Spice Restaurant

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 modateThe 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 remediationWhat 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 warrantyThe 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.emold] noted” [empadded] 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” [empadded]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 coverageFurthermore, 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 regardlessWhile 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 aboveTell us why here

Thank you for your July letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc("RWS")I've reviewed the Customer's account and it appears the customer has already received a monetary buy out regarding this issue and is not entitled to any additional money from RWSHowever, for the purposes of complete customer satisfaction, RWS has another option available for this Customer, made available after some of the Customer's complaints have been addressed below: In the case at hand, the Customer has made the mistake of viewing the Warranty's maximum liability as a guaranteed payout for his claimUnfortunately, page of the Warranty clearly states that $2,is the aggregate limit of liability for each of the four (4) major systems in a home, including HVAC (the system affected with the Customer's claim)This is not a guarantee of how much a homeowner will receive for a claim, but a maximum the homeowner could receive for all claims regarding that system for the entire duration of the WarrantyWhen the Customer called into RWS, he was informed that his claim could be covered up to $2500, but the aggregate maximum was never offered as a definitive resolutionRWS has two (2) standard ways of dealing with a claimThe first involves an actual repair being performed, which involves obtaining a contractor estimate for the repair which is approved, in part or in whole, by RWS and the Contractor is paid directly for the repairThis is generally the more inclusive option but it requires more work by the customers and so many, including the Customer, prefer the second optionThe second option involves a buyout — this option is for RWS's negotiated price„ keeping in mind that, according to the Basic Policy terms and conditions, RWS "reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of repair/replacementThe cash payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail"As well as "at their election, the policyholder may choose to receive a cash payment or allowance in lieu of repairIn such cases, the cash payment shall be made in accordance with RWS negotiated service rates" This option results in a check being sent immediately after approval and allows the customers' more leniency regarding how they handle their repairIn the case at hand, the Customer requested a buyout at RWS cost and a check was mailed and received, as confirmed by the CustomerRWS would like to note here that the check amount was actually higher than RWS's cost, but was approved as a kindness to the Customer in consideration of the higher than average rates he was quoted, even though RWS had no obligation to do soNotwithstanding, RWS has no obligation to pay the aggregate maximum for this claim and has no continuing obligation to pay any more than RWS's own cost, which has already been exceeded in this caseHowever, because customer satisfaction is such a high priority for RWS, RWS is willing to offer the Customer a second optionIf the Customer would like the repair covered, rather than the buyout, (keeping in mind that the repair option may not result in a higher return) RWS is more than happy to complyAdditionally, to further ensure the Customer is fully satisfied, RWS, upon receiving all required documents, will expedite the Customer's claim so he will not have to wait much longer for a resolutionIf this option is chosen, the Customer simply needs to return the $buyout check to RWS and contact John [redacted] , the RWS Director of Operations at (317) 573-to re-open his claim with the repair option in lieu of the buyout optionSincerely, Alix LV [redacted] Corporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, IncPro Med Lane, Cannel, IN (317) 573-(tel.) (317) 218-(fax)

Revdex.com: Check was received and deposited yesterdayUpon 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 monthsThank 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] [redacted] , ***

Upon review of this claim, it appears Ms [redacted] called in on 5/11/and stated that she had another company out to look at the issue who stated the failure was a city issue and that the repair would be covered by the cityFrom that point onward, we were waiting to hear from the homeowner regarding the city assessment of the sameIf she is interested in continuing with RWS, please call in and ask for Cameron, the one year manager who will handle your claim personally from this point forward

It should be noted that this homeowner filed a claim on 1-27-(a Friday), and filed this Revdex.com complaint 1-31-2017, not even two business days after the claim was submittedAs a result, the homeowner has not provided documentation, as required pursuant to his policy, that would allow RWS to continue processing his claim - the homeowner’s Platinum Roof Protection Plan covers “repairs for leaks only” and “consequential damage is not covered”Therefore, to determine exactly what is covered, we require a breakdown of the estimateAdditionally, there is no “written diagnosis’ providedFurthermore, this policy clearly states “any defect noted in your home inspection or any consequential leak resulting from a defect noted in your inspection is not coveredIf your inspector noted damage, leaks, improper installation, or worn materials, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to remedy these conditions.” The homeowner’s inspection report clearly states“open seams on the roof were observedThis could lead to a leakContact a roofer to further inspect the roof and make necessary repairs” in numerous locationsFurthermore, the inspection report states “patches were observed on the roofingPatches are a temporary fix and need to be monitoredBudget to make permanent repairs” along with “no counter flashing over step flashingCounter flashing is needed to prevent water from getting behind step flashingRecommend roofing contractor make needed repair”Therefore, as the home inspection report clearly lists multiple defects with regards to the roof, and specifically leaks - with just the information provided the homeowner's claim is clearly precluded from coverage, and his claim will be marked as suchIf the homeowner has any additional information, such as an itemized repair estimate or written diagnosis to counter any of the above information, please submit it prior to your policy’s expiration date and we here at RWS will be happy to review

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 How can you state that you only have one image when your customer service rep over the phone told me she could see all three?....I went ahead and attached the image of the entire invoice to this message so hopefully you won't have any more excuses as to why you're not sending me my money Regards, [redacted]

The homeowner has claims open with RWSTo simplify, they will be broken down and discussed separately: Floor Joist This claim, filed 10/16/17, requested $but was not able to be processed until documents were provided to RWS, per the warrantyThe 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 givenDespite this deficiency, RWS approved the claim for $on 11/10/17, and a check was mailed to the homeowner and received, as confirmed by the homeownerPlumbingThis claim contains the same deficiencies as the above claimAdditionally, 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 stainsAdditionally, 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 providedElectricalThis claim contains the same deficiencies as the above claimsAdditionally, 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 lightThe invoice also includes the installation of new items, despite the policy only covering failures to existing items, not the installation of newThe 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” [empAdded]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 reviewTherefore, 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 claimsThe homeowner will need to submit proper documentation sufficient to overcome all of the deficiencies listed herein, and RWS will be happy to reviewOtherwise, there is nothing more we can do at this time

The homeowner has stated she has a year-long home warranty in place with ANOTHER warranty company (not RWS)As a result, per the terms of her warranty with us, “the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place [empadded].” Therefore, the homeowner, must file the entirety of her claim with her other warranty companyHowever, as a goodwill gesture from RWS to this homeowner, she may keep the check RWS has already mailed to her as we strive to go above and beyond our obligations to our customers, every time

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.The $was for the air duct cleaningNOT the buyoutThis was suppose to be put in as a separate claim number but the person I originally worked with, Tamika, did not do this correctly and just put it in as one claim This is where the confusion has beenDawn said she understood it and that I will be getting $and told me it was suppose to be separate claimsIn addition, I was originally directed to the year warranty, which I paid for, and not the day one which was given to me for free with the year one No one explained to me that there is a difference even which should have been told to me from day one They have since changed their telephone prompts, but when I called in December and asked for the warranty dept they automatically sent me to the year instead of day and did not ask even which one I want I thought it was all the same thing When I found out there was a difference, they said I would receive $for the year warranty and the buyout amount, in addition to the $because I would not have a $deductible with the day warranty I have both of these in writing Regards, [redacted]

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 otherwiseHowever, for the homeowner's benefit, below is a breakdown of all the items relevant to this claim, at this pointPlease review and reach out if you have any additional questions: Overtime FeesThe homeowner submitted their claim on a Friday and, despite its non-emergency status, insisted on a contractor being dispatched immediately over the weekendWhile RWS does not charge over-time fees, our policy clearly states that a contractor may, for non-emergency claimsThe 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 immediatelyService Call FeesThe 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 claimHowever, later, the homeowner refused to pay the $due, which is grounds for immediate cancellation of his warranty, without possibility of refund, which will be addressed further belowThat cost is due to the contractor immediatelyRepair over ReplacementThe 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 themHe quoted a replacement to the homeowner but the homeowner insisted on immediate service and so insisted on the repairThe contractor explained the risks and expenses of repairing over replacement, and contacted RWS for authorizationAn RWS representative spoke with the homeowner, who insisted he knew the risks and that he still wanted the repairThe 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 leftFreon FeesThe contractor also re-filled the Freon in both units, which resulted in a total of 10lbs of R-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-410AThe contractor was informed of this over the phone prior to the repair, yet opted for the repair regardlessThe $cost is due to the contractor immediatelyLeak ChecksIn 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 unitHowever, 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 itselfDespite this, the homeowner still refused to pay the contractor for any of the charges the homeowner knew were dueRWS would advise the homeowner to re-read his policy carefully to ensure he is aware of the full extent of his coverageIf 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 confusionWith 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 $The remainder costs will be covered by RWS pursuant to the homeowner’s policyIf 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 policyAt 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 September 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

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

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 [It is correct only three days past between submitting claim and filling the complaint because it was I was told my claim was not going to be accepted if the contractor does not provide a break down of the labor and material cost separatelyThe contractor did provide on his invoice exactly what work was performed, so your statement saying no details provided is not correct, and the contractor is willing to talk with you and I mentioned this to the agent to provide any feedback required, but you chose not to call the contractorThe home inspection report did mention potential defects, but none of them were issues for water leakI asked the inspector at that time if there were concerns of water leak and he clearly stated that the roof is good for another yearsThis leak is in a different area from the pictures provided in the reportThis was something that was not detected during the inspectionYou rejected the claim because I don't have an itemized break down from the contractor for the labor and material, it's all combined in one invoice, however, you have it no where in your warranty saying that this was a requirement or any mention of such statementYou just made it up to reject the claim and get out of paying for the coverageFrom the tone of your response, it's obvious you are going to deny everything and reject the responseThis the nature and how you operate your business.] Regards, [redacted]

As has been discussed previously, RWS never told the homeowner her repair would be covered prior to a contractor visiting her homeLogically, RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified ContractorTherefore, 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

Thank you for bringing this case to our attentionThe invoice you submitted does not contain all of the information necessary to process your claim and it appears your RWS customer service representative, after reaching out to your contractor directly to get all of the information without any additional inconvenience to you, mistakenly received the impression that the claim was a ‘non-claim’, of which you were notifiedWe apologize for the inconvenienceWe have re-opened this claim and, pursuant to your policy, please provide us an “itemized repair estimate, including the breakdown of parts and labor as well as a specific cause for the failure in writing from a licensed or properly certified repairperson”We also need a “copy of your home inspection report, or at least those pages pertaining to the affected items”As soon as we receive this information, your claim will be escalated and a manager will personally oversee this claim’s handling to ensure you are 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 complaintThe 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 FTCThe policy document was given to me only on April 21, and that is the date the policy is deemed to have become effectiveCompany 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]

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 the policy holder, and supporter of RWS for multiple years, and referring clientele to RWS, I understand the policy and the reason RWS thinks they should deny the claimHowever there are seperate calls into RWS regarding the AC unitEvery time they sent out a contractor the contractor would say it is only dirty, and RWS does not cover maintenanceSince I was tired of paying for someone to clean a broken unit, I called a contractor out to test the AC systemIn fact I had two separate contractors out to assess the situationIn both instances they concluded that the compressor unit had failedI continued with the repair due to the fact that the hot and humid weather was not healthy for the family I hired on of the contractors to complete the job because RWS would have sent a contractor out to say it is dirty and I was over their incompetent contractors This is why I believe the contract was not broken by myself but by RWS originally when they refused to replace the broken part due to their contractor not properly testing the system As far as yelling, there was none of that, in fact I recorded the calls and had a witness with me on my endI was trying to explain that after multiple attempt to have RWS send their contractors out and not fix the situation I was tired of not having the AC working The representative was interrupting me to raise her voice, then in the middle of my explanation she said she would hand up on me if I did not listen to herWithin seconds she hung upEver since then they will not return my calls Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this response/resolution is satisfactory to meI made payments of $for the sink issue both in May to [redacted] and [redacted] , and one for the heater issue January Attached is a statement showing the May payments Regards, [redacted] ***

Respectfully, 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 homeownerWith regards to this claim - the check was being processed when the homeowner called earlier this week and we are looking into why the homeowner was informed there was no record of any check in the fileHowever, none of this affects this homeowner as the check was processed and mailed todayIf not received by Wednesday, please let us know

Thank you for your responsePlease see below: Floor JoistPlease note that a specific cause of the failure requires a licensed contractor to detail the direct event that caused the failureHere, the failure was the floor saggingTherefore, a specific cause of failure would dictate exactly why the floor was saggingThe submitted invoice states “cause of failure due to lack support causing the floors to sag” with the homeowner adding “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… the cause of failure was common sense”Neither of those statements detail a clear and specific cause for the failureFor example: was there no support system, which led to the floors sagging? Did the previous floor support system fail, which led to the floors sagging? If the latter, in what way did the previous floor support system fail, such that the result was a sagging floor? What exactly happened that led to the floors sagging? ElectricalPlease see RWS’s previous response as nothing in the homeowner’s new submission contradicts or remedies any of the deficiencies listed

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