under the Plan. The completed food loss form was received by AWG from the Complainant on 3/15/17, and is currently being processed. The Complainant can expect a check within 30 days. During the 1/12/17, on-site visit by [redacted], the technician reconnected and secured a loose user interface wire connection. [redacted] reported to AWG that the unit was tested and found to be functioning properly. On 2/27/17, the Complainant contacted AWG to indicate his refrigerator was still not functioning properly and a service repair appointment was scheduled with [redacted] for 3/1/17. During this call, the Complainant requested a lemon review and AWG initiated this review under the Plan. Upon inspection of the unit by [redacted] on 3/1/17, it was determined that additional parts were needed to complete the repair. The necessary parts were subsequently ordered. The Complainant contacted AWG on 3/7/17, for a status of his claim with [redacted]. AWG informed the Complainant that [redacted] ordered the necessary parts to repair the unit which would be delivered in two (2) days. AWG completed the Complainant’s lemon review on 3/7/17, and determined that the unit did not qualify as a lemon under the No Lemon Guarantee section of the Plan since, according to Section 5, the same component must fail three (3) times and require a fourth (4th) repair. At the time of this review, AWG records showed that each claim for repair of the unit had different part numbers replaced during the servicing event and therefore did not meet the Plan’s specifications. On 3/9/17, the Complainant called AWG to report that [redacted] had attempted to repair the unit; however, they determined it was unrepairable. AWG contacted [redacted] to confirm whether the unit was unrepairable. [redacted] advised that additional parts needed to be ordered to complete the repairs and the necessary parts were ordered on 3/10/17. AWG contacted [redacted] again on 3/13/17, and was advised that two parts would be delivered that day, but two other parts that were ordered from Whirlpool did not have an estimated time of arrival. In light of the uncertainty regarding the delivery of the two additional repair parts from Whirlpool and in order to bring resolution to this matter, AWG has reviewed the Complainant’s claim for an alternate solution and made the decision to offer the Complainant a buyout settlement of the unit. Pursuant to the Plan’s terms and conditions under Section 5. Product Coverage and subsection Repair Plan, it states: “… We have the option, at Our sole discretion, to replace Your covered Product with a cash settlement or gift card based on the price of a replacement product or provide a replacement product of similar features and functionality, not including delivery/installation fees. The value of the case settlement or gift card will be determined according to the age of the covered Product using the following schedule: Product Age Reimbursement Amount 1-5 years 75% of purchase price of the replacement product…” Since the Complainant’s unit was purchased in 2012, it falls within the 1-5 year range with a reimbursement amount of 75% of the retail value of the unit which is $2,011.06. Based on this analysis, AWG has offered a buyout settlement to the Complainant for the unit in the amount of $1,508.30 ($2,011.06 x 75% = $1,508.30). AWG contacted the Complainant on 3/15/17 to extend the buyout settlement offer, which he accepted. The buyout settlement check was processed on 3/15/17, and check #212022 in the amount of $1,508.30 was issued to the Complainant on 3/16/17. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
SEE ATTACHMENTS.January 17, 2017 Revdex.com, Inc. 844 S. 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203 Re: Complainant: [redacted] Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Claim No.: [redacted] [redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his LG Extended Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends his television is in need of repair, contests the claim denial to repair the unit and further requests for service repair under the Plan. Our records reflect that on December 15, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim for his LG television, noting that upon attempting to insert a cord into the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (“HDMI”) port on the back of the television, the HDMI port broke. Based on the information provided by the Complainant, SNW denied the claim as physical damage pursuant to section 17, subsection C and K of the Plan. The Complainant was advised of the denial and understood. In light of this complaint, SNW re-evaluated the claim denial and approved for a service technician to diagnose the issue with the Complainant’s television. On January 10, 2017, SNW referred the claim to [redacted] Electronics, Inc. (“[redacted]”) who contacted the Complainant and determined that the main motherboard was required to complete repairs on the unit. The part was ordered and received by [redacted] on January 13, 2017. [redacted] installed the main motherboard part on January 14, 2017, and confirmed that the unit was repaired and operating normally. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the Complainant and trust that the inquiry has been responded to satisfactorily. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]. Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted] WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“[redacted]”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) regarding his Whirlpool Service Contracts (“the Plan[s]”). The Complainant requests full refunds for the amounts paid on each Plan. Our...
records reflect that on May 19, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim for the refrigerator, indicating that the unit was leaking water underneath, and into the produce drawers. The claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“[redacted]”) and a service appointment was scheduled for May 23, 2016. Due to an emergency experienced by the [redacted] technician, on May 23, 2016, [redacted] contacted the Complainant to reschedule the appointment at a later time on the same day. As a result of the rescheduled attempt, the Complainant contacted [redacted]’s customer service department to speak with a supervisor and the [redacted] appointment was cancelled. Per the Complainant’s request, on May 25, 2016, Plan nos. [redacted], and [redacted] were cancelled. A refund amount totaling $307.98 is due to the Complainant for the three Plans. Full refunds for Plan [redacted] in the amount of $142.84 and Plan [redacted] in the amount of $46.17 were processed and sent to the Complainant under check #[redacted] in the amount of $189.01 on June 8, 2016. The refund for third Plan [redacted] totaling $118.97 represents the purchase price of $277.02 less a proration of $73.05 and a prior incurred claim expense of $85.00. Per the Plan, upon cancellation, a refund will be issued, less any claims paid. A partial refund for this Plan in the amount of $3.01 was processed and issued to the Complainant under check #[redacted] on June 8, 2016. The remaining portion of the refund in the amount of $115.96 is being processed and will be issued to the Complainant within the next 8 business days. We will update the Revdex.com upon issuance of the last refund payment for $115.96. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]. Sincerely,See attachments
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I have received the refund for the warranty contract. But at this time I cannot in good conscience accept their statements, as they are still untrue.First, I received no mail solicitation offering a warranty for two appliances, as was stated by the Company.I was instead called on the phone shortly after purchasing my three appliances. The short conversation with the support representative over the phone, I was led to believe the following:1. The warranty would cover all three appliances, which had been purchased simultaneously.2. The warranty was a genuine [redacted] warranty, from [redacted] themselves, and would extend my factory warranty an additional four years (totaling 5 years).3. I was unable to take time to review the offer. The representative said this was a one-time offer and I would not be able to receive the same offer at a later time, even if I attempted to reach back out to them. When the Company reached back out to me recently (after the Revdex.com complaint), they told me that they had no records of my phone conversation with the representative, and that I would not be able to put the third appliance on the extended warranty contract. From these conversations and additional research, I have concluded that the Company is being dishonest:1. It does not disclose its identity when cold-calling customers. This is deceitful.2. They claim to extend the manufacturer's warranty. This is false claim. 3. They make additional commitments that they cannot keep (covering the third appliance)They pressure customers to purchase on-the-spot, preventing them from being able to research the situation in full. If they were to allow a customer to consider the offer (even for a day), that customer would determine (as I have) that the company is (1) not acting as [redacted] or [redacted], (2) offering services that they cannot legitimately offer, and (3) have poor service, given other customer reviews. I challenge the company to present evidence of:1. The mailing that the reportedly sent to me offering the warranty on only two of the three appliances.2. The recording of the call made to me to offer the product. (The call was received May 16 2017 at 11:13am CDT from 800-253-1301 and lasted 13 minutes.) I welcome them to make the necessary changes to add the third appliance. If they sincerely cannot (or will not) do that, then I will retain the refund they have disbursed.
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam:
Service Net Warranty, LLC ("SNW") has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a claim under his Repair Coverage Service Plan ("the Plan"). The Complainant contends that damage to his laptop...
computer should be covered under the Plan.
Our records reflect that the Complainant first contacted SNW to initiate a claim for damage sustained to his laptop computer on November 14, 2014. The Complainant explained that he had lent his computer to a friend who left it on top of a car and then drove off, causing the damage.
Given this information, SNW denied this claim on December 3, 2014, as the Plan does not cover any losses due to negligence. In pertinent part, the plan states:
12. LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE FOR YOUR PRODUCT. THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT COVER:
C. Any Product failure related to external causes such as, but not limited to, improper storage, improper ventilation, reconfiguration of equipment, theft, loss, abuse, negligence
, vandalism, acts of war, fire, weather related damage, or acts of God.
Upon further review, SNW maintains the denial of this claim as leaving the computer on the roof of a car is considered negligence since the computer was placed in a position where it could be easily damaged.
I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
Still haven't addressed the fact that the entire unit was assigned as a part by the [redacted]. Ergo part and component can't be used interchangeably. After explaining this point to [redacted], they told me that I was eligible for a replacement from AIG. AIG continues to twist facts. I did not complain about fan noise specifically. After the 4th issue, I pointed out that a loud humming noise (I'm not sure if it's the fan or another unit) may be indicative of an underlying problem. Regardless that issue was after the 4th repair. It should never have been discussed. A replacement should have been sent because part [redacted] was repaired 3 times and required a 4th repair. Answer the question directly. Was the entire laptop assigned as a part?
Revdex.com, Inc. 844 S. 4th Street Louisville, KY 40203-2186 Re.: Complainants: Albert and Irina Hakimi Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Certificate Nos.: [redacted] Your Case No.: [redacted] Our File...
No: [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc., regarding an LG Extended Service Contract (“Plan [redacted]”). The Complainants contend that there has been a delay in completing repairs on their refrigerator and request a full refund of Plan purchase price or a replacement unit. SNW records reflect that on June 6, 2017, the Complainants reported a problem with the refrigerator stating that the ice maker was not working. A claim was set-up under Plan [redacted] and the refrigerator was serviced on June 8, 2017, by a service technician from Dependable Appliance Service. On July 23, 2017, the Complainants contacted SNW to report that the ice maker was still not working properly and they were having issues with the refrigerator light going on and off. SNW initiated a rework order, a period of time the servicer warranties its work, with Dependable Appliance Service for a service appointment on August 4, 2017. Dependable Appliance Service advised SNW that this appointment was cancelled and the defective ice maker was later replaced on August 18, 2017. Dependable Appliance Service contacted SNW on September 6, 2017, to advise that additional parts were needed for continued repair on the refrigerator and a service appointment was scheduled for September 11, 2017. The Complainants contacted SNW on September 29, 2017, stating that repair parts have been hard to find for the unit and the service technician from Dependable Appliance Service ordered the wrong parts after the last service appointment. Additionally, the Complainants stated that Plan 165351742 with the claim for repair expired on September 30, 2017, and SNW advise that it was their decision whether or not to renew the Plan. On September 30, 2017, the Complainants made the decision to purchase a renewal contract on the refrigerator under Plan 216142662 with an effective date of October 1, 2017, and expiring on October 1, 2018. On October 10, 2017, SNW contacted Dependable Appliance Service regarding the status of the ordered parts and was advised that their record showed that the parts were received. Dependable Appliance Service stated that it contacted the Complainants to confirm delivery of the parts and schedule an appointment for installation, but the Complainants did not respond. Subsequently, SNW contacted the Complainants, but they were unavailable so a voicemail was left to inquire if they wanted to move forward with repairs. In this message, the Complainants were also informed that the claim could be reviewed for alternate solution if they did not want to continue with repairs. The Complainants returned the call to SNW on October 11, 2017, and were advised to expect a call back within 3 to 5 business days regarding the decision for an alternate solution. SNW also informed the Complainants that since the claim is being reviewed for an alternate solution under Plan 165351742, they should cancel the renewal contract under Plan 216142662 before expiration of 60 days from the date of purchase in order to get a full refund of the purchase price. On October 17, 2017, SNW contacted the Complainants and offered a buyout settlement of the refrigerator in the amount of $1,411.01 pursuant to the Plan terms under Section 21. Buyout, which states the following: 21. BUYOUT. We may elect, at Our option, to buyout the Contract during the coverage term for the lesser of (I) current market value of a Product with comparable specifications or (II) purchase price of Your Product minus sales tax and claims paid. You have up to forty-five (45) days from the date of authorization to complete your product buyout transaction. We will have satisfied all obligations owed under this Contract if any one of the buyout options is accepted by You. The Complainants accepted the buyout offer on October 19, 2017. SNW informed the Complainants that a buyout letter would need to be signed and returned before the buyout check could be processed. The buyout letter was emailed to the Complainants this same date. Upon receipt of the signed buyout letter from the Complainants, SNW will move forward with processing the buyout check. To date, the signed buyout letter has not been received by SNW. Pursuant to the Complainants request, SNW cancelled the renewal contract under Plan 216142662 on October 19, 2017, and a full refund of the Plan purchase price in the amount of $228.64 was issued back to the Complainants credit card on file on October 20, 2017. A copy of the credit card refund is attached for your convenience. We will supplement our response as soon as we receive the signed buyout letter from the Complainants. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, [redacted] Enclosures
AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Whirlpool Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that there has been a delay in repairing her washer and...
that the unit is still in need of repair or replacement. Our records reflect that on July 16, 2016, the Complainant contacted Whirlpool directly regarding her washer, which was not working properly and making a loud noise. Whirlpool offered the Complainant a plan that would cover the initial repair of the washer along with coverage for an additional year. . A claim was initiated on July 16, 2016, for the Complainant’s washer and assigned to Fox TV and Appliance (“Fox”) for repair services. An onsite service appointment was scheduled for July 19, 2016, for the repair to take place. On August 12, 2016, the Complainant called to indicate that issue with the washer persisted. A rework order was set up and assigned to Fox. A service repair was scheduled for August 15, 2016, and the necessary repair part was subsequently ordered. However, there was a delay in Fox receiving the part, which was the outer tub of the washer. On August 31, 2016, and September 7, 2016, AWG contacted Fox for an update on the repair part and advised them to contact the Complainant. On September 21, 2016, Fox received the part from Whirlpool; however, AWG was advised that it was damaged upon receipt. The part was reordered with delivery expected within one to two weeks. The Complainant was contacted on September 22, 2016, and was advised of this information. However, the Complainant advised that the repair had already taken too long and requested a replacement. On September 27, 2016, AWG was contacted by Fox who advised that the washer had been deemed not cost effective to be repaired. AWG subsequently instructed Fox to cancel the order for the repair part. After reviewing alternate solutions, AWG contacted the Complainant on October 7, 2016, and offered a buyout of the washer in the amount of $677.00 pursuant to the Plan terms. The Complainant accepted the buyout offer on October 10, 2016. On October 13, 2016, payment was issued to the Complainant in the amount of $677.00, under check no. 193157. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]6 Re: Complainants: [redacted] Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Contract No.: [redacted] Claim No.: [redacted] Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: ...
[redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Repair Coverage Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant is requesting a full refund of the Plan that was purchased for her [redacted] laptop (the “laptop”). By way of background, on October 12, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted]) with SNW reporting that her laptop would not hold a charge and ** Services, Inc. (“** Services”) was assigned to the claim. The Complainant was advised that a box and a prepaid [redacted] label were being sent to her so that she could send the laptop to ** Services for repair. ** Services received the laptop on October 25, 2016, and a diagnostic report detected that the Logic Board had a broken DC jack and the bottom case had broken grommets. On November 4, 2016, ** Services completed the repairs and shipped the laptop back to the Complainant. On November 7, 2016, the Complainant contacted SNW stating the laptop would still not hold a charge. On this same date, the Complainant requested a refund of the Plan’s purchase price. SNW has processed the refund request and the Complainant will be refunded the Plan’s purchase price of $59.00. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted] Sincerely, [redacted]
On behalf of Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”), we are supplementing our previous response dated August 26, 2015, with a status update regarding the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed in the name of the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a Repair Coverage...
Service Plan owned by [redacted]“the Plan”).In our previous letter, it was indicated that given the circumstances surrounding this claim, specifically the identity of the contract holder, a further review was being conducted before any final solution can be processed, per SNW claims guidelines. Upon review and after speaking with the Complainant to verify her identity and the circumstances surrounding the filing of her claim and subsequent status calls involving her and/or her sister, SNW made a decision to fulfill the replacement request for the individual calling in as Ms. [redacted]. The replacement television was purchased on September 22, 2015, and was shipped on September 24, 2015, via UPS. As per the Complainant’s request, the unit was shipped to her sister, Ms. [redacted].I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.Sincerely,[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Overlooking the fact I live in Richmond, VA, the capital of Virginia with a population of 200,000+ and hardly a "remote area", my refrigerator has not been fixed as of 5-13-16, 18 days since filing a claim. Securing a second service provider is very different than fixing, replacing, or buying out the appliance for which I purchased a warranty.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”)...
has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Easy Exchange Plus Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that there has been a delay in processing a refund of the Plan’s deductible. Our records reflect that on October 1, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW to set up a claim under the Plan. At this time, the Complainant was advised that a $35.00 deductible was required pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Plan. The Complainant declined claim setup. On December 4, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW, provided payment of the $35.00 deductible, and a claim was set up. The Complainant stated that half of his cell phone screen was black due to the unit being dropped. Later that same day, the Complainant again contacted SNW advising that he found a replacement phone that was less than the deductible charged. The Complainant cancelled the claim previously set up that day and requested a refund of the deductible from SNW. A refund for the $35.00 deductible was requested and the Complainant was advised to expect the refund issued back to the credit card on file within 48-72 hours. The Complainant called SNW on December 9, 2015, to indicate that he had requested a refund of the Plan’s deductible with the expectation that it would be issued within 48-72 hours. After further review, SNW found that no refund had been issued to date due to system errors. SNW sent a second request for a refund of the $35.00 deductible and the Complainant was again advised to expect a refund within 48-72 hours. On December 11, 2015, SNW received the Revdex.com complaint in which the Complainant requested refund of the $35.00 deductible and a return of the premium paid for the Plan. SNW sent the refund of premium request to TracFone and followed up on the deductible refund requestOn December 14, 2015, SNW issued and verified payment for the deductible, in the amount of $35.00 back to the Complainant’s credit card on file. On December 16, 2015, SNW received verification from TracFone that they would be issuing a refund to the Complainant of the full retail premium of $19.99 paid on the Plan. The premium refund was approved by TracFone management on December 18, 2015. On December 22, 2015, SNW received confirmation that a full refund of total premium paid of $19.99 was being processed and that payment in the amount of $2.19 will be issued back to the Complainant’s credit card on file. The remaining $17.80 will be issued to the Complainant, via check, within 30 days. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused the Complainant. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
March 10, 2017 [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc. (“Revdex.com”) regarding a [redacted] Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that his dryer is in need of repair and requests for the Plan he purchased to be honored so that a claim can be set up for the dryer repair. Our records reflect that on December 15, 2016, the Complainant purchased the Plan for his dryer online. During the online purchase, the Complainant entered a date of purchase for the dryer as May 13, 2016, and the Plan was issued with an effective date of May 14, 2017. On December 16, 2016, the Complainant contacted AWG to advise that the date of purchase for the dryer was incorrectly stated on the Plan as May 13, 2016. AWG contacted [redacted] and verified that the date of purchase for the dryer was February 17, 2012. Based on this information, AWG advised the Complainant that the Plan he purchased was invalid due to the incorrect date of purchase being entered for the dryer. AWG further explained to the Complainant that he would need to cancel the Plan he purchased on December 15, 2016, and purchase a new plan with the dryer’s correct date of purchase. The Complainant inquired about the cost of a new plan and AWG transferred him to the pertinent department for this information. The Complainant contacted AWG again on January 21, 2017, to set up a claim on his dryer for repair. AWG denied the claim because the contract was invalid due to the incorrect date of purchase on the Plan. Between January 21, 2017, and March 1, 2017, the Complainant requested to have the date of purchase for the dryer corrected on the Plan so he could set up a claim for repair. AWG advised the Complainant that it was unable to change the date of purchase on the Plan and further informed the Complainant that he must cancel the Plan then purchase a new plan with the dyer’s correct date of purchase. The reason this is required is because the price of the plan is necessarily determined by the age of the product. Therefore, a plan covering a dryer purchased in 2016 does not have the same cost as a plan covering a dryer purchased in 2012. AWG cannot simply update the purchase date; a new, valid contract must be purchased. On March 2, 2017, the Complainant submitted a written request to AWG to have the Plan cancelled. In turn, AWG cancelled the Plan on March 2, 2017, and a full refund was credited back to the Complainant’s credit card on file in the amount of $122.32. As stated above, the Complainant must purchase a new plan with the correct date of purchase for the dryer in order to set up a claim for repair. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, 70256. Sincerely, [redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the above- captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Repair Coverage Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant asserts that SNW should replace an original part of this...
computer.
Our records reflect that on May 30, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for his laptop computer, citing that the space key was damaged. The claim was assigned to VT Services and SNW advised the Complainant to send the computer in a provided shipping box for repair. VT Services received the computer on June 5, 2015, and requested the necessary repair part from the manufacturer, MSI, on June 15, 2015.
VT services received the repair part on July 23, 2015; however, the part was sent in the incorrect color. VT Services contacted SNW who advised the part with the correct color was available, but would take an additional 3-4 weeks to receive. SNW granted approval for VT Services to complete the repair with part received despite the incorrect color. It was determined that this issue was cosmetic, the repair would return the computer to full functionality, and the customer would be returned a fully functioning computer in the shortest amount of time. VT Services completed the repair and shipped the computer back to the Complainant.
On July 27, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW and indicated that he received his computer but his keyboard bezel was the incorrect color. He requested to have his original bezel returned but was advised that since the unit is functional, this would not be an option as the color issue is cosmetic.
After discussion with VT Services, while they cannot guarantee that the original bezel color will be available or sent by MSI, in an effort to accommodate the customer, they have offered to preorder the part, wait for that to come in (approximately 4-6 weeks), and then have the Complainant send the unit in after the part arrives. However, if this is agreed upon, the current bezel must be unblemished upon its return to VT Services.
SNW contacted the Complainant and presented him with options for the repair with VT Services or to have the original bezel returned to him. He has accepted the repair option. VT Services has been contacted and they are in the process of preordering the part.
I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Extended Warranty Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that his washer is still in need of repair and has requested a...
refund for both of the purchased ** units (washer and dryer). Our records reflect that the Complainant purchased the Plan for his washer and dryer, LG model numbe[redacted] and [redacted], on January 15, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for his washer, indicating that the unit was not filling with water. The claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“**”) and on February 7, 2014, during an on-site visit, the ** technician restored the unit to operating per the manufacturer’s specifications. On September 23, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for both units (claim no.’s [redacted] and [redacted]), indicating that the washer was vibrating and the clothes were catching on the paddles in the dryer which was causing them to knot up. The claim was referred to ** Factory Service (“[redacted]”). On September 24, 2014, [redacted] notified SNW that the Complainant’s geographical area was no longer serviced by [redacted]. SNW then referred the claim to **. On October 16, 2014, an ** technician tightened the front legs of the washer and on October 30, 2014, an ** technician replaced the Holder on the dryer. Both units were successfully repaired during these onsite visits. On January 2, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for the washer (claim number [redacted]), indicating that the unit would stop during the cycle and displayed an “OE” code. On January 6, 2015, the claim was referred to [redacted] ** Appliance Service, Inc. (“**”) and a service appointment was scheduled for January 8, 2015. While at the Complainant’s home on January 8, 2015, the ** service technician noted that the Complainant had sourced a pump that was needed for the repair. The ** service technician installed the pump and the unit was functioning properly. On February 4, 2015, SNW received an invoice in the amount of $97.89, for the part purchased by the Complainant. Payment in the amount of $97.89 was issued to the Complainant on February 19, 2015, via check number 139459. On August 22, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted]), reporting that the washer was stopping during the cycle, and producing a loud grinding noise. For products that have past claims, and previous repair services, it is SNW’s standard business procedure to conduct an internal review. The internal review process is completed within 7- 10 days. Upon review, SNW determined that the units do not qualify for a refund. As per the Plan, Section 18, the units are not eligible for the No Lemon Guarantee. In order to qualify as a lemon, the units would have had to have had three repairs for the same issue and with the same parts replaced each time, and a fourth reported for the same issue as the other three repairs. Additionally, as per Section 14 of the Plan, the units have not been: 1) deemed irreparable by a networked service provider 2) found to be in need of parts that are no longer available and 3) determined to be beyond economical repair. Based on the aforementioned, the Complainant is not eligible for the reimbursement cost of the washer and dryer. SNW will continue to service the units to maintain proper functioning. On August 31, 2016, SNW contacted the Complainant, via telephone, leaving a voicemail advising that a service appointment is scheduled on September 7, 2016, and an ** service technician will be onsite to repair the units. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]0. Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12006722, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I have been informed I will receive a refund for the warranty. However, the "repair" did not fix the problem. Furthermore, the computer froze twice within the first 20 minutes of starting it. It clearly was not checked for qulaity control after "repairs" were made and it was shipped back to me. I now have had to package it back up, wait 2 days for Fed Ex to pick it up, and additional days for replacement of the hard drive. As noted in the business response, I have not been able to use the computer since 1/30/17. It is now 3/2/17, and this computer is a vital part of my business.I will never purchase a warranty with this [redacted] again, and will inform [redacted] of these problems so they can offer superior warranties.
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”), please accept this letter in response to the follow-up inquiry submitted on behalf of the Complainant regarding his Easy Exchange Plus Service Contract (“the Plan”). In a rebuttal to our response dated 4/22/16, the Complainant contends we have not resolved his initial complaint regarding the replacement of his damaged cell phone. In our previous response letter, it was indicated that once the damaged phone was received, the fulfillment voucher in the amount of $400.00 would be processed and the Complainant should receive it within 24 – 48 hours. SNW subsequently contacted the Complainant to provide this update and confirmed his email address where the fulfillment voucher would be sent was correct. The voucher was processed on April 22, 2016. On April 25, 2016, the Complainant attempted to use the voucher on [redacted]’s website but received an invalid code message. Upon further review of this matter, SNW opted to refund the Complainant manually. A check in the amount of $465.00 was sent to the Complainant via USPS on April 29, 2016, and should be received within 3-5 business days. This payment represents $400.00 owed under the Plan to replace the damaged phone in lieu of the voucher. The additional $65.00 is intended to reimburse the Complainant for the cost of a temporary mobile phone he was forced to purchase due to claim fulfillment delays that were out of his control. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience to the Complainant in the handling of this matter. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number. Sincerely, [redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC ("SNW") has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Repair Coverage Service Plan ("the Plan"). The Complainant requests that he be reimbursed for the full market...
value of his television.
Our records reflect that on March 16, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for his television, citing that there were lines on the screen. The claim was assigned to [redacted] ("[redacted]") for repair. SNW received repair approval requests from [redacted] on March 25, 2015, and April 9, 2015. However, the additional part needed to complete the repair was no longer available. An additional claim was generated to formulate an alternative solution for the Complainant’s defective television.
After conducting research, SNW found that [redacted] model [redacted] was comparable to the Complainant’s current television. SNW contacted [redacted] directly, and was advised that a refurbished version of this model was available for $900. On April 14, 2015, SNW contacted the Complainant and offered the option of either the replacement television noted above or a buy-out in the amount of $900, which is the value of the replacement. This offer was made pursuant to the Plan section titled "6. UNABLE TO REPAIR
." However, the Complainant declined both choices.
Upon further review, SNW maintains that model [redacted] is a comparable replacement and that it is the direct upgraded model of the Complainant’s current television based upon the technical specifications listed. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Complainant’s Plan, if we are unable to repair the product, he is entitled to the lesser of the current market value of a comparable product or the retail price paid for the product, minus tax and claims paid. At this time, the options will remain the same as previously offered.
I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]