Spice Restaurant

Ms. [redacted] states that she “never made any statements to RSW [sic] about having another company look at the problem” yet we spoke to her on 11 May 2016 wherein she stated that another company came out and ran a camera through the pipes, a service [redacted] does not offer at this time. Based on [redacted]’s notes, this third company was [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] then told both us and [redacted], separately, that [redacted] believed the issue to be a city issue due to the video findings, and urged her to contact the city to investigate. As a result, RWS was waiting to hear from the homeowner as to whether the city needed to fix the issue. We heard nothing from the homeowner until this Revdex.com complaint was filed. As this was indicated, by the homeowner and a contractor, to be a city issue, RWS cannot move forward with the repair until the city has investigated. Ms. [redacted] was informed of this on 17 June 2016, prior to her most recent response wherein she stated she was going to gather more information to supplement her report to the city. Despite this notification, she still filed a Revdex.com response a few days later claiming otherwise. At this point, the homeowner has still not informed us of the city’s investigation, nor provided any documentation of the same but, as soon as we are provided their findings, we will most certainly move forward with Ms. [redacted]’s claim to get her taken care of.

Revdex.com:
I 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]

If the homeowner would read through RWS's prior responses, his most recent submission consisting of only a one sentence allegation, is without merit and has been addressed in whole.

Thank you for your review – it appears there were some serious miscommunications with regards to your claim and for that RWS sincerely apologizes. With regards to your complaints:1.       The reason for denial has remained the same throughout your claim – while the...

estimate you submitted does state ‘visible mold’ it is meant in reference to ‘plenum box, coil, blower, and ducts’. Most of those components listed are NOT visible to a home inspector or layman as they are internal parts. The mold was “visible” to the contractor but he had to have removed some item in order for them to be visible, which he confirmed when our claims representatives spoke with him after receiving the initial invoice. Obviously, this means that it was NOT visible to the home inspector. However, as you have been told, based on the information you later submitted, the claim was reviewed and is going through the approval process as we speak.2.       Your being put on hold for 40 minutes is unacceptable and will not be tolerated and we sincerely apologize. We are currently looking into the matter to determine who put you on hold after the department had closed for the evening and they will be dealt with accordingly, especially as Victor (referenced in your complaint) was not made aware of your desire to speak with him, which is why you did not receive a callback the next day. Thanks to your critique, measures have been put in place to ensure this never happens again. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

The homeowner forwarded the estimate to RWS on Monday, 24 October 2016. Within three days of receiving the invoice, on Thursday, 27 October 2016, the homeowner’s claim was approved and he was forwarded notice of the same. While the homeowner is correct that there were some internet issues that...

affected our customer service (the nationwide [redacted] outage temporarily affected our warranty department), his claim was processed within 72 hours, which is even quicker than our already quick claim processing turn-around. Furthermore, it is RWS’s standard business practice to process and mail the buyout checks within 30 business days – we sincerely regret that the homeowner is unhappy about this, but as it’s standard procedure, there is nothing that can be done. We here at RWS strive for the highest levels of customer satisfaction and are disappointed that this homeowner is so frustrated by a 72-hour total claim turnaround that he would feel it appropriate to disparage our company to others.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] The entire amount WAS not covered, and the "second damage" was not outside the 90 day window. I have the conversation recorded and I have all emails concerning this issue. I emailed several times asking about authorization concerning.  The initial cost was 1200.00  . I am being reimbursed 1155.00.  That is not the entire amount as stated.  The Home warranty claims that is secondary damage. It is not secondary. The roof leaking caused the damage..  if you would like, please contact me and I will send you the recorded conversation as we disagreed. I had to settle for 1155.00. The home warranty said he used HIS calculations to determine the cost..  ( maybe he needs a new calculator) 
Regards,
[redacted]

Because purchasing a home can be daunting, RWS offers a free mold protection warranty  to guarantee home inspector findings and give homeowners additional protection as circumstances sometimes can change between the home inspection and the move-in date. The warranty works as...

follows: if an inspection report states there are no mold or moisture issues in the home, and the homeowner moves in and finds visible mold that should have been seen, the warranty would cover its removal and remediation. What the warranty does NOT cover is a homeowner who receives a report that clearly states multiple mold/moisture issues throughout the home, purchases the home regardless, and then tries submit a mold claim under the warranty. The homeowner, in his complaint, states that “a small area of mold was identified elsewhere” and “trace amounts of mold were identified” as his reasoning as to why RWS should pay for his claim yet his inspection report tells another story: The home inspector listed that a “possible organic substance [i.e. mold] noted” [emp. added] in several locations, further stating his recommendation to “test and remove”. These locations include the (1) garage (visible in multiple areas) and (2) basement / crawlspace (also sighted in multiple areas). The warranty clearly states “… the following conditions are covered: (1) New visible mold – During the course of your home inspection and in your home inspection report, if there were no visible mold or moisture issues reported, this agreement covers the remediation (removal) of visible mold on surfaces permanently installed in the subject property” [emp. added]. As a result, because the home inspector had already indicated that potential mold growths were visible in multiple areas of the home during the home inspection, this claim is immediately ineligible for coverage. Furthermore, the homeowner is attempting to claim coverage for 'significant mold found in garage', even when his inspection report specifically mentions multiple instances of visible mold found in the garage.Therefore, Mr. [redacted] was clearly aware that his home had significant , multiple mold and moisture issues prior to purchasing it, yet he bought the home regardless. While this is certainly his choice, he cannot then turn around and claim that RWS ‘would not provide any mold warranty at all’, when his  claim is clearly denied due to numerous reasons, some of which are listed above. Tell us why here...

I was just informed that our Director recently contacted you to schedule a second opinion for your dishwasher repair, which you mentioned in this response, yet you refused him and told him you still wanted the buyout but you wanted more than you were eligible for under the warranty. Please note that the deductibles aren’t per unit, the deductible is per failed part. Therefore, if you have two parts fail in one unit, you owe two deductibles. Due to your dissatisfaction, even though RWS has no obligation to do so, the Director has waived one of your deductibles. Therefore, you will receive a buyout of $375 provided you remove this complaint as RWS has been actively working with you to resolve this issue, beyond our obligation to do so, and you have responded by saying one thing to our Director and the exact opposite here. Therefore, if you do not choose the buyout, you can agree to the second opinion, which you turned down not even an hour ago, and we can continue with the repair. Please reach out to the Director of Operations to continue processing your claim. At this point, both the buyout option and the repair option have been temporarily suspended until you let us know exactly which option you want.

The homeowner has indicated that “the warranty trying [sic] to collect money from me while no work was done on my AC Unit”, which is concerning to RWS due to our having possession of an invoice and multiple communication records between RWS, the homeowner, and the contractor that would...

indicate otherwise. However, for the homeowner's benefit, below is a breakdown of all the items relevant to this claim, at this point. Please review and reach out if you have any additional questions: Overtime Fees. The homeowner submitted their claim on a Friday and, despite its non-emergency status, insisted on a contractor being dispatched immediately over the weekend. While RWS does not charge over-time fees, our policy clearly states that a contractor may, for non-emergency claims. The homeowner was advised of this by both RWS and the contractor yet insisted on the immediate service and so agreed to the overtime charges, the cost of which ($295.00) is due to the contractor immediately. Service Call Fees. The homeowner wanted two HVAC units serviced, which resulted in two service call fees as the policy clearly states that the service call fee applies to each mechanical breakdown, for each distinct malfunction and so multiple service call fees may apply to one claim. However, later, the homeowner refused to pay the $300.00 due, which is grounds for immediate cancellation of his warranty, without possibility of refund, which will be addressed further below. That cost is due to the contractor immediately. Repair over Replacement. The contractor informed the homeowner that one of the units needed to be replaced due to its age, as it would be more expensive to temporarily repair the item over replacing them. He quoted a replacement to the homeowner but the homeowner insisted on immediate service and so insisted on the repair. The contractor explained the risks and expenses of repairing over replacement, and contacted RWS for authorization. An RWS representative spoke with the homeowner, who insisted he knew the risks and that he still wanted the repair. The contractor was given authorization per the homeowner’s demands and so replaced the capacitor in the older unit and ensured it was working when he left. Freon Fees. The contractor also re-filled the Freon in both units, which resulted in a total of 10lbs of R-22 refrigerant being added, even though the homeowner’s policy clearly states that the homeowner is responsible for the differences in costs for any refrigerant required other than R-410A. The contractor was informed of this over the phone prior to the repair, yet opted for the repair regardless. The $400.00 cost is due to the contractor immediately. Leak Checks. In addition, the homeowner should be aware that leak checks are not covered under his policy, even though he had the contractor conduct two leak checks – one on each unit. However, in a good faith gesture the contractor did not charge anything for the two hours spent on the leak check, or the labor for the leak check itself. Despite this, the homeowner still refused to pay the contractor for any of the charges the homeowner knew were due. RWS would advise the homeowner to re-read his policy carefully to ensure he is aware of the full extent of his coverage. If he has any questions, he is more than welcome to contact RWS and our trained customer service representatives will be able to explain all covered items to ensure there is no confusion. With regards to this situation, with the repair authorized repeatedly by the homeowner, against the advice of both RWS and the contractor, the homeowner is liable to the Contractor for a total of $995.00. The remainder costs will be covered by RWS pursuant to the homeowner’s policy. If the homeowner continues to refuse to pay this amount to the contractor for services already rendered, not only will the contractor have legal remedies against the homeowner, but RWS will be forced to cancel the homeowner’s policy, without refund for failure to pay the applicable fees, pursuant to the cancellation provision of the policy. At this point in time, the homeowner must send a check to the contractor in full payment of the owed amount, and forward proof of the same to RWS by 30 September 2016. Failure to do so will result in an immediate cancellation of the homeowner’s policy and any other remedy RWS, or the contractor if they feel so inclined, feels obligated to pursue against the homeowner.

We here at RWS are sorry the homeowner feels owed more money
but, pursuant to her policy, RWS has fulfilled all obligations and even, despite the homeowner's obvious feelings to the contrary, going above and beyond in order to cover as much of her claim as was possible.With regards to the homeowner’s response, please review RWS’s previous responses, as all points mentioned herein have been discussed previously.

Revdex.com:
Check was received and deposited yesterday. Upon arrival it is apparent that RWS is concerned about saving money as the envelope had been repurposed  (having a previous address to Ohio marked out). While RWS policy may assert that tracking numbers are not regularly supplied with checks mailings, I would think it would be good practice to do this, particularly in matters such as these (or when a customer was told that this would occur). While I cringe to say that this resolution is "acceptable", I am moving on from this matter as I have wasted far too much time on this over the past 2.5 months. Thank you to Revdex.com for their assistance as this otherwise would not have been documented or resolved in a somewhat timely fashion.
Regards,
Dr. [redacted].

Thank you for your comments. The claim was submitted 8-02-2017 but proper documentation was not received from the homeowner until 8-10-2017. The claim was partially approved that same day, with the homeowner receiving notice of the same, and a follow-up telephone call was made 8-16-2017. Therefore,...

while we here at RWS commiserate with the homeowner regarding the broken HVAC, this claim was approved the same day proper documentation was received. The 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 covered. Your policy also covered your Freon cost and the labor to install. The 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 charges. If 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-evaluate. However, 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 pump. Unless you purchased these parts, their use would have already been covered in the labor charges, not separated in the ‘materials’ charges.

Thank you for your 30 June 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). I've reviewed the Customer's complaint and have determined that RWS handled the Customer's claim appropriately and well within the terms and conditions of the Customer's 90 Day Limited Structural and Mechanical...

Buyer's Home Warranty (the "Warranty). However, the Customer's response to the Revdex.com and my subsequent review of the issues have raised additional concerns. The Customer, per the Warranty's procedures, sent us a copy of her home inspection report which, when received, gave no indications that any appliances (including dishwasher and microwave) were in need of repair or replacement or recalled. As a result, this portion of the claim was approved for close to one hundred ($100) dollars. However, while reviewing this claim, the Customer, by her own Revdex.com submission and in recent emails to us, admits that the dishwasher was NOT in good working condition at the time of inspection and that its deficiencies were noted on the inspection report, which caught my attention as the copy she provided us did not contain this information. She stated, "The inspector made notes on his inspection that the element of the dishwasher was recalled, and the sellers' of the home did have the element replaced...". These admissions are extremely important because the Warranty only covers "those items that were confirmed [emp. added] to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others, regardless of their condition at the time of inspection or if they were repaired [emp. added]." The Customer's own admissions put her entire dishwasher claim outside the scope of the Warranty. In addition, because the copy of the Inspection report we received gave no such indication, it appears that RWS was deceived into approving a claim that should not have been approved. RWS is currently looking into the situation to determine if further steps need to be taken. Secondly, the Customer's invoice shows that the microwave door frame and liner are cracked, which are cosmetic issues, and therefore explicitly excluded from coverage under the Warranty. Furthermore, by the Customer's own statement, "a piece of the door was broken off in the bottom hole where the door hook goes in...". Under the terms of the Warranty, microwaves are covered for mechanical failures only and a cracked door frame (or broken latch) do not qualify as mechanical issues and this portion must continue to be denied. RWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed Warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper protocols were followed at all times and so RWS remains unable to grant approval for this particular claim. However, even though it's unclear how we received an edited version of the Customer's inspection report, we do consider customer satisfaction one of our highest priorities and so will continue to offer the customer the ninety-five ($95.00) dollars to settle the above claims in full. lf the Customer is not interested in this offer, please be aware that we will have to freeze any pending approvals until we receive a complete inspection report from the inspection company and, at that time, RWS will be more than happy to review all of the above claims. Sincerely, Alix *. [redacted] Esq. Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane. Carmel, TN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax)               [redacted]_com

RWS has no record of the homeowner calling in about a failed unit or about setting up a claim for a failed unit, which is unusual due to the ample records of the homeowner calling in regarding her A/C tune-up claim and the associated buyout. If the homeowner would provide proof she contacted RWS and filed a claim for her failed unit, we would be happy to re-evaluate. Otherwise, as the homeowner had no issue filing a claim previously, as there exist no records of a second claim being filed, and as the homeowner was aware of warranty procedures yet expressly failed to follow them with regards to her A/C replacement (which immediately precludes coverage completely), there is nothing more RWS can do with regards to her failed A/C unit.With regards to the accusations regarding her claim buyout check, RWS has multiple records of conversations with the homeowner regarding her buyout, which the homeowner has mistakenly misreported in her Revdex.com response by stating “no one at RWS bothered to call and say they decided to offer a buyout”. This is simply untrue as the homeowner was notified multiple times (including the first business day after she filed her claim when her claim was initially approved, along with each time she called in thereafter) that she would be issued a buyout check, which was currently being processed. At no point was she unaware that she would be receiving a buyout check, though the final amount was not finalized until the entire approval process was complete.As stated previously, the homeowner’s claim consisted of no actual failures, which should have precluded coverage entirely under her warranty. The homeowner cannot deny this as both she and her contractor have admitted the same. Despite this, RWS went above and beyond their obligations by covering those items which were operating less than perfectly by replacing a ‘weak’ (yet working) blower capacitor and paying for a refrigerant refill due to an ‘indoor coil icing up’ due to ‘low refrigerant’. However, it is important the homeowner understand that the above had not failed and so RWS had no obligation to cover any of this claim. To claim that RWS should also cover all of the ‘recommended repairs’, despite the existence of no failures, including a ‘coil replacement’ that the contractor had already stated could be repaired with a Freon refill (which was covered), is simply impossible. Therefore, as RWS has stated earlier, “unless the homeowner has additional information that would change the circumstances or information already received, the homeowner is due no additional money and this claim remains closed”.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I am not requesting a copy of my policy which I have. I submitted a claim for a repair to my Air Condiitioner and was told that RWS was only going to pay $800 of a $3000 repair. I am requesting a copy of the claim that states what RWS is paying for and what they are not paying for including by not limited to labor, parts, freon and so forth. I was not provided a claim number or provided proof that RWS sent out a check for $800. I am requesting proof of the claim that filed with RWS. I find it odd that a warranty company doesn't supply documents to their paying customers when they submit claims for repair work. Please provide the requested documents to show proof the claim was filed and what RWS is paying for include a tracking number for the $800 check that I was told has already been mailed to me which I have yet to receive. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
             I did not call in the claim March11th, I faxed it to Travis a claims person at 10:53 am with 4 pages of what they wanted! And they lost it and I sent it again a month later by US mail!              The Termite inspector only gave my the Cover page that only has their name and phone number on it! Even talking with two or three other claims people over the weeks of calling, the $250.00 never came up until they called two months later that the $250.00 would be deducted from the $520.00. Plus I paid $300.00 for a total home inspection. Yes I did tell them if I had to go to court I would ask for all my money back from this house transaction! I feel I was ripped off again! The termites is just one problems that has come up with this house! Electrical, Plumbing, Refrigerator. floors and sprinklers        Regards,
[redacted]

Mr. [redacted], thank you for your 1 February 2017 Revdex.com complaint. Per your contractor, your kitchen sink issue is not covered under the policy: “In the event of a non-claim, where a vendor is requested and the problem is neither within the realm of the policy nor related to the Vendor’s trade, the...

vendor will charge the entire trip charge to the homeowner. This amount may be higher in some cases than the deductible. The vendor will also charge for any time he has in the diagnosis and determination of the problem as well”. Secondly, per your authorization, your furnace claim was closed 1-10-2017 as you had had a family friend complete the repair after diagnosis instead of allowing the contractor to order the electronic air filter, which would have been covered under your policy. Instead, you wanted a quick fix (a generic filter, which is not covered under your policy), which the contractor informed you was not covered. Instead of contacting RWS, you instead had a family friend complete the repair, and so the claim is not covered because, even though “the contractor [RWS] send[s] does not have to be the contractor to perform the repair”, “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the policyholder without prior authorization”. Furthermore, the policyholder is “responsible for the payment of one deductible… payable to the contractor at time of service”. The Contractor diagnosed the issue with the heater and so the deductible was properly charged. However, due to the circumstances surrounding this claim, we have suggested the deductible be refunded and are waiting the final decision, which you will be informed of. In the interim, however, you mention three (3) deductibles for your sink and your heater, of which only two (2) were disclosed to RWS. Please provide information on the third deductible, including proof of payment, and we will look into the matter.

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 areas. While RWS is flattered by the compliment, we do not have such capabilities. Instead, 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 homeowner. The 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 of. Furthermore, 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 $1,840 bid to treat the homeowner’s entire house is not the “necessary amount” as the homeowner alleges in their previous response. Instead, the contractor has stated, and verified, that remediation of the affected areas would cost $910. RWS approved that amount immediately and expedited the homeowner’s buyout check, which was mailed earlier this week. The 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 them. The estimate submitted, as stated previously, was incomplete and precluded coverage of this claim. The 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 of. Beyond 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 45 days for final processing and issuance and was able to process and mail a check within a week. All 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 of. As 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.

Revdex.com:
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.
Greetings Revdex.com. In reviewing the reply by RWS, I was off by one year. I returned to RWS in 2015 when I closed on second home.  *If not, why? Their reply is the first time that I've been contacted by them! In any form, either by phone, e-mail, or U.S. Mail! *Has the company met the agreement they outlined in their response? No, First and foremost, since my home warranty was included with my closing, and paid for by the seller in 2015 [see line #1303]! Secondly, I would not make only two payments, then stop in middle of the policy! I have looked at my records, and see where they make that claim. Albeit, I sent in a check on July 24, 2016 for my 2017 renewal in the amount of $93.84/ck# [redacted]. I never got the monthly invoices as I had before in the past. And I'm not on automatic bill pay! I'm taken aback that, that would be their stance! [See attached docs, scroll down to bottom, due to white paper covering other info].As a former U.S. Navy Boot Camp Instructor, I keep everything! I've gone back and reviewed my past RWS policies from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, & 2011. And they all have monthly invoices that followed! And even more insulting, their reply states that I was hard to contact, is invalid! In that I made a service call on May 4, 2016 for my garage door. My contact information has not changed! And I was not sent any notice, that my policy was nearing expiration, or had expired! Or that they were considering sending my account to collections!  So one would need my contact information to send it to collections! Furthermore, they have not addressed the fact that not for me contacting the Revdex.com. RWS had not to date, replied to any of my recent calls! To cure this matter!               So, how is that I have all of my past RWS policies, and nothing from them, for my 2017 renewal? So for RWS to state, "that the only resolve to this ordeal, is for me to pay the 2016-17 renewal" is asinine! With no mention from RWS that its due to their oversight! I followed all of the procedures that they have in place! I had a policy issue with RWS in the past, and stayed a customer. Including sending them referrals! In closing, for RWS to not bear the onus, for their oversight! Is not very professional! Nor good for business! I await your follow-up.   
Regards,
** [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
There are so many spelling errors in this response; it
almost makes the entire document painful to read.  One major aspect of my complaint that was
never address by RWS Counsel is the phone calls and emails that were never
returned.  We left messages beginning on
12 June concerning our AC that were never returned.  To this date, I have never received a phone
call or email from anyone at RWS.
The contractor RWS selected and sent to my house (Freedom
Heating and Air) on June 26th completed their inspection and began
calling RWS for approval to complete the work the afternoon of the 26th.   No one returned his phone call either.  As of 12:00 pm Monday June 29th, no
one at Freedom had ever heard from anyone at RWS.  The diagnosis submitted by Freedom was well
above and beyond what it took to make my AC unit cool.  The technician told me the unit was low on
refrigerant.  The leak check alone was
almost $700.00 plus $160.00 per pound for Freon.  At that point the AC was cooling
somewhat.   The technician also told me:   the
fan motor was bad, the coil was clogged, and both the inside and outside coil
needed to be cleaned.
After the technician left, the unit was blowing hot
air.  I had to buy a window unit for my
bedroom because the temperature in the house was over 85 degrees.  After the total lack of effort and
communication on June 29th, I found a company who could come the next
day.  He inspected the inside coil and
outside and checked the entire system. 
The only thing he found was the system to be completely out of Freon.  He put 2 lb. of Freon in the system to see if
he could locate a leak.  He found the
leak to be an open valve that was checked by Freedom on the 26th.  The system that was low, was mysteriously
completely out of coolant…..explaining the hot air coming from the vents as
soon as freedom left.  The tech closed
the valve and completely filled the system with 9 pounds of coolant at a rate
of $60.00 per pound vs $160.00 at Freedom. 
He also found the fan motor in working condition and both coils to be
clean.  Other than the age of the unit,
everything was in working order when he left and has not given a single problem
since the repair on the 30th of June.
I spoke with Frankie at RWS and informed her of the huge
difference in price and evaluation of the two companies.  I talked with the owner of freedom and he did
not have any explanation for the charges. 
He did tell me if I would have them come back without using a warranty
company, he could cut me a better deal on rates.  In my mind, this is fraud.  Inflating the rates and doing unnecessary
work is not good business.  Frankie asked
me to send her copies of the Freedom estimate and the copy of the invoice I paid
for $585.00.  After receiving them, she
informed me she would file the clam and follow it through.  She thanked me to being honest and saving
them what could have well exceeded $2,000.00. 
I spoke with Frankie several times and she informed the claim had been
accepted and sent to accounting for payment. 
They had deducted two amounts of $150.00 for two separate service
calls.  I asked why the second deduction
was made and never received an explanation why.
Last week, I spoke with Tony.  She gave me the same story that the claim had
been accepted and had been sent to accounting for payment.  All of this time, no one ever told me on any
occasion the claim was denied.  No one
has ever called me or initiated any communication from RWS.  I requested the refund because the customer
service is fantastic when they want to sell you a warranty.   If you need to use it, the service is the
polar opposite.  I thought I was doing
what is right by informing them of a large discrepancy in the estimate of work
and what it actually took to complete the work. 
Everyday this was going
on my family had to live in a house that was HOT to say the least.  I understand they don’t want to pay….. That is
very easy to see.  The maximum payment
per claim is $500.00 on the 90 day warranty. 
There is no deduction for deductible or service calls.  I paid $585.00 to resolve the issue.  If they want to deduct for a service call,
that’s fine.  That brings the balance to
$435.00….I will accept it and walk away.  I was told multiple times the claim was accepted, and now they say it was immediately denied.  Every time I have  been told anything, it has been with a phone call from myself to RWS and never the opposite.