Sign in

Spice Restaurant

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Spice Restaurant? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Spice Restaurant

Spice Restaurant Reviews (230)

The homeowner needs to be aware that Residential Warranty Services, Inc(“RWS”) is NOT their home inspection company – we are a third party warranty providerThis is vital because the homeowner mistakenly stated “I had home inspection done by their company”Secondly, RWS has been actively working with the homeowner on this claim – his initial invoice, $for a new system, was extremely unusual based on the circumstances surrounding this claimAs a result, RWS initially approved the obviously failed part, the compressor, and has been actively working with the homeowner to dispatch another contractor for a second opinion with regards to the other items listed, in order to move this claim forwardIt should be noted that RWS also offered to cover hotel expenses pursuant to the policy, for any delay this second opinion causes, all of which was communicated to the homeowner last week.The new contractor conducted the second opinion today and, once RWS receives the 2nd opinion, we will be able to process the claim and determine the correct course of action I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear RWS claims I put a claim in for a clogged drain and that is falseWhen it was determined that the they needed further information for the claim they did contact the plumber and asked and explained the information they needed to proceed with the claim the plumber then sent the information needed to RWS in full detail and the issues that were going onI had two separate issues going on with a hole in the kitchen drain and roots going through a sewage line, both causing clogged linesIn reference to the phone calls there was no abuse on the line and if recorded maybe someone should listen to the phone calls to verify the callsIt was not until I posted my experience on Facebook and had many repaonses from people, that the owner of the inspection company called me back after two months and the new director of RWS decided to call me backI tried to contact the two people handling my claim for a month and a half and was given an excuse for a month and a half prior to thatTerrible customer service and now they try to put it on the customer Regards, [redacted]

The homeowner, in their answer, appears to be insinuating that RWS independently chose a buyout number that coincidentally happened to match up, over a week later, with the exact pricing the homeowner’s own contractor would charge to remediate the problem areasWhile RWS is flattered by the compliment, we do not have such capabilitiesInstead, as stated in our last response, we reached out to the contractor over a week ago, was told the actual cost of remediation, which was approved and conveyed to the homeownerThe call to the contractor a few days ago was simply to confirm and verify no changes had been made, in order to ensure the homeowner was taken care ofFurthermore, the homeowner’s termite protection plan clearly covers “chemical treatment, as deemed necessary by RWS to properly control the applicable termites and carpenter ants.” As a result, the $1,bid to treat the homeowner’s entire house is not the “necessary amount” as the homeowner alleges in their previous responseInstead, the contractor has stated, and verified, that remediation of the affected areas would cost $RWS approved that amount immediately and expedited the homeowner’s buyout check, which was mailed earlier this weekThe homeowner should bear in mind that all of this transpired due to RWS’s want to ensure they were taken care of and due to their own home inspector looking after themThe estimate submitted, as stated previously, was incomplete and precluded coverage of this claimThe home inspector, and then RWS, independently took it upon themselves to reach out to the necessary parties, with no obligation to do so, to ensure the homeowners were taken care ofBeyond that, due to the time that had lapsed due to the incomplete estimate, RWS, despite having no fault for the delay, then expedited the homeowner’s buyout check instead of following standard company procedures which allow up to days for final processing and issuance and was able to process and mail a check within a weekAll of this was done with NO obligation to do so, but out of a want to garner complete customer satisfaction and ensure the homeowner was taken care ofAs stated earlier, if the homeowner wants their claim re-opened, with no guarantee an audit will result in a higher buyout amount, they can void and return the buyout check, submit an estimate for chemical treatment of the infected areas only, and RWS would be happy to review

This homeowner submitted her all of her claims in June and was notified of every denial and approval as soon as it was available based on the timeliness of the information she provided usRWS has ample documentation of her receipt of these notifications as she was in communication with our claims representatives consistently through these processes – for her to claim otherwise is concerning but, in order to ensure complete customer satisfaction, here is a breakdown of the homeowner's claims: AC – ApprovedApproval for $was sent to the homeowner on September and a check will be issued within days Stove – DeniedThe claim was denied, and homeowner sent notice of the same, on July While RWS attempted to re-open the claim after receiving this complaint, simply to re-process the claim to ensure complete customer satisfaction, due to the AC approval below this homeowner has reached the maximum mechanical coverage under the policy and so this claim is unable to be re-opened as it would be denied regardlessAll mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $ Electrical – DeniedDenial was mailed September due to the homeowner already reaching the mechanical aggregate limit on the 90-day policyAll mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $ Termite – The Day policy itself offers no termite coverage and the Inspector elected not to provide our special Termite Protection Plan add-onAs a result, the homeowner has no termite coverage, resulting in an immediate denial of their termite claimThis service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all othersIf the homeowner has any further questions, they may reach out directly to the Company Director, Lane C***, and he will look into any further concerns they may have I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below When MrRooter came to look at the water heater, I was told directly over the phone by a lady in your claim department that RWS would pay $for the replacement of the water heater and labor I also spoke recently with the lady at Eaton Plumbing who said that she had verbal approval from Josh from RWS to replace the tank She was told that RWS would pay $of the replacement cost The policy book says that water heaters are not covered for rust damage in the first days It does not state that they are not covered for any reason during the first days It also says that your claims department is trained to know when a claim is covered or not, so if it wasn't covered at all I would have been told that when I first called I was told on three different occasions that RWS was covering the repair I still don't know what you are talking about saying that the water heater was "modified" None of the contractors that came out to look at it said that to us Regards, [redacted] I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below While the first issue is resolved, the second issue is still awaiting resolution I did get a call from the company and they were asking about mother boards and I did not understand their question and even the representative who called me did not understand After I saw this response through the I understood that the folks handling the claim had simply skipped over the titles and read the details I called back and clarified to the representative that the first section was for "Service" cost and the second "Parts" section was for the cost of the parts There were not two boards, but one cost for installation and the other cost for the part itself It is too bad you did not reach your own technician as according to what he told me the total cost would have been similar to him and he, as well as my company, advised taking the money for the repair and putting it to a new washer which would not have problems That is what I told your representative originally and she said to get my company to give the estimate (which I sent) and provide it to you which I didFurther, to let others know about this company I have had to call many, many times and sometimes had to leave a message rather than talk to anyone, but usually after waiting a long time I was able to speak someone That person almost always promised to call me back with a resolution -- and only one time out of all of the times did anyone actually call me back according to what was promised (which was to instruct me to submit the doc which I promptly submitted) The company speaks of taking unusual steps -- well, that was actually calling me once I did not put them on hold I would like to receive the cost of the repair as promised to me on the phone, but I have no idea what they are doing I will leave this complaint open until I receive the correct amount for the repair (and don't take the deductible this time from what I paid your representative who did not fix the issue! -- if you want that money back, then you should get it from your technician)thank you,*** Regards, [redacted]

Thank you for your commentsThe claim was submitted 8-02-but proper documentation was not received from the homeowner until 8-10-The claim was partially approved that same day, with the homeowner receiving notice of the same, and a folltelephone call was made 8-16-Therefore, while we here at RWS commiserate with the homeowner regarding the broken HVAC, this claim was approved the same day proper documentation was receivedThe breakdown for your approval was as follows: the compressor would not be covered under your policy for parts, due to it being covered by the manufacturer’s warranty (“any and all warranties shall be exhausted first”)Therefore, re: the compressor, only the labor to install was coveredYour policy also covered your Freon cost and the labor to installThe remaining work, while perhaps necessary for ‘environmental protection reasons’, as stated in the initial complaint, was not noted in the diagnosis as having had failed, and therefore were outside the scope of the warranty, along with the associated labor chargesIf any of this information is inaccurate, please submit documentation from the contractor indicating what and how, and we would be happy to reopen your claim and re-evaluateHowever, please note that we did find a discrepancy in your invoice, which you may want to discuss with the Contractor as many items the contractor placed under the ‘materials’ cost are actually labor – for example, using a soldering torch, recovering Freon, and setting up a vacuum pumpUnless you purchased these parts, their use would have already been covered in the labor charges, not separated in the ‘materials’ charges

The homeowner has offered no reason (left blank) as to why she declines our responseAs a result, we have nothing to add except to refer to our last response

Firstly, please be aware that it is not RWS standard practice to include tracking numbers with our claims payoutWe mail hundreds of checks weekly and, due to the costs of tracking, RWS always leaves it up to the homeowner to determine if they’d like their payment tracked, which would result in the tracking cost being deducted from their approved amountOtherwise, we mail the checks and, if notified they have not been received, we do all we can to get the homeowner’s money to them as quickly as possible, at no cost to the homeowner.The check for this claim was mailed in March but, because the homeowner has not received it and we have no indication it has been cashed, RWS has re-issued the check and re-mailed itWhen you receive the check, please call us and let us know the check number so that we can cancel the not-yet-received checkAlso, please be aware that you will be receiving a total of $ I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Everytime I have contacted RWS, they have put me on hold and told me that my claim is “in process” and not been able to provide any additional information as requestedThe first claim was for $for the a/c repairYour company agreed to pay $of that repairWhen the heat exchange was also found to not be working properly, an additional claim was sent inNow your employees are telling me that the total amount the company is willing to pay out is $to repair the a/c and heatI have spoken with the contractor your company sent out several times and they stated that the repair is much more costly than thatI do not understand how the company agreed to pay $for just the a/c repair, but only $for the a/c and heat to be repaired Regards, [redacted] ***

While we do sympathize with this homeowner’s experience, we would like to refer them to their Day policy, which states “this service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all others”As the homeowner indicated (as did the contractor) that a faulty spring caused the damage, the issue is mechanical and, unfortunately, garage doors are not covered under this policy’s mechanical coverageWhile attached garage doors are covered under structural coverage, the homeowner indicated that the spring snapped, causing the issue and, despite her assertion that her garage doors were replaced per her complaint, the invoice she submitted to us, from her contractor, mentions nothing as to the garage doors and only mentions the failure of the spring and associated partsFinally, the policy clearly states that “the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place”As the homeowner informed us that she has a current, multi-year home warranty in place with another company, she will need to file a claim under her multi-year warranty before filing it through usAs a result of all of the above issues, this claim was and remains denied I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.As expected, RWS Warranty is once again being untruthful First to claim the warranty is "free" and "provided as a service" is absolutely ridiculous The cost of the warranty is paid by the inspection company and passed on to the home owner Also, prior to filing out my complaint I called RWS and specifically asked if mold was identified in some areas of the house, would that negate the mold warranty through out the rest of house, I was told it would not Yet another untruth from RWS This company is a sham and their warranty is absolutely useless, but don't take my word for it, look on-line and read their reviews This company as designed to extract even more money from home buyers while providing no discernible value at all Do yourself a favor, look somewhere else for warranty coverage Regards, [redacted] *** I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I would like to request to resolve this matter: I will accept the $479, and I will let the and the reporter know that we have settled this matter to my satisfactionHowever, I will not provide you any five star reviews as you requested because that would be an outright lieI will take the $offer and consider the case settledBelow is the email correspondences between myself and MrT [redacted] for the record:Regards, [redacted] *** I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this response/resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted] I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]FIRST OF ALL the satellite contractor DID NOT REMOVE any shingles or brackets to fix the problem, when he happened to be on the roof he noticed that we had roof damage, NO work or anything was touched on the roofI immediately called the inspector(Satellite contractor was still at home) he told me to contact RWS because we had a home warrantyWithin a day we had licensed and insured roofing companies that came out to inspect the roof, there was more damage to the roofThat had NOTHING to even do with a satellite ( wasn't even near the area of the satellites)They all said it should have been caught by the inspection because it WAS NOTHING HIDDEN.they all seen the issues from standing on the groundI only needed estimate and I sent your company I have spoken with Maddie, Kate, and NathanYou do have all estimates with what the contractors have found and all are almost identically with issues that the roof hasAfter we received the amount we were approved for we did call and ask why so low and kept getting the run aroundThey told me that they put the amount in system and that kicks out a number to what should be paidSo what is the point of estimates if you are not even going pay for the repairs!!!!RWS is well aware of all the damages, and has the estimates Yes we want it to be reevaluated and feel that we should be approve for at least the lowest estimates, because none of those companies will fix the problem for the ridiculous amount that your company is saying it should cost to fix the repairsALL the estimates came back within a couple hundred dollars of each other, and none of the them were near $to fix roofing issues.Estimates were from $1000.00-$if you need to look back at those Maddie in the day department has them, I also have complete copies of all emails, and estimates that was sent to RWS Regards, [redacted]

The homeowner states in his complaint that the home inspector noted the deficiencies with the metal flashing but repair work on the same was completed prior to the home’s purchaseThose deficiencies have re-occurred and the homeowner seeks coverageHowever, the homeowner’s 90-day policy states “this contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others, regardless of their condition at the time of inspection or whether they were repaired” Therefore, because the homeowner’s roof issue was noted in his inspection report, it does not matter that it was later fixed; it is not coveredFurthermore, the inspection report received by RWS includes the deficiencies and states that the roller asphalt roof coverings are “near the end of their useful life” and that “buckling and wrinkling observed in numerous areas” along with “lifting laps observed in numerous areas” Additionally, “flashing is missing/damaged and can allow water to enter the roof structureRecommend repair/replace”As a side note, the homeowner, in his complaint admitted that the deficiencies were in his inspection report but later claimed that his inspection report states these deficiencies were excluded and the issue was noted to be in “good working condition”RWS is concerned that you are insinuating you have two separate home inspection reports, from the same company, with one that includes deficiencies and another that excludes them completelyRegardless, due to the inclusion in the inspection report, this claim was deniedFurthermore, the 90-day email is listed at the bottom of the policy and is the quickest way to reach a customer service representativeWhile our representatives may use their individual accounts to contact a customer who is unavailable or hard to reach via telephone, it is only utilized for information requests to continue processing claims for the convenience of our customers and out of consideration for their schedulesHowever, by only contacting a single representative and not calling in to RWS or emailing the 90-day email address included on every policy, a customer can run the risk of a particular representative being unavailable and the company being unaware of the missed communicationsWhile we do apologize for this inconvenience, the email address to contact regarding claims is listed on the policy itself and this claim was properly denied due to the roof issues listed specifically in the inspection report

Thank you for your July letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc("RWS")I've reviewed the letter and it appears the policyholder violated the terms of his warranty, which negates this claim's coverage under the warranty and, as a result of this violation, detailed below, the claim continues to be denied The homeowner called RWS June to ask about reimbursement for his air conditioning claim as detailed in the complaintUnfortunately, the homeowner broke RWS protocol, which he should have been abundantly aware of as he's had a policy with RWS for over seven (7) years, which negated this particular claimSpecifically, the policy clearly states, in bolded, capitalized font, "DO NOT CALL A CONTRACTOR BEFORE YOU CALL RWS"It goes on to state, "RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the policyholder without prior authorizationPolicyholder's contractors contacted prior to making a claim with RWS and without prior authorization will not be considered for servicing any claim, nor will any bill be reimbursed." In the case at hand, the homeowner contacted a contractor, had the unit REPLACED, and then called RWS after the fact, in direct violation of the policy, for reimbursementThe claim was denied and, on July 2015, when the claims representative tried to again explain the policy denial to the homeowner, which the homeowner should have been familiar with due to his years of contracting with RWS, he began yelling at her and not allowing her to speak RWS would like to note here that customer service is one of their highest priorities and any complaint is taken very seriouslyHowever, unfortunately there are customers who feel the right, or the need, to verbally abuse the representatives or receptionists who answer the phones, who are only trying to fix the situationIn these cases, our representatives are informed to bring over a manager or director to witness the abuseIf the manager/director agrees that the abuse has reached a level that the representative is simply being held on the line by the policyholder to be continually abused, with the policyholder refusing to allow the claims representative to explain or gather information to possibly remedy the perceived problem, our representatives are allowed to politely warn of the pending disconnection and, if the abuse continues, to disconnect the callWe do this to protect our representatives who have no other remedy by which to protect themselves from the abuse some policyholders feel they are entitled to dole upon them In the case at hand, the claims representative followed protocol completely and, in full view and with the support of her director, informed the homeowner that, should he continue to yell and abuse her verbally, she would be forced to disconnect the callHe continued the abuse and the phone call was subsequently ended Notwithstanding the abuse and disconnected telephone call, RWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditionsThe policyholder blatantly violated the terms of the warranty and, per the terms of the warranty, RWS is not responsible for paying for a repair for which no prior authorization was givenThe claim will continue to be denied Sincerely, Alix L [redacted] Esq Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc [redacted] (317) 573- [redacted] (tel.) (317) [redacted] (fax) [redacted] .com I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted] / [redacted]

The homeowner’s primary complaint is that he is being cheated because, after his claim was approved, he was re-informed of the $deductibleIf he would, respectfully, read the third paragraph of the one-page Termite Protection Plan he is filing his claim under, it clearly states that “RWS will pay the cost of having the infestation treated less a $deductible”Therefore, the homeowner’s claim was approved, in full and, with the deductible subtracted, they are receiving the full amount requestedThe check was mailed earlier this week in complete accordance with company policiesFurthermore, the homeowner may have called in the claim on March but he did not provide RWS with the information required to further process the claim, despite repeated requests, until April It was approved less than a week later, with the homeowner notified of the same, and a check was mailed within a weekMr [redacted] ’s claim was expedited by our claims staff out of consideration for him, even though the delays were entirely because of his inaction, not RWS’sThe homeowner has taken it upon himself to not only throw accusations at RWS, but to threaten our good name as well as threaten a lawsuit (for the cost of his entire house, no less!) simply because he failed to read his policy and failed to provide us the information required to process a claimRWS went above and beyond our obligations with regards to Mr [redacted] s and his legal threats are completely inappropriate in light of how well his claim was handled I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below To start with RWS never indicated to me that the first estimate I provided to them was not sufficient as policy does state that if it was necessary they may request a second estimateThey never did and when they finally did give me an initial offer of 300, then and I questioned and said it was ubsurd their company DID try to tell me it was do to capsI did provide another clear estimate to the company that had proper breakdowns of labor/parts THE NEXT DAY after I was made aware that the offer being given was based on insufficient prior estimateI was NEVER asked to provide an additional estimate although I had received estimates when the original problem occurred 9/27/but was told first that there was a labor cap on my policy I argued with this company on the amount that was to be paid out for the last months on a month warrantySo saying that they will re-evaluate if I resubmit within the time frame of my warranty when they know very well they still had not approved ANY amount on my claim until almost months AFTER my line failure and over days after my day policy the bottom line for why I am filing this complaint is bc the company failed to provide what the contract clearly states it coversFirst tried to offer 300, 600, but then would not budge and kept telling me lies as to why they would not cover the restAlso my contractor DID tell me they had been in contact with him so again this company is flat out lying not only to me but to the Revdex.comBusiness practices here are disgusting! And they are scamming, lying, and ripping off A LOT of innocent people! Something NEEDS TO BE DONE! I CAN provide email documentation to back up every word of what I saidBottom linethis resolution is INADEQUATE due to the fact that my policy expired Long previous to even making contact with the director who made it clear they would NOT be honoring the contract To cover the amounts I paid out in labor and parts Regards, [redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Spice Restaurant

Satisfaction rating
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by adding a photo

Spice Restaurant Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 5494 Salt Lane, Langley, British Columbia, Canada, V3A 5C7


Show more...


This website was reported to be associated with Spice Restaurant.

Add contact information for Spice Restaurant

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated