[redacted]
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam:
Service Net Solutions, LLC (“SNS”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint filed by [redacted] (“Complainant”) with the...
Revdex.com, Inc. regarding a claim under her 1 year Straight Talk (“TracFone”) Replacement Plan (“the Plan”). The complainant asserts that she should be refunded the full $42.39 because the Plan was no longer available for her phone.
Our records reflect that the complainant purchased the phone warranty on March 16, 2015 and spoke with SNS that same day. On April 7, 2015, the cancellation request was received and a refund request to TracFone in the amount of $42.39 was processed. On May 4, 2015, contact was made to TracFone inquiring about the status of the refund. The complainant followed up on May 17, 2015 but still had not received a refund. On June 2, 2015, contact was made to TracFone asking for an immediate resolution and $42.39 was processed as a refund and credited back onto the Complainant’s account.
The credit should appear on the account within 3 to 5 business days.
We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry and apologize for any inconvenience. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned and reference our file number [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted]
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 Repair Coverage Service Plan (“the Plan”). In a rebuttal to our previous response, the Complainant contends that her computer is in fact a lemon.
In the previous response dated August 18, 2015, it was indicated that [redacted] advised that the Complainant should not reload the [redacted] game sharing software (which is known to cause similar computer issues to those indicated by the Complainant) and display and then complete a full system restore using the OEM recovery software that came with the computer.
Furthermore, as also stated in our previous response, the unit would not qualify for an alternate solution at this time since software issues are not covered, per Section 11.D of the Plan. Additionally, the computer cannot be considered for the No Lemon Guarantee since, according to Section 12 of the Plan, a product must undergo three separate service repairs for the same part, with three separate claim numbers, which requires a repair under a fourth claim number. In this case, only one claim is on record because each repair remained within [redacted]’ rework period.
As of this writing, SNW has not been advised by the Complainant as to whether she has refrained from reloading the [redacted] software and performed a system restore. Once SNW receives confirmation that this has been completed and the issues still persist, then further claim processing can be revisited. 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.
[Nothing has been resolved to this point in time. I have received lie after lie and story after story. We are rapidly approaching 6 weeks and this issue continues. I was most recently told on 4/20/2016 that within 24 hours I would have a gift card for $400. 24 hours later and I have not received it however I did receive yet ANOTHER shipment from [redacted] with a shipping package and label to return the damaged phone to them. The problem is they have had the phone for Three weeks now. I feel DEFRAUDED, lied to and the victim of THEFT. ]
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant regarding a [redacted] administered by [redacted] Services of [redacted] The Complainant contends his television stopped working and...
requests for the unit to be repaired under the Plan. The record shows that the Complainant purchased the Plan on April 26, 2016, under Certificate [redacted] There was no indication by the Complainant during the purchase of the Plan that the [redacted] television he was seeking coverage on was for a refurbished television. For that reason, [redacted] set up the coverage under the Plan as if the television was new and not refurbished. The Plan was purchased with an effective date beginning after expiration of the original equipment manufacturer [redacted] warranty period. The effective dates for the Plan were April 8, 2017, through April 7, 2020. On November 28, 2016, the Complainant contacted AWSF to initiate a claim under the Plan stating that his Sharp television was not turning on. The Complainant further advised AWSF that the initial Sharp television purchased was replaced by the manufacturer in April 2016, during the OEM warranty period and reported that the replacement Sharp television was refurbished. However, the Plan purchased by the Complainant on April 26, 2016, only provided coverage for the initial television not the manufacturer’s replacement television that was refurbished so the claim for repair service was denied by AWSF. AWSF continued communications with the Complainant through early December 2016, who contested the claim denial and continued to request service repair on his replacement television. After additional research and review, it was found that AWSF sold the Complainant a Plan that provided coverage on a new television rather than a refurbished television. Based on these findings, AWSF agreed to honor the Plan terms that were purchased to cover the initial television so the refurbished replacement television would have coverage under the Plan. AWSF revised the effective dates for the Plan in our system in order to activate the Plan terms. The revised effective date for the Plan covering the replacement television is July 8, 2016, through July 8, 2019. On December 14, 2016, the Complainant was advised of AWSF’s decision and a claim for repair of the replacement television was initiated. The Complainant requested a specific service provider, TV Center Electronics, for the repairs which AWSF authorized. On December 19, 2016, TV Center Electronics evaluated the replacement television and reported that parts were needed to complete the service repair. On the same date, AWSF approved parts and labor for the required repairs. Upon receipt of the parts by TV Center Electronics, the Complainant will be contacted to schedule an appointment to complete the needed repairs on the replacement television. AWSF will supplement its response as soon as an update is received from the TV Center Electronics. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this complaint. Thank you. Sincerely, Dorothy A. Amoamah Enclosures
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]Dear Sir or Madam:Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant related to a claim reported under an ** Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”) administered by Service Net Warranty, LLC. (“SNW”). The Complainant alleges that her ** Dryer was repaired multiple times but the issue has not been resolved. The Complainant requests repair service or replacement of the unit.Our records show that on September 11, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW to report a problem with her ** Dryer, specifically gas smell emanating from the dryer. A service provider, [redacted] Radio & Television Inc. (“[redacted]”) was assigned to handle the repair. During the repair service, the [redacted] technician replaced the Gas Valve in the dryer, and tested the dryer for gas leakage, but there was none.On September 5, 2015, the Complainant reported that the issue has recurred, and another service provider, [redacted] Appliance Service (“[redacted] Appliance“) was assigned to service the dryer. The technician from [redacted] Appliance reported that the dryer Gas Valve was replaced, but SNW is unable to confirm because [redacted] Appliance did not obtain prior authorization from SNW for the Gas Valve replacement, and it has not received an invoice from [redacted] Appliance. On December 15, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW and reported that the Dryer will not start. Accordingly, a technician from ** Electronics of Alababma (“**”) was dispatched to handle the service. The technician from ** replaced the Switch Micro, Belt, PCB Assembly/Main, and PCB Assembly/Display in the dryer.On May 31, 2016, the Complainant contacted SNW and reported gas smell emanating from the dryer when the appliance is in use. The Complainant’s request was initially denied as unrelated to the product failure; however a decision was made to re-open the claim for further service. The Complainant is currently scheduled for an onsite service appointment with Unique Repair Services, on June 14, 2016. We will supplement our response as soon as we receive an update from SNW regarding the service.Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file. Thank you.Sincerely,[redacted]
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR ORIGINAL.On behalf of Service Net Solutions of Florida, LLC (“SNSF”) we are responding to the follow up regarding the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Repair Coverage Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that his computer, as a complete unit, qualifies as a “part,” and thus should be replaced as a lemon under the No Lemon Guarantee. Our records indicate that between the dates of June 29, 2014 and June 30, 2015, the Complainant’s computer has been repaired on four separate occasions, with only two of the service repairs representing the same problem and involving the same part, with two separate claim numbers. The two additional issues were accidental damage claims. In order to qualify as a lemon, the computer would have to have had three service repairs with three separate claim numbers for the same issue and with the same part replaced each time, and a fourth separate claim reported (with a new claim number issued) that involved the same part as the other three service repairs. This does not include repairs done under the manufacturer’s warranty or reworks. Between the dates of July 24, 2015 and July 29, 2015, several calls were exchanged with the Complainant whereas the Complainant stated that his computer was a lemon and requested a replacement. On July 29, 2015, the Complainant was informed that it was determined that per the Terms and Conditions of the Plan, the computer does not qualify as a lemon. The Plan states: 12. NO LEMON GUARANTEE. During the term of this Contract, when three service repairs, with three separate claim numbers, have been completed on the same part, and that same part requires repair under a fourth claim number, as determined by Us, Your Product will be replaced with a Product with comparable specifications by Us, not to exceed the original retail purchase price. In the event a comparable replacement cannot be located, a buyout, not to exceed the cur-rent market value of a Product with comparable specifications, will be provided. This does not include repairs necessary during the manufacturer’s warranty period, rework/callback service required after initial service, during the warranty of work period provided by the Service Company, or previous service Contract terms. Once you have received Your Product replacement or buyout all contractual obligations under this Contract have been fulfilled. Technological advances may result in a replacement product with a lower selling price than the original Product. If We buyout the contract, the covered product becomes property of Service Net and We may, at Our discretion, require the product to be returned to Us (or our designee) at Our expense. The complainant contends that [redacted].com lists a part number for each product, and thus the computer should be considered a part. The Complainant notes that the computer has been repaired on four occasions, meeting the requirement of a lemon and should be replaced.In lieu of a model number, the manufacturer, MSI, references item codes on their specification site. Due to lack of additional fields on the [redacted].com website, the item code is referenced in the field known as part code. As the computer is referred to as a part code in lieu of model number, and the context of the Plan terms and conditions makes clear that covered repairs involve individual component parts of the computer, the unit itself is not considered a part under the terms of the Plan. On August 7, 2015, SNSF explained the Plan’s No Lemon Guarantee to the Complainant and advised that due to the aforementioned; the computer did not qualify as a lemon. Although the complainant claims/alleges [redacted] told him he was eligible for a replacement computer from SNSF, [redacted] has informed us that they have no record of this and that the complainant was told it was a valid denial. In any event, it is the terms and conditions of the Plan that determines coverage. If the computer is still in need of repair, please have the complainant contact us for repair service. 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]
The request was and is not for the entire balance of the purchase price of the broken television in question. The request made to the company was either for a reasonable buyout amount for what the current cost of the product would be or if they wised to offer a refurbished product then to either warranty that product more than merely 30 days as refurbished products can have serious problems / failure rates or to offer a reasonable buyout. All searches I have made for those models of televisions as being refurbished items for sale have resulted in 1-no products in stock and 2-the price for the product even as a refurbished item being much higher than the $900 offer bring made by your company. This product was roughly $1800 at the time of sale so a 50% price reduction on a refurbished unit is unacceptable.
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12418699, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[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 LG Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that a refund or replacement should be...
provided for her defective washer based on the Plan’s NO LEMON GUARANTEE. Our records reflect that on October 22, 2013, the Complainant initiated claim number [redacted] for her washer and indicated that the water was not draining properly out of the washer. The claim was referred to service provider [redacted] Service (“[redacted]”) and a service appointment was scheduled for October 24, 2013. SNW received the service invoice from [redacted] on November 7, 2013, which indicated pump tests were run. However, there was no service repair or part replacement documented on the invoice for this claim number. On February 15, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW and stated the water is not draining out of the washer. A new claim number [redacted] was initiated and assigned to [redacted]. On February 27, 2014, SNW received the service invoice from [redacted] stating pump tests were run. No service repair or part replacement was documented on the invoice for this claim number. Then on April 18, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW again stating the water was not draining out of the washer. Claim number [redacted] was assigned and sent to [redacted] as a rework order for claim number [redacted]. A claim is considered a rework order if the service provider is required to go back out to the customer’s residence within 90 days of the last service repair date regarding the same issue. Since claim number [redacted] was assigned as a rework order to [redacted] for a February 15, 2014, date of service it was not considered a separate claim. SNW received the service invoice from [redacted] for the rework service performed on June 26, 2014, indicating pump tests were run and the pump on the washer was replaced. On October 24, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW, initiating claim number [redacted], stating the water was not draining out of the washer. The service order was assigned to [redacted]. During this call the Complainant requested that the washer be deemed a lemon. SNW informed the Complainant that the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. The Complainant called SNW on January 6, 2015, requesting for the washer to be deemed a lemon and advised that there was no current issue with the washer. SNW again informed to Complainant that the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. On May 14, 2015, SNW received a service invoice from [redacted] on claim number [redacted] indicating pump tests were run and the washer pump was replaced. On August 14, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW to indicate that her dryer, a separate unit from the washer, was not properly drying. A new claim number [redacted] was initiated and assigned to [redacted] for service. On August 19, 2015, the repair was completed and the necessary parts were replaced on the dryer. The Complainant contacted SNW on August 27, 2015, requesting for the washer to be deemed a lemon although there was no current issue with the washer. No claim was initiated on this call and the Complainant was informed the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. On September 18, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW requesting for the washer to be deemed a lemon. Again, there was no current issue with the washer and no claim was initiated. The Complainant was informed the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. It is SNW’s position that the washer cannot be considered for the NO LEMON GUARANTEE since, according to Section 17 of the Plan, a product must undergo three separate service repairs for the same part each time, with three separate claim numbers, which requires a service repair or part replacement under a fourth claim number. In this case, as noted above, there were only three separate claims for the washer as one service request, claim number [redacted],was within [redacted]’s rework period for claim number [redacted]. Additionally, the washer parts were repaired and/or replaced on only two occasions, claim numbers [redacted] (rework order for [redacted]) and [redacted]. Furthermore, the dryer service request, claim number [redacted], is considered an entirely separate issue and does not count towards the number of service repairs or replacements for the washer. 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]
Please accept this response to the above referenced consumer complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] in relation to the repair/replacement of her Laptop/[redacted] submitted under a Service Contract administered by Service Net Solutions, LLC. ("Service Net") on behalf of AIU (AIG). ?????
As a matter of...
background Ms. [redacted] contacted Service Net to report an issue with her Laptop/[redacted] on May 10, 2014. A service provider, [redacted] Guru was assigned to evaluate and repair the unit. On June 5, 2014, Service Net issued a payment in the amount of $562.50 (under check number 120357) to [redacted] Guru for parts ordered for the repairs. On July 24, 2014, Ms. [redacted] contacted Service Net to advise that the repair had not been completed. Accordingly, Service Net contacted the service provider who responded that the repair was completed. There are notes on file indicating that between August 12, 2014 and November 19, 2014, Service Net made unsuccessful attempts to confirm with the service provider whether the repair was actually completed. As a result, Service Net offered Ms. [redacted] the option to hire a service provider for the repairs and submit the bill for reimbursement.
On December 3, 2014, Service Net requested the original service provider to return the unit to Ms. [redacted]. The unit was returned unrepaired. On December 8, 2014, Service Net offered a buyout in the amount of $1,299.99 to Ms. [redacted] to resolve the issue and she has accepted it. The amount represents the retail amount paid by Ms. [redacted] of the unit. We anticipate that Ms. [redacted] will receive a check in the same amount within the next 10 to 15 business days.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file. Thank you.
June 8, 2016Via Electronic MailRevdex.com, Inc.844 S. 4th StreetLouisville, KY 40203-2186RE: Complainant: [redacted]Service Provider: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. Claim No: [redacted] [redacted]...
[redacted]Dear Sir or Madam:Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the [redacted] (“Complainant”) on behalf of [redacted] related to a claim reported under a [redacted] Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”) administered by AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”). The Complainant requests a refund in the amount of $276.43, for the out of pocket cost associated with the repair of the washer coveredunder the Plan.Please note that, AWG resolved this issue on May 19, 2016. As a matter of background, the Complainant contacted AWG on April 25, 2016, to initiate a claim for the washer, reporting a leak from underneath the unit. A service provider, [redacted] Appliance & Sons Inc. was initially assigned to handle the service order. On this same date, at the request of the Complainant, the service order was reassigned to [redacted] Appliance. [redacted] Appliance declined the service order on April 26, 2016, because it no longer services the Complainant’s area. On this day, AWG contacted another service provider, [redacted] Certified Care (“[redacted]”) to complete a diagnostic test of the unit at the Complainant’s residence. The diagnostic testing of the unit was completed by [redacted] on April 26, 2016, and estimates for repair were submitted to AWG on May 3, 2016, in the amount of $969.47.Based on the estimates submitted by [redacted], AWG deemed the unit “Beyond Economical Repair” noting that the cost of the repair exceeded the retail value of the unit and determined not to proceed with the repair. The repair service was discontinued and the Plan was cancelled in accor[redacted]ce with the terms and conditions of the Plan section(s) 2 and 13. Section 13 of the Plan establishes the total liability due to the Complainant by AWG is a full refund of the Plans purchase price. On May 19, 2016, AWG refunded the full amount of the Plan’s purchase price in the amount of $342.35 to the Complainant via his credit card on record, to resolve the claim. The refund of the Plan exceeds the Complainant’s out-of-pocket expenses of $276.43 that was incurred for the repair of the unit upon receiving a second opinion from their chosen service provider.We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file and reference our file number above.Sincerely,[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Our business group has informed me that they have not heard back from the customer, so they are working on a resolution of this complaint. Please allow us an additional time to properly address this issue. I will provide the status of the claim or a complete response by...
[redacted] [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to [redacted] and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[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] the whole point being is yes, the did replace the first pc. that is not in arguement at all. now, I was told by this company that the extended warranty did not take affect until the manufacturers warranty ran out. they said they would not even touch the computers until the manufacturers warranty ran out when I called in with a problem with my first computer. so I bought EXTENDED warranties. they were not to start til the day that my orignals ran out. TWO YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTIES. if that is is how they are advertised, and yes they were at the time I bought them, then I should have my second year. i didnt buy a side by side warranty as we all know that computer companies will not touch the pcs that are under warranty once someone else does. that breaks the warranty. lenovo has even told me that if you take your pc to have anything done to it and then send it to them, they can deny repairs as someone else could have caused damage. EXTENDED means PAST the original time. What this company is doing is fraudulent. When I called to have them look at a pc during the lenovo manufacturers warranty they said they wouldnt touch it til the original warranty was over. then that means my extended warranty should have started the day that the manufacturers warranty was up. instead, they are charging people for two year warranties. they say that it starts the day of purchase yet they wont touch the pc the first year. so they are saying you are paying for two years but they only honor one? thats fraudulent. its also fraudulent to say they are two year EXTENDED warranties when they in fact, only one year extended warranties. if I cannot have my pc fixed, which by all rights they should be responsible for doing as extended warranties are after the manufacturers warranties run out....I have gotten many warranties from many companies and they all say AFTER the original runs out for EXTENDED warranties. If they are not going to be held responsible for fixing something under a warranty I paid for, I would at the very least like my money back ans I would like something to be done where they cant advertise something as extended 2 year warranties when they are only 1 year. they are misleading the customers and they are pocketing money which they are not entitled to.
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 [redacted] Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant requests that he either receives a replacement unit or a...
buyout equal to 75% of the original purchase price.Our records reflect that on April 25, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim for his refrigerator unit due to the freezer not cooling properly and water leakage in the interior part of the unit. Due to the Complainant’s residence being located in a remote area of SNW’s service provider network, there was a brief delay in obtaining a service provider to accept the claim. On April 28, 2016, the claim was referred to[redacted] to diagnose the appliance and complete the repairs. On May 4, 2016, [redacted] advised SNW that the unit is repairable. Specifically, [redacted] indicated that it was a sealed system issue and the compressor needed replacement. However, [redacted] is not factory authorized to perform repairs on sealed systems as required by the manufacturer and therefore could not complete the repairs needed. SNW then began searching expeditiously for a factory authorized service provider who can order the necessary parts and complete the sealed system repairs. At this time, the conditions under the Plan for areplacement or buyout have not been met given that the product is repairable. On May 12, 2016, SNW was able to contact [redacted] Factory Services (“[redacted]”) who accepted the claim. [redacted] is factory authorized and will be able to complete the necessary repairs on the unit. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this delay in locating a servicer willing to accept assignment of this service call in the Complainant’s area and who is factory authorized to complete the particular diagnosed repairs.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]
Dear Sir or Madam:SNAdmin of Canada, Inc. (“SNAC”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Service Net Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that there has been a delay...
in processing her refund. Our records reflect that on November 2, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for her defective notebook computer under the Plan. Specifically, the computer would not boot correctly. The Complainant was advised to return the defective device to SNAC’s repair facility. The computer was received on December 21, 2015.Upon inspection, it was determined that the Complainant’s computer was beyond repair. Given the time elapsed from the initiation of the claim, a decision was made that reimbursement of the product’s value was the appropriate solution. On December 30, 2015, a reimbursement check in the amount of $319.99 (check no. [redacted]) was sent to the Complainant at her mailing address on record. On May 31, 2016, SNAC was contacted by a friend of the Complainant who advised that the reimbursement check was never received. This was the first notice that SNAC received regarding this issue. SNAC then attempted to verify theComplainant’s mailing address on record at which time it was discovered that it was incorrect. The address was then corrected. A check trace/stop payment on the original check was required before a new payment could be issued. Stop payment of check no. [redacted] was confirmed as of June 6, 2016. A new reimbursement payment was then processed and mailed to the Complainant on June 10, 2016, in the amount of $319.99 (check no. [redacted]). It has been confirmed that this check was cashed on June 24, 2016. We apologize for any inconvenience to the Complainant in the handling of this matter. 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 find that this resolution would be satis[redacted] to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]Dear Sir or Madam:[redacted] has completed a review of the above-captioned follow-up complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his [redacted] The Complainant requests a correction of the effective and expiration dates on the Plan and disputes the purchase price shown on the Schedule Page.As stated in [redacted] response dated October 17, 2016, the Complainant purchased a five (5) year Date of Purchase ("DOP”) service plan with effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, 2017. While a DOP service plan may be similar to an extended warranty, there are several differences between these two types of plans. One difference, in this particular case, is that the Plan for the Complainant is a DOP service plan extending coverage that runs concurrent with the Manufacturer's warranty; whereas, an extended warranty becomes effective after the Manufacturer's warranty expires.Again, please refer to the Schedule Page of the Complainant's Plan which states: "THIS SERVICE PLAN IS INCLUSIVE OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY. IT DOES NOT REPLACE THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY, BUT PROVIDES CERTAIN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS DURING THE TERM OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY...'Based on the information above, the effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, 2017, on the Complainant's Plan are accurate as stated on the Schedule Page. No changes to these dates are warranted as demanded by the Complainant.With regard to the Plan's purchase price, [redacted] contacted Whirlpool and was told that the Complainant received a $75.00 discount on the purchase of his washer and the Plan, consistent with the discount shown on the Complainant's receipt. Whirlpool's system automatically apportioned the discount between the washer and the Plan, resulting in a final purchase price for the Plan of $289.30. For that reason, the purchase price amount shown on the Plan's Schedule Page is correct. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have anyquestions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]Sincerely,[redacted]
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
I did not receive a letter from SERVICE NET SOLUTIONS,LLC.to accept the offer of a BUY OUT. I called them and I was told verbally about this offer. I accepted the offer but I had to call them a second time about it. The inconvenience of the service should have been more than a $ 824.25 BUY OUT.
[redacted]
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam:
Service Net Solutions, LLC (“SNS”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint filed by [redacted] (“Complainant”) with the...
Revdex.com, Inc. regarding a claim under her 1 year Straight Talk (“TracFone”) Replacement Plan (“the Plan”). The complainant asserts that she should be refunded the full $42.39 because the Plan was no longer available for her phone.
Our records reflect that the complainant purchased the phone warranty on March 16, 2015 and spoke with SNS that same day. On April 7, 2015, the cancellation request was received and a refund request to TracFone in the amount of $42.39 was processed. On May 4, 2015, contact was made to TracFone inquiring about the status of the refund. The complainant followed up on May 17, 2015 but still had not received a refund. On June 2, 2015, contact was made to TracFone asking for an immediate resolution and $42.39 was processed as a refund and credited back onto the Complainant’s account.
The credit should appear on the account within 3 to 5 business days.
We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry and apologize for any inconvenience. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned and reference our file number [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted]
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 Repair Coverage Service Plan (“the Plan”). In a rebuttal to our previous response, the Complainant contends that her computer is in fact a lemon.
In the previous response dated August 18, 2015, it was indicated that [redacted] advised that the Complainant should not reload the [redacted] game sharing software (which is known to cause similar computer issues to those indicated by the Complainant) and display and then complete a full system restore using the OEM recovery software that came with the computer.
Furthermore, as also stated in our previous response, the unit would not qualify for an alternate solution at this time since software issues are not covered, per Section 11.D of the Plan. Additionally, the computer cannot be considered for the No Lemon Guarantee since, according to Section 12 of the Plan, a product must undergo three separate service repairs for the same part, with three separate claim numbers, which requires a repair under a fourth claim number. In this case, only one claim is on record because each repair remained within [redacted]’ rework period.
As of this writing, SNW has not been advised by the Complainant as to whether she has refrained from reloading the [redacted] software and performed a system restore. Once SNW receives confirmation that this has been completed and the issues still persist, then further claim processing can be revisited. 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.
[Nothing has been resolved to this point in time. I have received lie after lie and story after story. We are rapidly approaching 6 weeks and this issue continues. I was most recently told on 4/20/2016 that within 24 hours I would have a gift card for $400. 24 hours later and I have not received it however I did receive yet ANOTHER shipment from [redacted] with a shipping package and label to return the damaged phone to them. The problem is they have had the phone for Three weeks now. I feel DEFRAUDED, lied to and the victim of THEFT. ]
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant regarding a [redacted] administered by [redacted] Services of [redacted] The Complainant contends his television stopped working and...
requests for the unit to be repaired under the Plan. The record shows that the Complainant purchased the Plan on April 26, 2016, under Certificate [redacted] There was no indication by the Complainant during the purchase of the Plan that the [redacted] television he was seeking coverage on was for a refurbished television. For that reason, [redacted] set up the coverage under the Plan as if the television was new and not refurbished. The Plan was purchased with an effective date beginning after expiration of the original equipment manufacturer [redacted] warranty period. The effective dates for the Plan were April 8, 2017, through April 7, 2020. On November 28, 2016, the Complainant contacted AWSF to initiate a claim under the Plan stating that his Sharp television was not turning on. The Complainant further advised AWSF that the initial Sharp television purchased was replaced by the manufacturer in April 2016, during the OEM warranty period and reported that the replacement Sharp television was refurbished. However, the Plan purchased by the Complainant on April 26, 2016, only provided coverage for the initial television not the manufacturer’s replacement television that was refurbished so the claim for repair service was denied by AWSF. AWSF continued communications with the Complainant through early December 2016, who contested the claim denial and continued to request service repair on his replacement television. After additional research and review, it was found that AWSF sold the Complainant a Plan that provided coverage on a new television rather than a refurbished television. Based on these findings, AWSF agreed to honor the Plan terms that were purchased to cover the initial television so the refurbished replacement television would have coverage under the Plan. AWSF revised the effective dates for the Plan in our system in order to activate the Plan terms. The revised effective date for the Plan covering the replacement television is July 8, 2016, through July 8, 2019. On December 14, 2016, the Complainant was advised of AWSF’s decision and a claim for repair of the replacement television was initiated. The Complainant requested a specific service provider, TV Center Electronics, for the repairs which AWSF authorized. On December 19, 2016, TV Center Electronics evaluated the replacement television and reported that parts were needed to complete the service repair. On the same date, AWSF approved parts and labor for the required repairs. Upon receipt of the parts by TV Center Electronics, the Complainant will be contacted to schedule an appointment to complete the needed repairs on the replacement television. AWSF will supplement its response as soon as an update is received from the TV Center Electronics. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this complaint. Thank you. Sincerely, Dorothy A. Amoamah Enclosures
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] ...
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]Dear Sir or Madam:Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant related to a claim reported under an ** Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”) administered by Service Net Warranty, LLC. (“SNW”). The Complainant alleges that her ** Dryer was repaired multiple times but the issue has not been resolved. The Complainant requests repair service or replacement of the unit.Our records show that on September 11, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW to report a problem with her ** Dryer, specifically gas smell emanating from the dryer. A service provider, [redacted] Radio & Television Inc. (“[redacted]”) was assigned to handle the repair. During the repair service, the [redacted] technician replaced the Gas Valve in the dryer, and tested the dryer for gas leakage, but there was none.On September 5, 2015, the Complainant reported that the issue has recurred, and another service provider, [redacted] Appliance Service (“[redacted] Appliance“) was assigned to service the dryer. The technician from [redacted] Appliance reported that the dryer Gas Valve was replaced, but SNW is unable to confirm because [redacted] Appliance did not obtain prior authorization from SNW for the Gas Valve replacement, and it has not received an invoice from [redacted] Appliance. On December 15, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW and reported that the Dryer will not start. Accordingly, a technician from ** Electronics of Alababma (“**”) was dispatched to handle the service. The technician from ** replaced the Switch Micro, Belt, PCB Assembly/Main, and PCB Assembly/Display in the dryer.On May 31, 2016, the Complainant contacted SNW and reported gas smell emanating from the dryer when the appliance is in use. The Complainant’s request was initially denied as unrelated to the product failure; however a decision was made to re-open the claim for further service. The Complainant is currently scheduled for an onsite service appointment with Unique Repair Services, on June 14, 2016. We will supplement our response as soon as we receive an update from SNW regarding the service.Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file. Thank you.Sincerely,[redacted]
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR ORIGINAL.On behalf of Service Net Solutions of Florida, LLC (“SNSF”) we are responding to the follow up regarding the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Repair Coverage Service Plan (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that his computer, as a complete unit, qualifies as a “part,” and thus should be replaced as a lemon under the No Lemon Guarantee. Our records indicate that between the dates of June 29, 2014 and June 30, 2015, the Complainant’s computer has been repaired on four separate occasions, with only two of the service repairs representing the same problem and involving the same part, with two separate claim numbers. The two additional issues were accidental damage claims. In order to qualify as a lemon, the computer would have to have had three service repairs with three separate claim numbers for the same issue and with the same part replaced each time, and a fourth separate claim reported (with a new claim number issued) that involved the same part as the other three service repairs. This does not include repairs done under the manufacturer’s warranty or reworks. Between the dates of July 24, 2015 and July 29, 2015, several calls were exchanged with the Complainant whereas the Complainant stated that his computer was a lemon and requested a replacement. On July 29, 2015, the Complainant was informed that it was determined that per the Terms and Conditions of the Plan, the computer does not qualify as a lemon. The Plan states: 12. NO LEMON GUARANTEE. During the term of this Contract, when three service repairs, with three separate claim numbers, have been completed on the same part, and that same part requires repair under a fourth claim number, as determined by Us, Your Product will be replaced with a Product with comparable specifications by Us, not to exceed the original retail purchase price. In the event a comparable replacement cannot be located, a buyout, not to exceed the cur-rent market value of a Product with comparable specifications, will be provided. This does not include repairs necessary during the manufacturer’s warranty period, rework/callback service required after initial service, during the warranty of work period provided by the Service Company, or previous service Contract terms. Once you have received Your Product replacement or buyout all contractual obligations under this Contract have been fulfilled. Technological advances may result in a replacement product with a lower selling price than the original Product. If We buyout the contract, the covered product becomes property of Service Net and We may, at Our discretion, require the product to be returned to Us (or our designee) at Our expense. The complainant contends that [redacted].com lists a part number for each product, and thus the computer should be considered a part. The Complainant notes that the computer has been repaired on four occasions, meeting the requirement of a lemon and should be replaced.In lieu of a model number, the manufacturer, MSI, references item codes on their specification site. Due to lack of additional fields on the [redacted].com website, the item code is referenced in the field known as part code. As the computer is referred to as a part code in lieu of model number, and the context of the Plan terms and conditions makes clear that covered repairs involve individual component parts of the computer, the unit itself is not considered a part under the terms of the Plan. On August 7, 2015, SNSF explained the Plan’s No Lemon Guarantee to the Complainant and advised that due to the aforementioned; the computer did not qualify as a lemon. Although the complainant claims/alleges [redacted] told him he was eligible for a replacement computer from SNSF, [redacted] has informed us that they have no record of this and that the complainant was told it was a valid denial. In any event, it is the terms and conditions of the Plan that determines coverage. If the computer is still in need of repair, please have the complainant contact us for repair service. 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]
The request was and is not for the entire balance of the purchase price of the broken television in question. The request made to the company was either for a reasonable buyout amount for what the current cost of the product would be or if they wised to offer a refurbished product then to either warranty that product more than merely 30 days as refurbished products can have serious problems / failure rates or to offer a reasonable buyout. All searches I have made for those models of televisions as being refurbished items for sale have resulted in 1-no products in stock and 2-the price for the product even as a refurbished item being much higher than the $900 offer bring made by your company. This product was roughly $1800 at the time of sale so a 50% price reduction on a refurbished unit is unacceptable.
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12418699, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[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 LG Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that a refund or replacement should be...
provided for her defective washer based on the Plan’s NO LEMON GUARANTEE. Our records reflect that on October 22, 2013, the Complainant initiated claim number [redacted] for her washer and indicated that the water was not draining properly out of the washer. The claim was referred to service provider [redacted] Service (“[redacted]”) and a service appointment was scheduled for October 24, 2013. SNW received the service invoice from [redacted] on November 7, 2013, which indicated pump tests were run. However, there was no service repair or part replacement documented on the invoice for this claim number. On February 15, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW and stated the water is not draining out of the washer. A new claim number [redacted] was initiated and assigned to [redacted]. On February 27, 2014, SNW received the service invoice from [redacted] stating pump tests were run. No service repair or part replacement was documented on the invoice for this claim number. Then on April 18, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW again stating the water was not draining out of the washer. Claim number [redacted] was assigned and sent to [redacted] as a rework order for claim number [redacted]. A claim is considered a rework order if the service provider is required to go back out to the customer’s residence within 90 days of the last service repair date regarding the same issue. Since claim number [redacted] was assigned as a rework order to [redacted] for a February 15, 2014, date of service it was not considered a separate claim. SNW received the service invoice from [redacted] for the rework service performed on June 26, 2014, indicating pump tests were run and the pump on the washer was replaced. On October 24, 2014, the Complainant contacted SNW, initiating claim number [redacted], stating the water was not draining out of the washer. The service order was assigned to [redacted]. During this call the Complainant requested that the washer be deemed a lemon. SNW informed the Complainant that the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. The Complainant called SNW on January 6, 2015, requesting for the washer to be deemed a lemon and advised that there was no current issue with the washer. SNW again informed to Complainant that the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. On May 14, 2015, SNW received a service invoice from [redacted] on claim number [redacted] indicating pump tests were run and the washer pump was replaced. On August 14, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW to indicate that her dryer, a separate unit from the washer, was not properly drying. A new claim number [redacted] was initiated and assigned to [redacted] for service. On August 19, 2015, the repair was completed and the necessary parts were replaced on the dryer. The Complainant contacted SNW on August 27, 2015, requesting for the washer to be deemed a lemon although there was no current issue with the washer. No claim was initiated on this call and the Complainant was informed the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. On September 18, 2015, the Complainant contacted SNW requesting for the washer to be deemed a lemon. Again, there was no current issue with the washer and no claim was initiated. The Complainant was informed the washer did not qualify as a lemon under the Plan. It is SNW’s position that the washer cannot be considered for the NO LEMON GUARANTEE since, according to Section 17 of the Plan, a product must undergo three separate service repairs for the same part each time, with three separate claim numbers, which requires a service repair or part replacement under a fourth claim number. In this case, as noted above, there were only three separate claims for the washer as one service request, claim number [redacted],was within [redacted]’s rework period for claim number [redacted]. Additionally, the washer parts were repaired and/or replaced on only two occasions, claim numbers [redacted] (rework order for [redacted]) and [redacted]. Furthermore, the dryer service request, claim number [redacted], is considered an entirely separate issue and does not count towards the number of service repairs or replacements for the washer. 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]
Please accept this response to the above referenced consumer complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] in relation to the repair/replacement of her Laptop/[redacted] submitted under a Service Contract administered by Service Net Solutions, LLC. ("Service Net") on behalf of AIU (AIG). ?????
As a matter of...
background Ms. [redacted] contacted Service Net to report an issue with her Laptop/[redacted] on May 10, 2014. A service provider, [redacted] Guru was assigned to evaluate and repair the unit. On June 5, 2014, Service Net issued a payment in the amount of $562.50 (under check number 120357) to [redacted] Guru for parts ordered for the repairs. On July 24, 2014, Ms. [redacted] contacted Service Net to advise that the repair had not been completed. Accordingly, Service Net contacted the service provider who responded that the repair was completed. There are notes on file indicating that between August 12, 2014 and November 19, 2014, Service Net made unsuccessful attempts to confirm with the service provider whether the repair was actually completed. As a result, Service Net offered Ms. [redacted] the option to hire a service provider for the repairs and submit the bill for reimbursement.
On December 3, 2014, Service Net requested the original service provider to return the unit to Ms. [redacted]. The unit was returned unrepaired. On December 8, 2014, Service Net offered a buyout in the amount of $1,299.99 to Ms. [redacted] to resolve the issue and she has accepted it. The amount represents the retail amount paid by Ms. [redacted] of the unit. We anticipate that Ms. [redacted] will receive a check in the same amount within the next 10 to 15 business days.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file. Thank you.
June 8, 2016Via Electronic MailRevdex.com, Inc.844 S. 4th StreetLouisville, KY 40203-2186RE: Complainant: [redacted]Service Provider: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. Claim No: [redacted] [redacted]...
[redacted]Dear Sir or Madam:Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the [redacted] (“Complainant”) on behalf of [redacted] related to a claim reported under a [redacted] Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”) administered by AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. (“AWG”). The Complainant requests a refund in the amount of $276.43, for the out of pocket cost associated with the repair of the washer coveredunder the Plan.Please note that, AWG resolved this issue on May 19, 2016. As a matter of background, the Complainant contacted AWG on April 25, 2016, to initiate a claim for the washer, reporting a leak from underneath the unit. A service provider, [redacted] Appliance & Sons Inc. was initially assigned to handle the service order. On this same date, at the request of the Complainant, the service order was reassigned to [redacted] Appliance. [redacted] Appliance declined the service order on April 26, 2016, because it no longer services the Complainant’s area. On this day, AWG contacted another service provider, [redacted] Certified Care (“[redacted]”) to complete a diagnostic test of the unit at the Complainant’s residence. The diagnostic testing of the unit was completed by [redacted] on April 26, 2016, and estimates for repair were submitted to AWG on May 3, 2016, in the amount of $969.47.Based on the estimates submitted by [redacted], AWG deemed the unit “Beyond Economical Repair” noting that the cost of the repair exceeded the retail value of the unit and determined not to proceed with the repair. The repair service was discontinued and the Plan was cancelled in accor[redacted]ce with the terms and conditions of the Plan section(s) 2 and 13. Section 13 of the Plan establishes the total liability due to the Complainant by AWG is a full refund of the Plans purchase price. On May 19, 2016, AWG refunded the full amount of the Plan’s purchase price in the amount of $342.35 to the Complainant via his credit card on record, to resolve the claim. The refund of the Plan exceeds the Complainant’s out-of-pocket expenses of $276.43 that was incurred for the repair of the unit upon receiving a second opinion from their chosen service provider.We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file and reference our file number above.Sincerely,[redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Our business group has informed me that they have not heard back from the customer, so they are working on a resolution of this complaint. Please allow us an additional time to properly address this issue. I will provide the status of the claim or a complete response by...
1/12/17. Thank you [redacted]
[redacted] ...⇄ [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to [redacted] and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[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] the whole point being is yes, the did replace the first pc. that is not in arguement at all. now, I was told by this company that the extended warranty did not take affect until the manufacturers warranty ran out. they said they would not even touch the computers until the manufacturers warranty ran out when I called in with a problem with my first computer. so I bought EXTENDED warranties. they were not to start til the day that my orignals ran out. TWO YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTIES. if that is is how they are advertised, and yes they were at the time I bought them, then I should have my second year. i didnt buy a side by side warranty as we all know that computer companies will not touch the pcs that are under warranty once someone else does. that breaks the warranty. lenovo has even told me that if you take your pc to have anything done to it and then send it to them, they can deny repairs as someone else could have caused damage. EXTENDED means PAST the original time. What this company is doing is fraudulent. When I called to have them look at a pc during the lenovo manufacturers warranty they said they wouldnt touch it til the original warranty was over. then that means my extended warranty should have started the day that the manufacturers warranty was up. instead, they are charging people for two year warranties. they say that it starts the day of purchase yet they wont touch the pc the first year. so they are saying you are paying for two years but they only honor one? thats fraudulent. its also fraudulent to say they are two year EXTENDED warranties when they in fact, only one year extended warranties. if I cannot have my pc fixed, which by all rights they should be responsible for doing as extended warranties are after the manufacturers warranties run out....I have gotten many warranties from many companies and they all say AFTER the original runs out for EXTENDED warranties. If they are not going to be held responsible for fixing something under a warranty I paid for, I would at the very least like my money back ans I would like something to be done where they cant advertise something as extended 2 year warranties when they are only 1 year. they are misleading the customers and they are pocketing money which they are not entitled to.
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 [redacted] Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant requests that he either receives a replacement unit or a...
buyout equal to 75% of the original purchase price.Our records reflect that on April 25, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim for his refrigerator unit due to the freezer not cooling properly and water leakage in the interior part of the unit. Due to the Complainant’s residence being located in a remote area of SNW’s service provider network, there was a brief delay in obtaining a service provider to accept the claim. On April 28, 2016, the claim was referred to[redacted] to diagnose the appliance and complete the repairs. On May 4, 2016, [redacted] advised SNW that the unit is repairable. Specifically, [redacted] indicated that it was a sealed system issue and the compressor needed replacement. However, [redacted] is not factory authorized to perform repairs on sealed systems as required by the manufacturer and therefore could not complete the repairs needed. SNW then began searching expeditiously for a factory authorized service provider who can order the necessary parts and complete the sealed system repairs. At this time, the conditions under the Plan for areplacement or buyout have not been met given that the product is repairable. On May 12, 2016, SNW was able to contact [redacted] Factory Services (“[redacted]”) who accepted the claim. [redacted] is factory authorized and will be able to complete the necessary repairs on the unit. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this delay in locating a servicer willing to accept assignment of this service call in the Complainant’s area and who is factory authorized to complete the particular diagnosed repairs.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]
Dear Sir or Madam:SNAdmin of Canada, Inc. (“SNAC”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Service Net Service Contract (“the Plan”). The Complainant contends that there has been a delay...
in processing her refund. Our records reflect that on November 2, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for her defective notebook computer under the Plan. Specifically, the computer would not boot correctly. The Complainant was advised to return the defective device to SNAC’s repair facility. The computer was received on December 21, 2015.Upon inspection, it was determined that the Complainant’s computer was beyond repair. Given the time elapsed from the initiation of the claim, a decision was made that reimbursement of the product’s value was the appropriate solution. On December 30, 2015, a reimbursement check in the amount of $319.99 (check no. [redacted]) was sent to the Complainant at her mailing address on record. On May 31, 2016, SNAC was contacted by a friend of the Complainant who advised that the reimbursement check was never received. This was the first notice that SNAC received regarding this issue. SNAC then attempted to verify theComplainant’s mailing address on record at which time it was discovered that it was incorrect. The address was then corrected. A check trace/stop payment on the original check was required before a new payment could be issued. Stop payment of check no. [redacted] was confirmed as of June 6, 2016. A new reimbursement payment was then processed and mailed to the Complainant on June 10, 2016, in the amount of $319.99 (check no. [redacted]). It has been confirmed that this check was cashed on June 24, 2016. We apologize for any inconvenience to the Complainant in the handling of this matter. 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 find that this resolution would be satis[redacted] to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]Dear Sir or Madam:[redacted] has completed a review of the above-captioned follow-up complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his [redacted] The Complainant requests a correction of the effective and expiration dates on the Plan and disputes the purchase price shown on the Schedule Page.As stated in [redacted] response dated October 17, 2016, the Complainant purchased a five (5) year Date of Purchase ("DOP”) service plan with effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, 2017. While a DOP service plan may be similar to an extended warranty, there are several differences between these two types of plans. One difference, in this particular case, is that the Plan for the Complainant is a DOP service plan extending coverage that runs concurrent with the Manufacturer's warranty; whereas, an extended warranty becomes effective after the Manufacturer's warranty expires.Again, please refer to the Schedule Page of the Complainant's Plan which states: "THIS SERVICE PLAN IS INCLUSIVE OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY. IT DOES NOT REPLACE THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY, BUT PROVIDES CERTAIN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS DURING THE TERM OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY...'Based on the information above, the effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, 2017, on the Complainant's Plan are accurate as stated on the Schedule Page. No changes to these dates are warranted as demanded by the Complainant.With regard to the Plan's purchase price, [redacted] contacted Whirlpool and was told that the Complainant received a $75.00 discount on the purchase of his washer and the Plan, consistent with the discount shown on the Complainant's receipt. Whirlpool's system automatically apportioned the discount between the washer and the Plan, resulting in a final purchase price for the Plan of $289.30. For that reason, the purchase price amount shown on the Plan's Schedule Page is correct. I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry. Should you have anyquestions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted]Sincerely,[redacted]
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
I did not receive a letter from SERVICE NET SOLUTIONS,LLC.to accept the offer of a BUY OUT. I called them and I was told verbally about this offer. I accepted the offer but I had to call them a second time about it. The inconvenience of the service should have been more than a $ 824.25 BUY OUT.