Spice Restaurant

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. The point I have made previously is still valid in that the policy document was not given to me at the time of the inspection, as required by the FTC. The policy document was given to me only on April 21, 2017 and that is the date the policy is deemed to have become effective. Company is flouting the rules and that isn't allowed per the FTC.It is very interesting to note the high number of very negative complaints lodged against this company and very surprising Revdex.com still awards an A+ Rating.Highly unsatisfactory response yet again and this looks like it will have to be a complaint referral to the FTC 
[redacted]

If the homeowner would please review the first response letter RWS sent with regards to this complaint, all of the questions being asked now have already been answered therein. As stated earlier, a few times, the homeowner was given a choice of how she wanted to proceed and RWS was happy to oblige, whatever her decision. She made a decision to NOT receive her buyout and instead have her claim reevaluated, as documented in her Revdex.com responses, which the company honored.Now, it appears she changed her mind with which option she wants, which she has not communicated to RWS in any form (including Revdex.com responses up to this point), instead blaming the company for not moving things forward even when she has been told, repeatedly, that there wasn’t enough information to move forward with the reevaluation, which she was informed of even before she made her decision. RWS’s answer remains the same. She was given a choice, the choice was made, and the Company awaits the information. The problems with the invoices have been detailed repeatedly, including providing copies of the invoices we have, to illustrate their deficiencies with the policy itself and all the homeowner has to do is submit one itemized estimate. As stated earlier, if she would like to have her contractor contact RWS for exact details of what the policy requires, we’re happy to speak with them. If the homeowner wants to receive the buyout, an option she declined originally, which is the ONLY reason RWS froze her check, we are happy to oblige – she simply needs to tell us, clearly, which option will settle this issue once and for all. However, due to her changing her mind, refusing to work with RWS, and accusing RWS at every turn of trying to cheat her, there are some stipulations now attached to this buyout. The homeowner must acknowledge, prior to the check being sent, that the $450 check is in full settlement of her claim; that she will seek no other forms of redress against the company. Once this has been received, RWS is more than happy to honor the homeowner's change of mind and process her buyout check, as originally planned, and get it to her as soon as possible. If RWS receives her answer through the Revdex.com by 5pm today, the check will be mailed tomorrow. Otherwise, it will be mailed next week.

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.On April 22nd, 2016 My wife recived a message from them saying "Your claim and policy will be cancelled, without refund due to your misrepresentations. You will be hearing from our legal counsel due to your multiple fraudulent posts from multiple fake profiles and we will be seeking civil penalties. Thanks"It was they that initiated legal action because they didn't like the review.  Since then the owner has threaten me with bodily harm stating "That would be a grave error, and would be in violation of the terms of your Revdex.com submission as well. Happy to pay for your issues per the terms of your policy, or make this one of the most expensive mistakes of your life. Your call. You have until noonMonday. If you had a legitimate issue by the way, you'd just sue. But you don't, so you post with fake profiles. You're a fraud and a scam artist- I've never not met a contractual obligation and I've never lost in court.  Based on this threat we will file for an immediate injunction and force your hand, assuming you don't correct the issue immediately.  I have advised counsel to begin work on this already."The fake profiles I do not know to what they are referring but it is documented on thier Facebook page that they threatened to cancel the warranty simply because they believed there were fake reviews, and I do not know what they are talking about.My solution is to have my fridge repaired. Simply them threaten  to sue me then saying I have an attorney is just one of many excuses they have given along the way to not meet their obligations.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
 [redacted]

The homeowner has 3 claims open with RWS. To simplify, they will be broken down and discussed separately: Floor Joist This claim, filed 10/16/17, requested $950 but was not able to be processed until documents were provided to RWS, per the warranty. The documents ultimately provided did NOT conform...

to the requirements of the policy, wherein an “itemized repair estimate must be submitted for every approved claim, including the breakdown of parts & labor, as well as a specific cause of failure in writing from a licensed or properly certified repairperson”. The homeowner’s invoice contained only a breakdown, with no cause of failure given. Despite this deficiency, RWS approved the claim for $700 on 11/10/17, and a check was mailed to the homeowner and received, as confirmed by the homeowner. Plumbing. This claim contains the same deficiencies as the above claim. Additionally, moisture stains were specifically listed on the first-floor ceiling in the inspection report; if the homeowner wants this claim reviewed for eligibility, they will need to submit documentation proving the leak is NOT above one of the water stains. Additionally, please note that this claim was never closed; instead, the homeowner had been asked to provide information on how much pvc pipe was replaced, and no response was ever provided. Electrical. This claim contains the same deficiencies as the above claims. Additionally, the inspection report states “multiple panel issues are listed in the report, and a qualified electrical contractor should make all necessary repairs”. These issues specifically include the wiring issues in the attic, which the homeowner included on the submitted invoice, and an express disclaimer that the pool was not inspected, even though the submitted invoice contains costs for repairing a pool light. The invoice also includes the installation of new items, despite the policy only covering failures to existing items, not the installation of new. The homeowner’s argument of “there were other electrical issues in the report involving the breaker panel, all of which were fixed” is irrelevant as the 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 … if they were repaired” [emp. Added]. Once the non-covered items are removed from the list and the cost (which is why an itemized repair estimate is so important; so RWS can easily remove non-covered items without requested additional information from the homeowner), RWS would be happy to review. Therefore, proper documentation has never been submitted and so RWS is unable to delineate between what is and what is not covered on any of the above claims. The homeowner will need to submit proper documentation sufficient to overcome all of the deficiencies listed herein, and RWS will be happy to review. Otherwise, there is nothing more we can do at this time.

Thank you for your complaint. As stated in response to your Revdex.com review yesterday: "Please note that your policy states 'all claims must be received within 90 days of the inspection or within 22 days of closing, whichever comes later'. Your policy was valid from 23 October 2016 thru 22 January 2017...

and you filed the above claim on 30 March 2017, far after your policy's expiration date. You were told this months ago both via telephone and via email, making this review so surprising to see. If you have documentation that indicates the wrong closing date or inspection date was reported to us, please forward".No documentation has been received since the above response was posted yesterday. In addition, in response to the homeowner's claim that 'nothing in the warranty states validity being 22 days after date of closing' and that the problem was identified within 90 days of the inspection report, I urge them to re-read their one page policy as the above quote was pulled directly therefrom. Please reread the policy in its entirety and provide us the above requested documentation, if applicable. Otherwise, without any documentation indicating the closing date and/or inspection date previously mentioned (and repeated above) were incorrect, there is nothing more to be done.

The homeowner’s primary complaint is that he is being cheated because, after his claim was approved, he was re-informed of the $250.00 deductible. If 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 $250 deductible”. Therefore, the homeowner’s claim was approved, in full and, with the deductible subtracted, they are receiving the full amount requested. The check was mailed earlier this week in complete accordance with company policies. Furthermore, the homeowner may have called in the claim on 11 March 2016 but he did not provide RWS with the information required to further process the claim, despite repeated requests, until 25 April 2016. It was approved less than a week later, with the homeowner notified of the same, and a check was mailed within a week. Mr. [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’s. The homeowner has taken it upon himself to not only throw false 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 claim. RWS 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.

The check was mailed on 03 July 2017 and cashed on 12 July 2017. RWS is happy to send Mr. [redacted] a copy of his submitted documents but it appears his concerns were with the check, which has been both mailed and cashed. Thank you for your business.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]I am fine to have the machine fixed if you're going to pay for it. All I am asking is to be made whole. If it is repaired, I want it to work. If it is replaced, I want a fair value to replace it with a comparable dishwasher. I have repeated said I will settle for $500. The facts from the beginning are this: I contacted RWS when my dishwasher broke. This is the first time I've used a home warranty. I spoke with Katie, and she told me it would be best to contact my own repair service for the estimate. I reached out to a local appliance repair company. They came out and gave me an estimate of $1,073. When I sent you this estimate, I noted that it would save you money just to replace it and pasted a link to a comparable machine valued around $710. You offered me $200. You said that because there were two broken components, I owed two deductibles even though it was for one service call. We have since gone back-and-forth. You suggested I called a repair man of your choice. I have done that. He suggested he can fix it for less than the original estimate (He has not seen the machine yet). I am happy to have him do that if you are going to pay for it. Otherwise, I would accept $500 to replace the dishwasher. A new dishwasher is going to cost me slightly over $700. If we take $700 and minus the 150 deductible, it is $550. I am asking for $500. If you believe it will save you money to repair the machine, I can give your mechanic a call back and set up a time for him to see the machine.  
Regards,
[redacted]

As stated earlier:We here at RWS sincerely apologize that the homeowner has felt slighted by our response – it was never our intention to question her claims; simply to point out where some confusion may have lain as the failed unit was never mentioned and no documents pertaining to a failed unit were ever submitted to RWS, despite the multiple communications. As the majority of the information contained in the homeowner’s response has already been addressed in prior communications, we have only addressed, in this response, the new item included and clarified an accusation leveled by the homeowner which, by her response, was misunderstood initially:Firstly, the phone records provided match up with the RWS records, as discussed and referenced in previous responses. Secondly, RWS's final approval process takes up to 30 business days (which excludes holidays and weekends), putting the homeowner's claim's finalization date as 13 October. True to form, on 13 October, the approval process was being finalized when it was realized that the homeowner had no actual failure or even issue, that the repairs were ‘recommended’, that there was no documentation showing the homeowner ever had the ‘recommended repairs completed’, no proof that the ‘recommended repairs’ were necessary, multiple ‘recommended repairs’ (i.e. options) that purported to fix the same issue, and that the contractor stated there were no failures or even issues! At this point, the amount was adjusted accordingly and the buyout check mailed out immediately, per company policy.RWS has addressed all of the questions and concerns raised with regards to this claim, all backed by our policy and nothing in this most recent correspondence changes any of the facts upon which the claim decision was made - if this changes, the homeowner is urged to reach out to RWS so that we can re-audit the claim, if appropriate. Thank you.

While we do sympathize with this homeowner’s experience, we would like to refer them to their 100 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 coverage. While 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 Revdex.com 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 parts. Finally, 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 us. As a result of all of the above issues, this claim was and remains denied.

I disagree with RWS’s responses because I was given different reasons for claims not being covered or closed by their representatives than in their responses.  The complaints were handled by RWS representatives in an improper manner as discussed in my original complaint.    Floor Joist:  I was told by the RWS representative that the invoice I submitted was sufficient.  I did not need a cause of failure on the invoice because the floor joists were sagging and a support system was going to be installed.  They agreed the cause of failure was common sense.  I was told the claim was approved for $950 but only received $700.  The warranty covered up to $2,000. In addition, RWS did not inform me they were not sending the full amount and just sent me a check that was short $250. Therefore, RWS still owes me $250. Please see the attached invoice from the contractor with the cause of failure stated explicitly.    Plumbing:  A RWS representative told me this claim was closed when I called asking about the floor joists above.  Fixing the floor joists were the top priority.  Now that I know this claim is open, I will work on getting the documentation to RWS for review.   Electrical:  I disagree with this explanation.  I spoke with representatives regarding it and they said everything electrical was denied based on the breaker box. I also received this email: Dear [redacted], I am writing you today in regards to the electrical claim you submitted on 10/16/17 Your claim has been denied. The Inspection report notes it on page 16 & 17. Your inspection report states; Wiring splices should be in junction boxes. Location: above air handler in attic. Wiring exposed to damage should be repaired as needed. Location: power ventilator" (pg 16) and " Receptacle(s) that did not function should have circuit checked and replaced as needed. Location: living room front wall left receptical." (pg 17) As it states in our policy; --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 if they were repaired.-- If you have any questions regarding our claim decision or need anything further please reply to this email. Sincerely, Amity B[redacted] Claims Representative Residential Warranty Services (800) 544-8156 ab[redacted]@rwswarranty.com

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Thank you for your 1 July 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). As stated in our previous response, water heaters are explicitly excluded from coverage within the first thirty (30) days of the warranty's commencement. This limitation is an industry standard to protect home warranty companies from claims on likely pre-existing issues and is clearly stated in the warranty terms and conditions under #1 of the Limits of Liability. In response to the Customer's confusion about the modification referenced earlier, it is explicitly written on the Contractor's invoice, wherein the Contractor states that the water heater had been so modified that the owner of the Contractor's company had to be called out to inspect the unit. It further states that the water heater was determined to have been so modified that it was made dangerous to the point of not being safe for operation with immediate replacement given as the only recommendation. This again puts the Customer's claim outside the scope of the warranty and required RWS to deny the claim under #11 of the Limits of Liability. 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 conditions. RWS remains unable to grant approval for this particular claim. Sincerely,  Alix [redacted] Esq. Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Cannel, IN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax) [redacted].com

As has been discussed previously, RWS never told the homeowner her repair would be covered prior to a contractor visiting her home. Logically, RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified Contractor. Therefore, while RWS may, based on a homeowner’s description of the issue, be able to give an idea as to whether it may or may not be covered, there is no guarantee until the documentation has been received. This claim was properly denied pursuant to the terms of the policy and, as no new information has been offered during the course of these Revdex.com correspondences, the claim will remain denied.

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 stated this several times, there is no where on the warranty contract that mentions the labor and parts need to be itemized. A vendor cannot start making requirements after selling a warranty, it should be all stated ahead of time. The contractor indicated they do not provided itemized bill, if RWS needs further details, the contractor is willing to talk to them directly. I provided an invoice has full details of the job done. Had I known the requirements where different I would've asked the contractor for details invoice with itemized parts and labor, but I cannot ask the contractor after the fact. It is obvious RWS is a scam trying to find ways to get out of processing claims. ]
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 accept the $375, no strings attached. Check to be received in no more than 3 business days. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]FIRST OF ALL the satellite contractor DID NOT REMOVE any shingles or brackets to fix the problem, when he happened to be on the roof he noticed that we had roof damage, NO work or anything was touched on the roof. I immediately called the inspector(Satellite contractor was still at home)  he told me to contact RWS because we had a home warranty. Within a day  we had licensed and insured roofing companies that came out to inspect the roof, there was more damage to the roof. That had NOTHING to even do with a satellite  ( wasn't even near the area of the satellites). They all said it should have been caught by the inspection because it WAS NOTHING HIDDEN.they all seen the issues from standing on the ground. I only needed 1 estimate and I sent your company 4. I have spoken with Maddie, Kate, and Nathan. You do have all 4 estimates with what the contractors have found and all are almost identically with issues that the roof has. After we received the amount we were approved for we did call and ask why so low and kept getting the run around. They told me that they put the amount in system and that kicks out a number to what should be paid. So what is the point of estimates if you are not even going pay for the repairs!!!!RWS is well aware of all the damages, and has the 4 estimates.  Yes we want it to be reevaluated and feel that we should be approve for at least the lowest estimates, because none of those companies will fix the problem for the ridiculous amount that your company is saying it should cost to fix the repairs. ALL the estimates came back within a couple hundred dollars of each other, and none of the them were near $450.00 to fix roofing issues.Estimates were from $1000.00-$1500.00 if you need to look back at those Maddie in the 90 day department has them, I also have  complete copies of all emails, and estimates that was sent to RWS.
Regards,
[redacted]

This homeowner has already retained an attorney so all communications between the company and himself will need to be via his, and our, legal counsel/department. However, as a quick recap (and reminder) to the homeowner regarding this claim, in order to mitigate this situation before this claim is...

transferred to legal: Firstly, the claim was filed 1 February 2016 and the homeowner contacted RWS on 8 February 2016 requesting a buyout in lieu of a repair, but RWS was unable to process it at that time due to not having received an invoice. The homeowner had a contractor out on 1 March 2016 but the complete invoice was not emailed to RWS until 18 April 2016. On 21 April 2016, RWS approved the buyout for $450. The homeowner has repeatedly claimed that he was made to wait for months when the reality is much simpler: the claim was filed and the homeowner took 1 month to have a contractor out and another month and a half to get RWS a complete estimate with accurate contact information for the contractor. The claim was approved 3 days after all necessary information was received. Secondly, the homeowner has the incorrect assumption that his Simple Warranty will blindly replace an entire unit that fails when, in reality, the policy repairs/replaces the broken part; not the entire unit. As there were a multitude of parts that had failed, each part was appraised separately for the buyout, which was requested, on 08 February 2016 by the homeowner. The policy states: “Should the Contract Holder wish to replace a repairable item, at their election, the Contract Holder may choose to receive a cash payment or allowance in lieu of repair. In such cases, the cash payment shall be made in accordance with RWS negotiated service and repair rates and may be less than retail”. Finally, while RWS can appreciate the homeowner being upset at the multiple deductibles; the policy clearly states “a service call fee applies to each mechanical malfunction breakdown, for each distinct malfunction. At times, multiple malfunctions may be discovered in the same component. A service call fee would apply for each repair or the actual cost to repair, whichever is less”. Because the homeowner’s unit had multiple failures, multiple service call fees were required and while the homeowner may not be happy with this provision, it is clearly stated in the policy and will be adhered to in regards to his claim.His buyout has been turned in to processing, of which he was informed and, due to his having retained an attorney, his lawyer will need to contact RWS’s legal department for any information regarding this claim as we are unable to respond further due to the pending litigation.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]