Sign in

Spice Restaurant

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

Spice Restaurant Reviews (230)

Thank you for your email – there are some inconsistencies included in the Revdex.com complaint that, for the sake of clarity, I will try to address in full:   The homeowner’s SewerGard policy has no guarantee of $2000 in labor and parts after a $300 deductible. There is a $300 service call fee and a...

$2000 maximum coverage limitation, per occurrence, with a $4000 maximum coverage limitation, in aggregate. These amounts represent the most a homeowner can receive per claim/per policy, NOT a guarantee of how much they will receive per claim/per policy. Additionally, please note that there are no “caps” on prices, the prices are tied to the submission of itemized documentation (required pursuant to the policy). In the case at hand, the homeowner failed to submit proper documentation and so her customer service representatives attempted to reach the contractor themselves to get proper costs. When this failed to be fruitful, the Deputy Director stepped in to expedite the homeowner’s claim, made more difficult by the lack of proper documentation that had been provided by the homeowner. As a result, the $1200 check has already been sent out, pursuant to her policy and therefore, this claim has been closed. However, if the homeowner would like to re-open her claim with the proper documentation to determine if a different buyout amount is warranted (though there is no guarantee it will be), she simply has to return the buyout check and send in the necessary itemized documentation (prior to her policy’s expiration date), so that RWS has the necessary information required to finish processing this claim. If the homeowner is interested, please let us know here that the check has been voided and returned, and someone from RWS will be contacting you directly, to re-open the claim as soon as it has been received.

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.We had 2 contractors come out and look at the water heater.  The first one, Mr. Rooter, came out on April 26th.  He suggested the tank be replaced and moved to a new location.  When we spoke to RWS, we were told that they would cover up to $750 for the tank and labor.  The lady on the phone said she felt that he was overcharging.  So on April 29th we had the contractor that RWS had chosen, Eaton Plumbing, come out and look at it.  They also determined that the tank needed replaced.  When Eaton plumbing contacted RWS they said that they would not cover the repair so I called RWS to find out why.  I was told they would not cover repair due to a leak during the first 30 days.  I called Eaton Plumbing back and told the lady what RWS told me.  She said that there wasn't a leak and that there must have been a misunderstanding and she called RWS back.  Eaton Plumbing then called me again and said that RWS said that they would cover $800 of the repair.  We still felt though that they were charging too much to do the replacement and chose to not have them do the repair.  We did however still pay the $75 deductible.  After The contractor left I looked through our booklet from RWS again and read where it said under rights of the customer that we "may request cash in leu of repair" and that same day, April 29th I called RWS and told them that I wanted to request the cash.  I was told that was fine and I would be sent a check.  When I questioned the man on the phone and said "so they are just going to send me a check?", he said yes.  That he would submit the claim that day and it could take up to 30 days.  I asked him if he knew how much it would be for and he said $800.  After not receiving a check in the mail I contacted RWS in June and was told that they had no record of that conversation.  How do they not have any record of the multiple phone calls that day? No where in their booklet does it say that in order to request cash that they need an invoice.  And there was no alterations to the water heater.  Also, I never sent RWS an invoice so I am not sure what they are talking about.  This is just further proof of what a dishonest company this is.  I am attaching a copy of the invoice we have from Eaton Olumbing that proves that we did pay the $75 deductible and that they did come out on the 29th.  I don't understand how RWS can say that they would pay up to $800 towards the replacement and then say that the claim was denied.  
Regards,
[redacted]

A copy of Mr. [redacted]’s policy was mailed to him prior to the policy’s start date, and a signed confirmation of the same was submitted. However, we are more than happy to provide a second copy of the policy, which contains all of the services covered in addition to the related terms and conditions....

Please confirm your email and one will be sent electronically immediately upon receipt. With regards to the claims request – RWS is unclear what documents Mr. [redacted] is referring to and speaking of when he says he asked for a copy of the ‘claims’ he has submitted and some clarification is needed so we can look into the matter.

Thank you for bringing this case to our attention. The 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 notified. We apologize for the inconvenience. We 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.

This homeowner turned in an invoice for $3,263 when the maximum coverage for both structural and mechanical failures is $2,500 total, per her 90 Day warranty. Therefore, the homeowner had no possibility of recouping the entire invoice. Not only this, but over $2,600 of the invoice was for rotten...

wood repair, which the homeowner stated, in her claim submission, had been missed by the home inspector.When reviewing the inspection report, however, it is clear that the rotten wood was clearly marked throughout, as the problem extended through most of the house and into the exterior. Therefore, because the inspection report clearly mentioned rotting wood throughout the home, because the 90-Day warranty only covers “those items confirmed to be in good working condition at the time of inspection and excludes all others”, and because the 90 Day warranty expressly excludes coverage for water damage (i.e. wood rot), all of the homeowner’s rotten wood claims were denied. The remaining claims for a leaking bathtub and broken faucet were approved for $280, which is based on pricing in the homeowner’s area for similar claims. The homeowner was informed of this approval, and the approval amount, and a check was mailed to their attention. However, due to their concerns, upon receipt of this Revdex.com complaint, the claim was audited to ensure accuracy, which was confirmed today.

After looking into this situation, it appears you submitted an invoice for $367.00 total for your first claim, of which you’d be responsible for $150 (your service call fee, per your policy). Your buyout amount, which was mailed last week, not only completely reimbursed you for your repair costs,...

but also halved your service call fee, due to the issues you’ve had with your second claim and scheduling a time for the contractor to repair the issue, despite our best efforts. With regards to your second claim, the issue appears to be scheduling; wherein you need someone to come out first thing in the morning due to your work schedule and the contractor has been unable to accommodate this thus far. We are actively working on this, and will keep you updated as the claim progresses, if it has not already been resolved (please note that RWS does not schedule the contractors – this occurs between the homeowner and the contractor to ensure the time and day chosen works for both, which RWS would not be able to ensure as effectively).

Revdex.com: I was not made aware in the multiple times I called that the check had been mailed once already.  That would have been nice to know. 
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]

The homeowner filed this claim on 28 April 2016 yet did not submit a diagnosis and estimate until 13 May 2016. Furthermore, the estimate was not itemized, as required by our policy. However, our claims representatives went above and beyond their duties and contacted the contractor directly to...

determine the breakdowns of each line item. Based on that conversation, it was made clear that the contractor had:(1) made the mistake of including both a repair of the homeowner’s shower (which included non-covered items such as tile) and a complete replacement of the shower on the estimate, mis-marking one as a simple shower valve – a mistake that was supported by their earlier correct description on the diagnosis sheet. This mistake was fixed and the amount of a shower valve replacement, $350 for parts and labor, was approved in full; (2) included two services that are not covered by the homeowner’s policy (page 4 delineates that plumbing stoppages (clogs) are not covered, and the only services re: toilets that are covered are the assembly parts in the tank). Therefore, the cable drain and toilet pull costs were removed; and finally(3) failed to include his diagnosis fee in the estimate, and so RWS added that amount on to her buyoutFurthermore, the defect itself is the only thing covered because RWS does not cover consequential damage or secondary damage - please review your policy for details. Therefore, the homeowner is actually receiving the entirety the faucet replacement and the cost of a shower valve replacement, minus her deductibles, plus her diagnosis fee and the check has already been submitted for processing. HOWEVER, because RWS holds customer satisfaction so high, the homeowner may speak with her contractor and have them submit an itemized and corrected estimate for our review as we are more than happy to re-review the claim to ensure the homeowner is getting the highest amount possible. If this is your preference, RWS must be informed by the end of this week so we can freeze the current claim and re-open your claim.

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we don’t have a record of the 3 pictures sent; we only have a record of the one partial invoice, as stated in our previous response. Please re-send or re-email the complete invoice and RWS will expedite your claim.

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.
Unfortunately, RWS has failed to acknowledge that no one ever responded to approve/deny the claim from 8/20 with the recommended repairs based on the abnormal findings during my tune-up. No work was ever done as I continued to wait for feedback from RWS. RWS also fails to admit fault for never responding to my second claim I submitted during my call on 8/23 that that unit had completely failed the night before, and now I urgently need a response which I was told I would receive two days in a row and never did. The provided phone records prove that no one from RWS ever called back as promised to schedule a technician or help in any way whatsoever which is unacceptable. Since our last communication was on 8/23 before I followed up to see what happened, the last day to cut a reimbursement check to me (30 business days excluding weekends and holidays) was actually October 5, not October 13. I was told October 7 by RWS during my follow-up call so I don't know why they are going back on what they originally told me to try and cover their error of cutting the check late. RWS has also failed to admit responsibility for not telling me that amount on the check was going to be changed.In summary, the following actions and lack thereof are unacceptable, and would warrant an effort by the company to rectify the situation with the customer, which RWS is refusing to do.1. Never responded to approve or deny my 8/20 claim recommended repairs2. Never responded to or even recorded my 8/23 claim that the unit stopped working and needed urgent attention3. Never told me they decided to send me a $1000 check for a buyout of my parts (I had to call a week later and learn that myself).4. Cut the check a week late after they told me themselves that October 7 was the last day they could cut to be in compliance with their 30 day policy5. Sent a check for much less than the $1000 I was told I would receive, and never communicated this change to me. Unfortunately, RWS is not willing to provide any reimbursement for the horrible experience provided in the summary above. I cannot accept this as a satisfactory response to my Revdex.com claim so I suppose this claim will simply have to remain unresolved on Revdex.com's records along with the many other outstanding claims on the Revdex.com website against this company.
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.]Please find second estimate attached. Again, I am willing to settle for $500 buy out or having the dishwasher repaired at the cost of one deductible (Thus far I have paid $139 of my $150 deductible. See attached). While you may have ambiguously stated in the contract that you are able to charge multiple deductibles, I find this unreasonable for one broken dishwasher (and at the time only one service call). 
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.
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]

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. 1. The respondent RWS denies that contract breaches occurred and they have never failed to pay a claim. This is false. RWS had an enforceable legal duty to pay the claim for the garage door in September of 2015. In their letter dated September 24, 2015, they agreed to pay the claim within 30 days: Your check will be issued up to 30 business days from the date of this letter." They did not. Here we are FOUR MONTHS after that letter was sent and I have still not been paid. After repeated phone calls and emails, RWS continued to promise that the check would be forthcoming. It never was. That is a breach and that is a failure to pay. Moreover, they also were required to contact the claimant within a specific period of time: "You will be contacted by a RWS representative within 72 hours of all items being submitted." This also did not occur as promised, which is the second breach of contract. 2. RWS also promised me again in December to have someone call me about my other claims. No one ever did despite their repeated promises someone would. Moreover, I never received any letters from RWS except one: their letter promising to pay for the garage door. In fact, I have asked repeatedly to have responses in writing to my claims and they have not done so.Their claim that I was notified is not supported by the facts. It is difficult for claimants to respond to denial of claims without receiving notice of the denial and the reasons for such denial.I continued to let them know I had not received any of the letters they now claim to have sent.  3. RWS seeks to avoid payment for any electrical claims at all by pointing to a comment by the inspector that one of the breakers in the electrical box was double wired and should be evaluated. But while that may indeed pose a SAFETY hazard, but what this has to do with OPERATION is unclear. Moreover, the breaker that has a double wire is not connected to the electrical claims I made --if this were permitted to stand, warranty companies would seek to avoid coverage of ANY appliance or equipment that used electricity. Several telephone jacks for DSL use are not working and it has nothing to do with wires being doubled up in a breaker. 4. Where in the inspection report did the home inspection clearly note "that the light was not in working order at the time of the inspection" as RWS claims? 5. Structural claims.  Their warranty contains the following coverage, and any ambiguity will be held against the drafter of the warranty document. Nevertheless, their own policy states: "Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall Foundations. Floor joists, bottom and top plates, and wall members . . .". My complaints were about the flooring, had they bothered to return my telephone calls I could have discussed this very situation that concerns me: the floor joists. 6. At the end of the day, a Revdex.com complaint could have been avoided had RWS actually responded to my inquiries and repeated telephone calls to enable me to discuss my claims. I only received one letter from them, and that was the letter dated September 24, 2015 promising me that I would receive payment for my garage claim within 30 days of the letter. In November I did not receive the check. In December I did not receive (I was even promised that when I called in mid-December that the check would go out in a week. I called again in early January and the Director said that I should have received it. He further was unaware that I had also had other claims and was told someone would call me. They never did. Here we are January 23, 2016 -- 4 months later and no check, only promises that it is in the mail. 7. Here is what is needed: a) overnight the check and provide me a tracking number by email (my email works fine, I just wish they had used it to follow up with me as I had requested). b) email me written responses regarding my flooring claims and how my concerns about the joists are apparently now not covered by the warranty that applies to: "Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall Foundations. Floor joists, bottom and top plates, and wall members . . .".; c) Have RWS identify where in the inspection report did the home inspection clearly note "that the light was not in working order at the time of the inspection" as RWS claims, and how does that relate to the DSL telephone jacks that are not working?Thank you.

RWS has up to 30 business days to issue a check, which the homeowner was informed of, at the time of being notified of the refund. Despite this, RWS went above and beyond our obligations by expediting the check - it was mailed last week (12-06-2016) to the address contained on the file. Please call into RWS if it has not yet been received and we will re-issue the check, if necessary.

While we here at RWS are sorry the homeowner misunderstood the scope of the SewerGard policy's coverage, it clearly states, on the one page policy, that "the water line is the single lateral water service line from the point of the water utility's connection to the point of the water meter or main shut off line inside the home." The Simple Policy, as stated earlier, covers only “items falling within the perimeter of the foundation of the home”, which is clearly stated in the policy. While we here at RWS do wish the customer's claim had been covered, there was nothing we could do as it is clearly precluded under both policies. We urge the homeowner to review his policy, in full, so that he can be fully aware of it's scope of coverage.

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]

All of the concerns mentioned in the homeowner's latest response have been addressed, in full, in RWS's previous responses. Thank you.

[redacted], thank you for notifying us of the issue. I see from our records that you have already been contacted by our the General Manager here at Residential Warranty Services, regarding the structural issues which you submitted to us. He himself, has in turn, had conversations...

with your home inspector, in order to clarify some minor points noted within the report, which needed addressing in order to ensure that you received the most complete coverage available to you. After so doing, he immediately reviewed your now completed submission, and as I understand, called your personally and took you through the determination. The issue was resolved immediately upon receiving full clarification from the home inspector and as a result, your submitted issue was not only covered, but covered to the fullest extent of the 90 day policy, that being $2000. I hope that we have shown you, through our quick and decisive actions, that we really do care about our customers and go above and beyond in order to correct any misunderstandings which may occur when dealing with complex submissions through multiple parties. I would hope that the next time you are in contact with the Revdex.com, that it will be to provide us with the positive review we know we deserve. You will be receiving a check for the full amount shortly and I offer you my thanks for allowing us to fully cover the issue at hand. Thank you.

All of the homeowner’s raised questions have been addressed, including by quoting the policy itself, in RWS’s previous response. We here at RWS urge Mr. [redacted] to review his policy, and our previous answer, thoroughly.   However, to address the new allegations Mr. [redacted] has seen fit to raise in his second response, RWS states as follows:   1.      The distance of a contractor has NO BEARING on the homeowner. The contractor is paid only the applicable deductible(s) from the homeowner unless, as stated earlier, the customer requests expedited service, as occurred in this instance. All costs above the deductible and expedited service fees are paid by RWS, making distance irrelevant. Furthermore, the policy clearly states that a homeowner has the freedom to “call any contractor you would like”, giving Mr. [redacted] a second option with regards to contractors, one he chose not to exercise.   2.      RWS has nothing to do with any scheduling between the service contractor and the homeowner unless the homeowner specifically asks us to intervene. RWS contacts a contractor if the homeowner requests an RWS networked contractor, and puts them in contact with the homeowner, for them to decide when to schedule the appointment. Otherwise, the homeowner reaches out to a contractor of their choice and provides RWS with an estimate prior to any work being done.   3.      The invoice clearly states that “7lbs of R-22” was added to the upstairs unit, along with “3lbs R-22” to the downstairs unit. There is a charge for R-22 clearly listed at the bottom of the page – RWS urges Mr. [redacted] to review the invoice thoroughly for the clearly listed items.   4.      No RWS customer service representative has access to the interior of a homeowner’s home; this is clearly a miscommunication or misunderstanding as no one at RWS would ever indicate there was ‘video proof’ inside a homeowner’s home when no one from RWS has ever visited that home.   As stated earlier, Mr. [redacted]’s policy is still marked for cancellation without refund due to his refusal to pay the clearly delineated fees associated with this warranty. Once RWS receives confirmation of the payment, we will be able to work with Mr. [redacted] with regards to his air conditioners. Otherwise, his policy will be canceled in accordance with the cancellation provision included therein.       -- Alix Lei V[redacted], Esq.

Mr. [redacted] submitted two claims to RWS, both of which are partially mentioned in his complaint. One claim is clearly outside the scope of the 90 day warranty, which Mr. [redacted] has been informed of and which he agrees, due to it being an issue for homeowner's insurance rather than the 90 day...

guarantee. The second claim was approved by RWS and covered for essentially the entire amount asked for (not just 2/3 of the cost as referenced in the complaint). Mr. [redacted] was contacted today by RWS's Director of Operations and has expressed satisfaction with his claim's handling and the amount he is receiving under his 90 day warranty. His check has been turned into accounting and will be processed and mailed accordingly.

Check fields!

Write a review of Spice Restaurant

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

Spice Restaurant Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

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

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Spice Restaurant.



Add contact information for Spice Restaurant

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