Spice Restaurant

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this response/resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

The homeowner, in his complaint to the Revdex.com, makes a series of accusations ranging from “contract breaches” to “failure to pay claims”, all of which are serious accusations that have never occurred with regards to ANY of the homeowner’s claims, all of which are broken down below: Claim #1: Garage
DoorThis was the primary complaint the homeowner described in his Revdex.com submissionIt is true that his claim was approved, and it is true that a check was mailedUnfortunately, the check must have been lost in the mail as we have documentation it was mailed, but, after being made aware of the homeowner’s complaint, no documentation it has been cashedAs a result, a new check was cut immediately and was mailed todayIf the homeowner has not received it by mid-next week, please contact the company and ask for the Director of Operations, who has been tasked with personally ensuring the money reaches you expeditiouslyClaim #2: StructuralThe homeowner was notified that this claim was denied on October While this claim is prima facie outside the scope of the warranty, made clear by the ‘structural coverage summary’, the homeowner has also stated that this claim was “missed by the inspector”As the warranty only covers items that were “confirmed to be in good working condition at time of inspection, and excludes all others” [empadded], anything the inspector missed is not covered by the warrantyHowever, RWS operates in good faith at all times and, though the homeowner’s own statement denies coverage, RWS has reason to believe the homeowner was mistaken and it was NOT missed by the home inspectionUnfortunately, because the Home Inspector noted the flooring (page 19) as “flooring was wavy or not level in some areas”, a claim to fix a ‘wavy or not level floor’ as this claim states, is still excluded from coverageClaim #3: Air ConditionerThe air conditioner claim was denied because the warranty clearly states “This contract excludes all appliances, climate control systems, and fixtures over years old”The homeowner’s air conditioner was made in 1992, making the air conditioner twenty-four (24) years old and so clearly outside the scope of the warrantyClaim #4: Ceiling FanThis claim was denied because the home inspection clearly noted that the light was not working at the time of inspectionPer the terms of the warranty “This contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others”As the electrical system was stated as “requiring repair, replacement, and/or evaluation”, the flickering light is not covered under this warrantyTo expand, the home inspection report clearly puts the homeowner on notice of lighting issues by stating “one or more overcurrent protection devices… were ‘double-tapped’, where or more wires were clamped in a terminal designed for only one wireThis is a safety hazard since the bolt or screw may tighten securely against one wire, but leave others loose… A qualified electrician should evaluate and repair as necessary.” As the only estimate turned in gives no diagnosis (it only shows the contractor scheduling a time to diagnose) it is the homeowner’s responsibility to turn in the diagnosis so RWS can re-evaluate this claim, if necessary

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.There were no work done except to the service guys determined the AC need replacementNo freon was added except a very little to charge the system (per service guy)RWS is totally making up that or some ridiculous amount of freon was addedRWS can not even produce the invoice with cost of freon added, because they did notLet RWS produce what the exact amount in invoice that reflects freon costOnly thing in the invoice is the deductible amount of $
Regards,
*** ***

Complaint ID ***I have included portions of their testimony to discuss. Please review the attached image. I can contact my cell phone company for more official records if needed. The warranty service also said that they record every conversation. We can use that as well
"However, the homeowner did not file his claim with RWS until December 2017". -----As you can see from my attached image, I contacted the company on November 28th. It was not until December 5th that I had contacted them for the third time due to their inability to get me a contractor. For some reason I don't think I called them numerous times prior to December 5th just to chit-chat."Within days of his claim being filed, a contractor was dispatched but, when the homeowner called in the next day upset he had not been reached out to yet by that contractor, our contractor network immediately dispatched a second contractor, with the hopes of getting someone out to the homeowner faster, with the homeowner being made aware of the same."-----This is not true. I never heard a single word from any sort of contractor at all. I was told that they had a contractor, but two weeks later (December 15th) was when I was first contacted by ANY sort of roofing specialist. My question is this: if a contractor was dispatched on December 5th, why was my first meeting for an ESTIMATE (not a fix) on December 15th? This is extremely misleading and false

This claim was filed 2/but was incomplete and so did not contain adequate information to allow a contractor to be dispatched; in response, your customer service representative went above and beyond and reached out to you in order to gather the necessary information and dispatched a contractor
The contractor called you to set up a time to be at your home and was in your home assessing the repair not even a week laterYou have also alleged that RWS delayed your claim but it should be noted that, despite no estimates/documentation on this claim being submitted until 3/19, the contractor was given verbal approval to move forward with your repair on 3/2; the same day the contractor was in your home assessing the evaporator coil failureWhile there could be numerous reasons for the delay in the scheduled repair, please note that scheduling between a contractor and the homeowner does not involve RWS as we find it more convenient and expeditious to allow the contractor and homeowner to determine the best time in their schedules to set up the repairIn your case, despite approval being given 3/02, the repair in this case was not scheduled until 3/Finally, please note that the first estimate stated that your evaporator coil had a leak, which caused the failure but then the second estimate, submitted 3/19, stated your heat exchanger was crackedAs a result, your claim was put under review, of which you were informed, and additional documentation was requiredAt this time, your rep is working diligently to ensure your claim is processed as soon as possibleIf you’d like to cancel your policy, please call in and a rep will walk you through the process, keeping in mind this may affect any buyout/repair coverage on pending claims

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
This has unnecessarily gone around in circles multiple timesAs proven in my call records that you agreed matched up with yours, there were no "multiple communications" so I don't know why that term keeps getting thrown aroundA simple review of the recorded calls will show that I stated in my second call that "no one called me back yesterday like I was told would happen, and now the need for a call back to schedule service is even more urgent because when I came home from work last night, my unit had completely failed." Whoever I spoke with said that they would pass the issue on to my local office, and I would get a call back that dayAs proven in my phone records, I never received a call from RWS again until October after I inquired about the reimbursement check that came for a much smaller amount than I was told I would receiveEvery other communication was initiated by me, which shows a great lack of customer service, especially after I said my A/C unit had failed completelyThe October date is a complete fallacy alsoMy calls to RWS regarding my A/C issues occurred on 8/and 8/which has been documented business days from the end of that week (August 26) is October after all holidays and weekends have been accounted forThe customer service rep is the one who gave me that October date (I didn't just make this up), which is already past days from August which was the last day I called RWSOctober is a week later from the day date of October This is simple math using a calendar. Again, I am completely disappointed in the response by RWS and their refusal to take ownership for the situationThe facts have been presented multiple times, and only a reimbursement for the full amount I was told I would receive will be an acceptable resolution for all of the information I received, and complete failure of RWS to contact me to service my claims.
Regards,
*** *** ***

Mr***’s most recent response has nothing to do with his claim or the provisions of his own warranty which clearly stated why RWS took the actions it didInstead, he focuses on unauthenticated messages he states his wife received, while failing to note the multiple threats he has sent to RWS threatening to damage its reputation online simply because he is unhappy that his claim was approved for the amount it was, even though he is unable to dispute any of the facts or reasons given for that amount, per his warrantyMr*** has sent multiple emails to RWS stating things like: “you are all pathetic, I will greatly enjoy holding you sorry bottom feeders accountablei am rightyou are lowlifes, greedy ss, without a chance let the reviews begin!!!” and “I have already contacted some real estate agents you have used your company, you have already lost here, you need to think about damage control” Mr***, if you want to post a review about your experience, that is your prerogativeHowever, if you defame RWS, in any way, further harass any of its employees, or continue to damage RWS’s reputation among third parties, as you’ve admitted you’ve already done, this situation will be handled by our legal department, the police if necessary, and you will be held personally responsibleThreats such as “GIVE IT A FEW WEEKS FOR THE PAGES TO KICK IN AND THE BACK LINKS TO GET GOING AND SHOW HIGH UP SEARCHTHEN HAVE FUN PROVING WHERE THEY CAME FROM” are inappropriate and have all been documented and forwarded to our legal department, which is monitoring this situation and which will step in if you continueWith regards to the attorney situation; the homeowner has repeatedly claimed to have an attorney and in fact stated “My attorney advised me not to contact you any more”, even though he has chosen not to follow the legal advice given and forced us into a bad situation wherein the Revdex.com is requiring a responseAs a result, based on the repeated statements by Mr*** that his attorney is in the middle of initiating litigation, RWS is acting as appropriately as we can, in this situationFurthermore, for Mr***’s own knowledge, stating something is a “grave error” and “violating [your] Revdex.com submission” is in no way threatening bodily harm; with all due respect, RWS would suggest the homeowner have his attorney review to explain the differenceThe claim that was supposedly the crux of this issue was appropriately handled, and Mr*** has not alleged differently in this response; instead focusing on the company’s response to his repeated threats, defamatory webpage creations, and reviewsIf Mr*** is truly as reasonable a man as he holds himself to be, he would see that the claim was handled appropriately per the terms of his warranty and, while he may not agree with those terms, he must be held to them and so his repeated threats, defamatory statements, and actions will hurt no one but himself in the long runIn conclusion, as Mr*** has done nothing to refute any of the statements made in RWS’s earlier response, the facts surrounding the claim remain the same and so RWS’s response remains the same

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
I contacted the company as directed by the response provided and was connected with the Director of Operations "Lane", with whom I previously spokeLane again reviewed my case and asked various questions to (per him) see if I was covered under other policiesHe told me that he would meet with company leadership and they would determine further actionLane called me later that day, as he had stated and told me that the company leadership/counsel had agreed to provide $for settlement related to the customer service issuesLane stated that Lane "accepted this on your (my) behalf"I expressed my dissatisfaction with this amount but stated that he could send me this money as I was looking to put this behind meHe stated that it would be sent out Thursday afternoon or Friday at the latest and that within hours of it being sent out I would be contacted with a tracking numberHe also offered that I could call back at any time and utilize their resources/recommendations for contractors which I thanked Lane for the offer but politely declinedBefore we hung up I thanked Lane for his time and he again stated he would get the check out before the end of that week. To this point I have received no check and no tracking number for any checkI called yesterday to follow up and was told Lane was in a meeting and that he would call me backAn hour later I was called by a service representative who told me there was no record of any check in the file that he could see aside from the original $that was denied by the owner during final reviewThis representative told me he would check with Lane (who was in a meeting) and have Lane contact meToday (4/13/16), I have received no contact or follow upI would like to make it clear that a value I hold dear is that I do what I say I will doThe behavior or lack of follow through I have experienced with RWS would suggest that they do not hold a similar valueI would think the continued viability in a business would benefit from this shared value and I sincerely hope that their follow through is better in other situations (I am sure any response from their counsel will highlight that they do). If they did follow up on what they said they would do in this most recent instance, the issue would be resolved in my eyesI hope to be proven wrong and a check shows up in my mail this week but I no longer have the time or energy after 2+ months of going back and forth with RWS. I am writing today so that I can document this experience with RWS. Out of principle, I will no longer utilize any home inspection service that has an affiliation with RWS or Inspector Service Group and I have shared my experience with the original home inspection company
Regards,
Dr*** *. ***, ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
RWS, your repeated reply "is noted"Again, you are taking no onus on the matter! Your company has failed to mention that it is RWS, that despite all that you did "above and beyond" on my behalf! Your company never called me, nor sent me any monthly invoices [after my two payment renewal], no reminders, no notice that my policy would, could or was canceled via U.S Mail! Because, in your words there seems to be nothing in place by RWSTo contact or follwith a long time customer when this occurs! Or that it was saved from collections! And just sitting, and in your words, "until I called for another service call! Furthermore, I was never called back by your company or communicated with until I reached out to the Indiana Revdex.com! Also, I want to speak to the unnamed person that is sending the communications via the Revdex.com! In closing, I submitted three options in my complaint, to cure this "ORDEAL" as a show of "Good Faith" on your behalf! As my home is not covered right now! Follwith a resolve! And the name of the one year policy/sales person or supervisor, manager, better yet the RWS company President. [MrP.Nathan T***] As I'd like to hear from him, and see if my ordeal has reached his desk? To me, it seems that the person that's responding, is really trying trying to "cover their rear"! I await your reply.
Regards,
** ***

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
[Revdex.com it seems that you are only passing on the message and not providing any guidance or resolution, therefore, I am not sure going back and forth is going to resolve the issueIt is obvious that RWS is a scam business, there is no business sets rules after selling a productAt this point this issue will remain unsolved]
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I have reviewed the response and there is not truth in itI have spoken with the contractor that RWS sent out everday since they sent in the second quote for the hear exchange problemThey have repeatedly told me that they have the parts and are ready to fix it, but were waitinf to hear from RWS to approve the invoiceI have called repeatedly and spoke to various people at RWS all of who told me that my claim is still “in process” and there is not much else they can tell meJonathan P*** contacted me on 03/22/and requested I send him a picture of the heat exchangeI did and he called me back and stated that they would have it processed by the next morningI heard nothing from the company after that until I called the next day and again was told it was “in process”I have repeatedly told representatives that it is well under degrees in my area and has been for weeksAs stated in your policy, that requires a hour response to resolve the issueI am not going to cancel my policy when I have recieved no payout for the issue that was brought to the attention of your company weeks ago
Regards,
*** ***

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
To whom it may concern,As I have explained to RWS over the phone, I did send a complete invoice to RWSThere are three pictures all together of the single page invoiceOne image shows the entire invoice, a second image shows the top portion of that same invoice and the third image shows the bottom portion of that invoiceThis was done to enhance the visibility of the invoice and to prevent any confusion that may/has occur/occurredI also explained over the phone that I was authorized to make this an emergency claim and have a plumber come out to replace my sump pumpAfter submitting the invoice, I was informed that I would not be getting an emergency rate refund and would only get a regular rate refundI find that to be upsetting as well since I would not have called out a plumber on a holiday weekend and would have had someone come out during the weekdayIf there is still confusion to this matter, I'm more than happen to explain and deliver facts
Regards,
*** ***

The homeowner’s claim was first diagnosed as a bad capacitor, the replacement of which RWS approved and covered in full, minus the homeowner’s required service call fee. This, though not listed in the initial Revdex.com complaint, resulted in RWS, while looking into this claim, discovering that the...

homeowner had already paid the deductible to a contractor who then failed to complete the work. As a result, though the invoice submitted stated truthfully that no deductible was paid, RWS will cover that cost as it was due to no fault of the homeowner that the first contractor failed to keep his appointments. As a result, the homeowner’s $150 deductible has been submitted to accounting, to be reimbursed in full. With regards to the complaint, the capacitor was replaced on 8/19 and the diagnosis on 8/21 states “compressor is volting but not keeping up with system” and lists a compressor replacement as a ‘recommended repair’. On 9/13 the homeowner replaced both the capacitor and the compressor. Firstly, any cost related to the 9/13 capacitor replacement is not covered under the homeowner’s warranty because there would still be a manufacturer’s warranty in place on the capacitor as it had just been replaced less than 3 weeks earlier. The warranty does not cover those items currently covered under a manufacturer’s warranty. Secondly, as the 8/21 diagnosis does not state that the compressor is causing the issue, merely that it is a ‘recommended repair’, and as the compressor was working and had not actually failed, its replacement would not be covered under the information RWS was provided.If the homeowner has any additional information that would change the circumstances or information already received, please forward to RWS and we will be happy to review your claim.

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]

Due to the confusion experienced by a previous employee's poor handling of Ms. [redacted]'s claim, RWS has authorized an additional $150, which Ms. [redacted] received notice of on 29 March 2016. The check will be mailed out shortly. We here at RWS apologize for the confusion.

This homeowner submitted a claim under the 90-day policy stating that, while a contractor was installing a new dish, he removed shingles and the old dish and, in doing so, noted that there were leaks and water damage present underneath. The homeowner, relying on this find, contacted another...

contractor who failed to diagnose the issue (required by the policy) but instead proposed to remove the shingles, fix the issues, remove the old satellite dish brackets and shingles, and repair for between $1,000 and $1,250. The 90-day policy clearly states that “this contract does not cover water damage… or items that are inaccessible without the removal of drywall, concrete, or any other permanently installed covering.” As this issue was discovered after a contractor removed not only a satellite dish but also multiple shingles, it is clear that this issue is outside the scope of the 90-day warranty. Furthermore, the invoices received were not in accordance with what is required to process the claim as many of the items the contractor listed would not be approved (such as removing brackets from the old satellite dish, or removing/replacing shingles). However, after speaking with the home inspector, the Claim Director was made aware of some extenuating circumstances surrounding the issue and partially approved the claim; for which a check was submitted for processing and is currently going through a final audit before being mailed. However, this was done under no obligation and was above and beyond the requirements of the policy. However, we here at RWS strive for complete customer satisfaction and so, if the homeowner would like RWS to re-open her claim to see if she is entitled to a higher amount, we are more than happy to freeze her pending payment and re-evaluate the claim in whole, in case something was missed and she is entitled to an approval or a higher amount. Please forward an itemized repair estimate with a breakdown of parts & labor as well as a specific cause for the failure in writing from a licensed or properly certified repairperson per the terms of the warranty and the claim will be re-evaluated in its entirety

Thank you for your Revdex.com submission. Upon receiving the claim, please note that a sump pump failure is only an ‘emergency’ repair when “a risk of water intrusion via the sump pit exists”. Per your claim, and the invoice the sump pump was on fire and ‘burnt’ – please submit documentation from the contractor indicating there was a ‘risk of water intrusion via the sump pit’ or this would not fall under an emergency claim pursuant to the policy, which would not affect its coverage under the warranty overall but which would affect whether overtime charges would be covered. Please note that the contractor invoice submitted does not give details as to what kind of sump pump you had (it only states “removed sump pump that was burnt up and replaced with new pump”). Therefore, without any way of knowing the cause of the malfunction, the make or model replaced, how many hours of labor were spent, or the hourly rate being charged (page 10 of the policy, Step 2, states exactly what is required), RWS must still allocate the national standard. Please review your policy and provide the information required as none is included on the invoice submitted.

It is not RWS’s duty to gather the proper documentation – per the policy, it is the homeowner’s responsibility and the requirements are clearly delineated on the policy itself. Additionally, while the homeowner may state that he is “not concerned with being reimbursed for the ground rods”, he submitted an invoice for the same. Regardless, none of this matters as the claim was rightfully denied for the multiple reasons stated in RWS’s previous response. As pointed out in RWS’s last response, the homeowner’s claim was precluded for multiple reasons. RWS stands behind the reasons for the denial, and respectfully requests the homeowner to read the original response thoroughly, which addresses all of the points made in the homeowner’s most recent response. Finally, the homeowner needs to be aware that RWS does not represent the home inspector (additionally, it is unclear what the homeowner meant by that statement). RWS is a third-party company that offers a warranty with regards to the home inspection report findings – RWS is not the home inspection company and has no control over them or their home inspections.

This homeowner turned in a claim for a broken dishwasher but, when the diagnosis was submitted, he stated that he would prefer to purchase a new dishwasher instead of repairing his old one. This resulted in a ‘buyout’ being submitted for processing. Per the homeowner’s warranty “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.” However, when the homeowner was told the buyout amount, he changed his mind and chose to instead have the dishwasher repaired – this culminated in a conversation with the Director of Operations yesterday, wherein the Director stated RWS was more than willing to accommodate this changed request but would need a few days to gather the additional information needed for a repair that wasn’t needed for a buyout. The homeowner acknowledged his understanding and they agreed to speak again early next week. Obviously, this homeowner decided to instead file a complaint this morning, less than a day after speaking with the Director. As a result, the homeowner’s repair request is still being processed.Furthermore, the homeowner needs to be aware that RWS is not responsible for replacing an entire unit when only a few parts therein have failed – RWS is only responsible for replacing or repairing the failed parts and, as only 2 components in the homeowner’s dishwasher failed, RWS can either repair or replace those components, or issue a buyout. Therefore, due to some confusion as to what exactly this homeowner wants; he had previously acknowledged the repair option details would be finalized Monday but then filed this complaint immediately after asking for immediate resolution. Therefore, RWS has re-issued the homeowner’s requested buyout for processing and stopped the repair option processing in order to quickly handle this homeowner’s claim and not waste any of his time. If the homeowner does still want the repair option, RWS asks that he (1) removes this complaint as it is premature and (2) contact the Director of Operations to inform him that the homeowner does, in fact, still want the repair option and will grant RWS the few extra days processing, as originally agreed upon.

The homeowner needs to be aware that Residential Warranty Services, Inc. (“RWS”) is NOT their home inspection company – we are a third party warranty provider. This is vital because the homeowner mistakenly stated “I had home inspection done by their company”. Secondly, RWS has been actively...

working with the homeowner on this claim – his initial invoice, $7300 for a new system, was extremely unusual based on the circumstances surrounding this claim. As a result, RWS initially approved the obviously failed part, the compressor, and has been actively working with the homeowner to dispatch another contractor for a second opinion with regards to the other items listed, in order to move this claim forward. It should be noted that RWS also offered to cover hotel expenses pursuant to the policy, for any delay this second opinion causes, all of which was communicated to the homeowner last week.The new contractor conducted the second opinion today and, once RWS receives the 2nd opinion, we will be able to process the claim and determine the correct course of action.