B E C U

Review: Driveway poured on 8|30|12. Driveway held water in three large places to form deep puddles. We notified [redacted] the next day, he came out and said He would correct the problem by filling the lows spots and smoothing the asphalt out that this was not a big problem.We told him we did not want a bothed up job or sloppy patching and He told us again NO PROBLEM, HE would get a hold of us by the end of that week, and let us know when he would have his crew out here. Since than I have called to him a couple of times and so has my husband. As of today 10/18/12 our new driveway that we were told would not have standing water by his son (who wrote up the contract ) is still holding water in three places plus our new sidewalk is very uneven. He guarantees his work on his contract . everytime we"ve called him we were told he'd be out this week. AND AS OF TODAY . "NOTHING" This is what we paid $3,375.00. for , a driveway you can wash your shoes onDesired Settlement: To just get a nice driveway that doesn't hold water and has the proper run off like we were told from the begining. Our old asphalt held water. His son guaranteed us that if we let them have the job we wouldn t have holding water. We just want what we paid for and not this run around.

Business

Response:

Yes I [redacted], owner of Big B Blacktopping have talked to Mr./Mrs. [redacted] about their water problem. In out conversation I agreed to work with their drainage problem to the best of my ability. I will also agree that it should have been done this past fall. Unfortunately due to weather it will now be this spring. However my son and I on two separate occasions told that due to their driveway being an overlay it is hard to correct drainage issues although we will try to the best of our ability. Now Mr. [redacted] is trying to say we guaranteed no water on his driveway which isn't true. We do not guarantee full drainage on no job site but this spring we will make our best attempt to satisfy the customer.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 9265885, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

we have been told 7 times that he would be out the following week and he never showed up I guess we will see if this is number 8. and we were told we would have water run off no more big puddles. we realize that their can be small puddles but not these big ones. we just want this resolved soon as possiable. [redacted] can call us anytime. [redacted]

Review: Way back on X-XX-XXXX we filed a chargeback with BECU regarding an ink cartridge purchase through [redacted] The carts were represented as new, OEM. In fact, they had expired some three years before the purchase and did not come in [redacted] packaging and were products of Third World countries marked not for resale. The amount in dispute was $69.88 which was posted to BECU account number XXXXXXXXXX on 3-20-2013.

This was a no-brainer. This was dog-simple. Unfortunately, enter stage left, Boeing Credit Union.

The chargeback was received and duly processed by BECU and the amount was provisionally credited back to my account. BECU then began asking for documentation. We prepared all requested documentation, including pictures and faxed it in. BECU received it. Then BECU asked for the same documentation. Again we sent it in. BECU then asked for the same documentation. Again we sent it in, this last time on 5-4-2013. That letter was very pointed and it explicitly pointed to all of the answers to their questions and showed these questions being answered in previous communications.

Shortly thereafter we received a letter from BECU stating that the dispute had been decided in our favor and that the matter was PERMANENTLY closed. The credit was allowed to remain in our account.

Case closed? One might think so, but of course we're dealing with BECU here so the nightmare continues.

On about X-XX-XXXX we received a letter from BECU dated 7-9-2013,stating that they had "forwarded our letter to the appropriate representative who would contact us if need be". No case was referenced.

Of course we had not recently sent any letter to BECU, so, fearing some kind of attempted fraud, we wrote to BECU online and advised them of that fact and asked what the letter was in reference to.

As usual, we received only unhelpful nonsense from BECU through their website. We finally concluded that the letter dated X-X-XXXX was just another BECU clerical screw-up and we ignored it, assuming they would figure it out in the end.

But of course we're still dealing with BECU here, so the nightmare continues.

On X-X-XXXX we received yet another letter from BECU, dated 8-5-2013, stating that BECU had not received a response from us and that the amount of $69.88 was being removed from our account.

Desired Settlement: BECU must straighten this matter out, send us copies of ALL correspondence, including their letter to us stating that the dispute was decided in our favor PERMANENTLY, and BECU must leave the funds in our account or put them back into our account.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2013/08/26) */

August 26, 2013

Revdex.com Case # [redacted])

BECU has reviewed Mr. [redacted]'s allegations and will respond accordingly. At the outset, BECU wishes to clarify that Mr. [redacted] contested two charges from [redacted] at differing times- one in the amount of $69.88 on March 27, 2013 and the other in the amount of $126.83 on July 30, 2013. Both of the disputed charges involved the purchase of ink cartridges.

First Dispute

On March 27, 2013 BECU received Mr. [redacted]'s request to investigate a dispute in the amount of $69.88 for charges incurred through [redacted] involving the purchase of ink cartridges. The next day, BECU posted a provisional credit to Mr. [redacted]'s account pursuant to the MasterCard rules and operating procedures. A provisional credit is applied to an account during the pendency of the investigation. Once the investigation is concluded, the credit remains or is reversed depending on the outcome of the investigation.

On April 4, 2013 BECU sent Mr. [redacted] a letter informing him that in order to further investigate and process the charge-back of $69.88, we needed more information. Again, we were operating within the requirements of the MasterCard rules. In that letter (attached) we informed Mr. [redacted] that we needed the invoice or description of merchandise from the merchant, the name of the product that he ordered and received, and if the merchandise was returned, we needed proof that he returned the item.

BECU completed the process and submitted the charge-back to the merchant bank. On April 29, the merchant bank denied the provisional credit. BECU informed Mr. [redacted] in writing of the merchant bank's determination. In that same letter, we informed Mr. [redacted] that if he intended to appeal the merchant bank's denial of the charge-back, he would need to review the merchant bank's documentation which impacted the decision to deny the charge-back.

On [redacted] 6, 2013, Mr. [redacted] consented to BECU's further investigation of the matter. As a courtesy, BECU allowed Mr. [redacted] to keep the $69.88 provisional credit without any further investigation. BECU notified Mr. [redacted] of this fact by letter dated [redacted] 7, 2013 (attached).

Second Dispute

On July 30, 2013 BECU received a dispute form from Mr. [redacted] in the amount of $126.83 for charges incurred for the purchase of ink cartridges. On August 1, BECU posted a provisional credit to Mr. [redacted]'s account pursuant to the MasterCard rules and operating procedures.

On August 4, 2013 BECU informed Mr. [redacted] in writing that a provisional credit in the amount of $126.83 was posted to his account and we requested additional information from him in order to investigate the matter. The request for additional information is a requirement under the MasterCard rules and operating procedures. Mr. [redacted] informed BECU that he had returned the merchandise on July 19 and had not received a refund. In this situation, BECU is required to allow the merchant 30 days to the post the refund (credit) to the member's account before BECU can process the dispute. Before BECU had the opportunity to further investigate the matter, the merchant [redacted] credited Mr. [redacted]'s account in the amount of $126.83 on August 21, 2013.

On August 23, 2013, BECU sent a letter to Mr. [redacted] informing him that the provisional credit of $126.83 would be reversed since Amazon had credited his account for the same amount.

We regret that Mr. [redacted] was frustrated by this process and did not believe BECU was responding to his requests, but as a financial institution with contractual obligations to MasterCard, we are duty bound to honor the MasterCard process, which means we must adhere to the MasterCard rules and operating procedures regarding disputes of charges. MasterCard requires the documentation that BECU requested Mr. [redacted] to provide. While it [redacted] seem unnecessary and irrelevant to Mr. [redacted], the documents are relevant to MasterCard as a condition of investigating the matter.

Our understanding of this situation is that Mr. [redacted] has now been made whole as the transactions have been reversed and a total of $196.71 has been credited to his BECU checking account [redacted]

Sincerely,

Legal Department

Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 9, 2013/08/28) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

Once again, for probably the twentieth time, BECU has refused to comprehend even the basics of this case and it is so, so, so simple. I find this beyond incredible. They were told over and over and over and over and over that this problem had nothing to do with the second chargeback of $123. This has to do ONLY with the first chargeback of $69. Here is the problem, YET AGAIN. This has been explained to BECU more times than we can count, and we have faxed them copies of these two letters. Yet STILL, after all this time and all these dog-simple explanations, BECU seems to be purposefully, willfully "misunderstanding" this problem. We don't see how that can be possible unless it is deliberate. Once again, for the bloody record, here it is: On May 7, 2013, we received a letter from BECU stating that our chargeback in the amount of $69.99 had been honored and that a PERMANENT credit had been issued. Indeed it had. Simple so far, correct? No one is confused thus far, right? Done deal, end of story, everyone is happy. But, of course, we're dealing with BECU, so NOTHING can be that easy. Now, on August 5, 2013, fully four full months later, we received a letter from BECU stating that since we had not responded to some non-existent query of theirs, the amount of $69.88 would be debited back off our account. Obviously that is a problem and that is the ONLY problem we are complaining about. We wrote to BECU about this, and they misunderstood it. We wrote again. They misunderstood again. We wrote over and over and over and over and over, explaining it in every possible way, first by using their website contact system, then by snail mail and fax. In every single instance, even after we twice faxed them these letters, they CHOSE to misunderstand this and would only respond to something entirely different which we had never complained about! At one point we told them we needed to interact with someone with an IQ over 11 and we meant that literally. We see that [redacted]'s IQ is even lower than that, and we mean that literally! This is now a public website. This is beyond any stupidity we have ever encountered, even in Third World countries. This is documentable mental rdation. BECU: Figure this out and offer an intelligent reply. Seriously. You're making fools of yourselves in a very big way and we're beyond disgusted with you -- we're frankly scared of you. No financial institution anywhere, not even in Afghanistan, can afford to be this inept and downright bloody stupid.

Review: BECU did not hold up to their word in closing mortgages (qty 2) on time. Continue delays on BECU's part due to a lack of qualified processors/underwriters and tools prevented loans from closing on time. Was continued told loans would be closing in a week or so but turned into months. Submitted loan applications on May 15th didn't close until September 18th. The delay by BECU cause out of pocket expenses on myside which should be reimbursed by BECU. Have give BECU the opportunity to address my claim (email sent to them on September 19th but over a month and a half later still no fulfillment of my claim has been made. I would also like to add that at this time I have not asked for the higher interest rate verse the lower interest rate refund.Desired Settlement: Due to the poor performance of BECU, I would like to request a refund of my main house appraisal ($450) and a refund of ($175) for the loan extension with [redacted] on August 26th. If needed please contact [redacted] with [redacted] bank on this issue as well with the poor performance of BECU. If you have any questions on the loan extension, please feel free to contact [redacted]. I ask for the $625, due to the out of pocket money I spent for not closing on time, which again is due to the poor performance of BECU. I would appreciate your help in bringing my claim of $625 with BECU to closure.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2014/12/03) */

Hello,

The inquiry has been forwarded to the appropriate department for review.

Sincerely,

Email Support Representative

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2014/12/04) */

(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

BECU responded and met my request. Thank you Revdex.com for your support.

Review: Back in 2008 my wife and I filed bankruptcy. WE reaffirmed our car but the personal line of credit and Visa card that were with the same bank as the car were not reaffirmed and were included in the Bankruptcy. The car was repossessed as of January this year and they were able to get more than what was owed on it but are claiming that the overages were put to cover losses from the closed visa and line of credit from the bankruptcy. Can They do that retro actively like this?Desired Settlement: To give me my money from the overage in the sale of my vehicle.

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/05/23) */

Revdex.com Complaint Response-[redacted]

Case # XXXXXXXX

BECU has researched [redacted]'s complaint. It appears that [redacted] is correct; he is owed the overage from BECU's sale of his repossessed vehicle. [redacted] may have been told otherwise but he did not receive the correct information when he discussed this matter with a BECU representative. We thank him for bringing this to our attention. Today, BECU mailed a check in the amount of $1,500.00 to [redacted], which he should receive tomorrow or Saturday.

Sincerely,

Corporate Counsel

Consumer's Final Response /* (2000, 7, 2013/05/31) */

(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Review: I called BECU to inform them that I would be travelling to Romania and wanted my debit card to work while abroad. During the call I spoke with 3 separate people and verified with each one that I would not have any problems accessing money while abroad. All assured me that there would be no problem. When I arrived in Romania, I could not find a single ATM that would dispense money to me; all read that my bank had declined the transaction. I tried calling the international help number multiple times but was never able to speak with anyone about the problem. I reached an auto message saying the number could not be reached from the number I dialed from. I tried every bank available, but I was ultimately left with no money in a foreign country for 1 week. I had to drastically alter my vacation plans as a result. I had brought some back up cash to be safe, but did not feel it was safe to carry cash enough to last the entire trip. BECU essentially ruined a very expensive and long-planned vacation. When I returned to the US, I called BECU to make a complaint. On the phone I was informed that access to BECU funds via any Romanian ATMs had been disabled approximately 2 months prior due to a phishing scam. This was done BEFORE I made the initial calls to inform them of my travel plans - specifically to Romania. Despite speaking with 3 separate individuals, I was never informed of the shut down to Romanian ATMs. I specfically asked BECU representatives for verification of my ability to use my card while travelling to the countries I had listed and was assured that I would not have a problem. Clearly this was not accurate as BECU had already shut off all banking access to Romania. This is a huge oversight and a mistake that cost me my entire vacation. The stress of maneuvering in Romania with no access to any of my OWN money was outrageously frustrating. The inability to get ahold of any BECU representatives that could help me while abroad was maddeningDesired Settlement: It is likely too late to salvage my patronage of BECU. This was a gross mistake that cost me my vacation. Ideally, I would like to see some level of compensation for altered travel plans, but mainly want to speak with someone who can ACTUALLY pass this message along to management. It is a huge deal when a banking customer goes through the hassle of moving all their money and accounts because of the customer experience they receive from their bank.

Business

Response:

We have responded to Ms. [redacted] allegations and regret the error. We have conducted additional staff training to prevent this type of situation from happening again. We will be sending Ms. [redacted] a gift card as a token of our apology.[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]

Review: BECU is inconsistently alleging that the 2014 Subaru WRX STI 5-Door Hatchback subject to an automotive loan is not currently insured.

A notice was originally sent March 26, 2014 stating that the vehicle was not insured. After an in-person visit to BECU's Evergreen Way Branch on March 28, 2014, it was clarified that the VIN was corrected on the policy through [redacted] Both parties agreed that the vehicle was properly insured exceeding the levels specified in the lending agreement.

A final notice dated April 09, 2014 continues to allege that the vehicle is not currently insured. This vehicle continues to be insured exceeding the levels specified in the lending agreement.

A notice via Certified Mail threatens to purchase insurance on my behalf.Desired Settlement: Cease and desist the mailings stating that this vehicle is not insured to the levels specified in the lending agreement.

Cancel any insurance obtained on the my behalf and credit any charges back to my account.

The vehicle is currently insured through [redacted] and will remain so consistent with the terms of the lending agreement.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/05/02) */

Revdex.com Complaint

Member [redacted]

Case # XXXXXXXX

[redacted] 2, 2014

BECU is in receipt of Mr. [redacted]'s complaint to the Revdex.com. Mr. [redacted] informed the Revdex.com that BECU incorrectly stated that the vehicle he financed through BECU (2014 Subaru WRX STI 5-door Hatchback) was not insured. Mr. [redacted] states that his vehicle was insured at all times and does not understand why he received notices from BECU alleging otherwise. We have researched the matter and provide the following response.

BECU originated Mr. [redacted]'s auto loan on February 21, 2014. Mr. [redacted]'s insurance company, [redacted], verified Mr. [redacted]'s insurance coverage on February 25, 2014. That same day, [redacted] notified BECU that the insurance had been canceled.

BECU's insurance agent ([redacted]) notified Mr. [redacted] by letters dated March 22 and April 5 that, because there was no record of insurance coverage on the vehicle, as communicated by [redacted], BECU would purchase collateral protection insurance for him and add it to his loan balance. Mr. [redacted] discussed the matter at BECU's local neighborhood financial center on April 28, 2014 where a BECU employee contacted [redacted] Insurance in order to verify whether the vehicle had insurance coverage. [redacted] contacted [redacted] and [redacted] confirmed that the vehicle did indeed have the requisite insurance coverage.

Therefore, BECU immediately canceled the impending [redacted] insurance coverage that had been placed on the vehicle. To date, Mr. [redacted] has not incurred any additional fees or charges related to the insurance coverage. Mr. [redacted]'s loan is in the position of status quo ante, as if the whole incident had never happened.

We apologize to Mr. [redacted] if was frustrated with this process and regret that he did not experience an optimal and seamless loan transaction with BECU.

Sincerely,

BECU

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2014/05/05) */

(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Review: BECU frequently charges over draft NSF charges when automatic withdrawal happens earlier in the very same day as automatic paycheck deposit or manual deposit to BECU the very same day. EX: auto pay bill withdraws @ 1201 am and paycheck deposits at 0100 am...BECU charges a $25 overdraft fee. EX: auto pay at 1201 am, walk in deposit at 930 am (when bank opens) SAME DAY a $25 NSF fee is charged.

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Refund

I would like (per request) my $25 back

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2013/12/09) */

December 9, 2013

[redacted] filed a complaint to the Revdex.com in which she stated that BECU has been assessing NSF fees because her automatic/electronic withdrawals (payments) are debited from her BECU checking account prior to a recurring direct deposit being deposited to her BECU checking account. We have researched the facts and provide the following response.

In this case, most recent information gleaned from [redacted]'s periodic statement indicates that a Chase auto pay was withdrawn from [redacted]'s BECU checking account electronically on or around the 8th of each month (in the most recent case, November 8, 2013). It appears that payroll funds are automatically deposited into [redacted]'s BECU checking account on or approximately on the 15th of each month (in this case, on November 15, 2013). As a result, [redacted]'s account went negative sometime after the 8th until funds were deposited on the 15th. Therefore, BECU assessed an NSF fee of $25.00.

Direct deposits via ACH are controlled by the employer, and BECU posts direct deposits as soon as received. Electronic/auto pays are processed very early in the morning, and we understand that this is an industry standard.

We suggest that [redacted] change her auto pay with the respective financial institution, which appears to be deducted from her account on the 8th of each month, to sometime after the 15th of each month, which is when her direct deposit is placed into her BECU checking account. In the absence of that option, [redacted] can carefully monitor her account and ensure that sufficient funds exist to prevent any overdrafts. BECU's internal business records indicate that our member consultants have informed [redacted] of her options, and as a courtesy, we waived an NSF fee of $25.00 on August 1, 2013. However, we cannot continue to waive these fees if her account becomes overdrawn, as [redacted] is in the best position to manage her accounts and ensure that adequate funds are in those accounts to prevent future overdrafts.

Sincerely,

Legal Department

Review: my car was repossesed even though I was up to date on my payments and had insurance . they charged me over $1500 to get my car back and they want me to pay another $65 to get my personal belongings which were removed from my vehicles. I also missed 2 days of work and was without my only vehicle for 3 1/2 days. which is my only form of transportation for my daughter who has cytomegalovirus and is being evaluated for seizures.Desired Settlement: compensation for lost money

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/02/13) */

February 13, 2015

Tacoma, WA 98404

RE: Complaint to the Washington State Department of Financial

Dear [redacted]:

We are in receipt of the complaint that you submitted to BECU's regulator, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions ("DFI"). In your complaint, you claim that BECU unlawfully repossessed your vehicle. The DFI has requested that we respond to your concerns by the due date of February 17, 2015. We have researched the matters you raise and provide the following response.

First and foremost, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA") does not apply in your situation. The protections of the SCRA apply only to obligations or liabilities entered into before a service member enters military service. In your case, our records indicate that you were called to active duty on June 20, 2011. You obtained the auto loan on May 29, 2013.

You financed a used 2010 Mazda CX7 at a rate of 4.24 percent for a period of 72 months with BECU on May 29, 2013 (see enclosed loan document). Your monthly payment obligation was $402.00 beginning July 8, 2013 which you elected to pay through automatic draft (the payment would be made automatically through automated clearing house ("ACH") and debited from your BECU Member Share Savings account[redacted]

One of the requirements under the loan contract was your promise to insure the vehicle at all times as a means of protecting BECU's interest in the collateral. This is because BECU has a security interest in the automobile in the event that you default on your payment obligations.

We learned that your vehicle did not have the requisite collateral protection insurance, so after notifying you numerous times to get this matter resolved, BECU purchased the insurance for you and prorated the cost to your loan. The collateral protection insurance was added on July 15, 2014. As a result, your monthly payment obligation increased from $402.00 to $472.00. Despite the fact that you continued to make monthly payments via ACH, the fact that your payments were less than the new balance created a delinquency situation. Additionally, we received no payment from you in November 2014. Despite our numerous attempts to contact you by letter and telephone, your lack of communication left us with no other option than to begin the repossession process.

Ultimately, we were able to connect with you and you redeemed the vehicle. All but $350.00 of the $1,500.00 BECU charged you went to pay down the delinquent balance (including the imposition of late fees). The $350.00 charge is the cost of the repossession.

Please note that it is your responsibility to keep BECU informed of your address and phone number in the event that your contact information changes. We notified you of this obligation when you applied for membership to BECU. Specifically, as a condition of your membership, you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Account Agreement booklet. Please refer to Section 17 (Notices) Name or Address Changes - "You agree to notify BECU upon a change of address or change of name." (Enclosed)

We regret that you are upset by BECU's actions, but a thorough review of the facts indicates that BECU acted appropriately and lawfully

Sincerely,

Corporate Counsel

[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/02/16) */

(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Review: had them install new driveway, driveway now lets massive amount of water to flow into our patio room, destroying carpeting and everything in its path. back of driveway is crumbling and coming apart due to improper backfilling and compacting. temporary repairs were made by the company, water problem became worse. every attempt to get corrected has resulted in the nonchalant way the owner has ignored his responsibility. his promisses can only leed me to believe he has no intention to correct the problem. every phone call to this man has led to him promissing something he will not deliver. the water issue in patio room can cause mold and mildew and we did not sign up for this hassle. work was done Oct.11, 2012, he has had more than enough time to repair the problem. he has been paid and and his service has stopped. sad way to do business, I guess he thinks customers I will just go away.

Business

Response:

We have never told customer we wouldn't fix driveway, last conversation we had with customer he told he didn't want us back out there.

However we have no problem fixing driveway. Customer was told that the reason for edge breaking is he is parking his boat on edge of driveway.

We have not problem fixing repairs as long as customer is willing.

C [redacted]

(see attachment for original company letter)

Consumer

Response:

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

this man has made no attempt to repair or rectify the problem. I think it is probably time to t is dueake this problem further, carpet in patio room is in need of repair or replacement, water pours thru side door when raining,

bump installed by back door is a hazard, driveway is coming apart on edges due to lack of proper fill and packing. and hole caused by boat is due to improper fill and packing. as far as promise to fix problem no attempt has been attempted. lots of talk but no action. I dont know if this company is qualified to rectify the problem. all the owner has done is make a promise he cant or does not want to correct. I mightt add that when this company was paid, and problems were reported, all phone numbers in the phone book were no longer in service. to the owner, I trusted your son as your representative. I did not get my moneys worth, and your follow up leaves much to be desired. pictures are available for your inspection.

Business

Response:

We are willing to remove bumper or replace bumper and fix any driveway repairs.

Thanks,

Consumer

Response:

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 wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

Review: On Wednesday the 23rd of October 2013. Becu made an unauthorized and illegal withdrawal in the amount of $6315.77 from my savings account #XXX-XXX-XXXX. Becu then put a neg balance in my savings account for the amount of -30,004.96.Desired Settlement: I need my account set back to zero and have a balance of 6315.77 the way it was on october 23rd 2013.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/12/13) */

December 13, 2013

Since [redacted] submitted the same complaint to BECU's regulator, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, the Attorney General's Office, and the Revdex.com, I am attaching BECU's response to [redacted], which I mailed to him today, and have copied the respective agencies as well.

Corporate Counsel

Dear [redacted]:

We are in receipt of the complaint you filed with the different agencies identified above. Since the crux of your complaint is the same for all three agencies, I will address BECU's response with this single letter.

You allege that BECU made an "unauthorized and illegal withdrawal in the amount of $6, 315.77" from your savings account [redacted]. You also state that Becu's withdrawal of this amount resulted in a negative $30,004.96 balance. I have researched the matter and provide the following response.

You applied for and received a BECU line of credit and Visa account. Becu's records indicate you had trouble making payments and eventually became delinquent in your payment obligations. After numerous attempts to work with you and arrange repayment, BECU applied $6,315.77 to the debts. Specifically, BECU applied $4,089.13 of the $6,315.77 to the charged-off Visa, which fully satisfied this obligation. The remainder ($2,226.64) was applied to the charged-off line of credit. As of December 12, 2013, the line of credit has been reduced to $21,853.51 (including interest).

Please note that when you applied for membership at BECU, you agreed to the terms and conditions of membership as stated in BECU's Account Agreement booklet ("Agreement"). Section 15 of the Agreement states that BECU has a statutory lien against all funds held in your accounts with the credit union, regardless of the source of the funds. What this means is that if you owe BECU on a debt, then we may withdraw funds from any account (in this case, your savings account [redacted]) to satisfy the amounts due. We have the right to conduct this offset without any prior notice to you.

In your complaint, you allege that BECU's actions put your savings account balance at -$30,004.96. BECU did not withdraw this amount from your savings account. The amount merely reflects the approximate balance owing on your debts at the time your account was frozen meaning that any funds deposited would be subject to the collection hold up to that amount.

Please contact BECU's Loan Loss Recovery Department at [redacted], ext. [redacted] and we would be happy to work with you to set up payment arrangements.

Sincerely.

Review: On 8/2/13 I went to the atm at my branch to deposit cash in the amount of $2300 I didnt count it as I was putting it in when the deposit printed out it show the deposit was short $500 I immediately called the bank and told them that it showed an error in the deposit so they credited me and told me that it would show up when the money in the machine was counted that night.On 10/10/13 I went online to see what my balance was and found that the bank had withdrew the $500 out of my account claiming that when the funds were counted for that night it balanced and there was not an extra $500. When I called to ask what had happen they said they would recount the money for the night to see if it was counted wrong in the first place. Of course it would be different because apparently someone has stolen the extra funds.If you look into the account in question you will see the purchase of 4 plane tickets equallying $2246.40 and a priceline charge of $112.31 these tickets were purchase for my son he had given me the money to cover the cost of the tickets and I used my card to purchase them.Prior to depositing the $2300 I had just over $300 why would I allow a purchase of $2300 from my account if I didnt put the money into to cover it. I want my account credited back the $500

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Refund

I want the money stolen from my deposit credited back to the account and a internal investigation completed to determine what had transpired the night the money was counted.I will be filing police charges for theft so I want the names of everyone involved.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/10/28) */

October 28, 2013

Revdex.com Complaint-[redacted]

#XXXXXXXX

To Whom It May Concern:

BECU has researched this matter for [redacted]. We posted a provisional credit of $500.00 while we investigated the matter. Upon further investigation, we determined that the ATM in question received approximately $1,780.00 instead of $2,300.00 as [redacted] claims she deposited. Specifically, according to the ATM records, [redacted] made two separate deposits on August 2 at the same ATM location. One deposit was in the amount of $980.00 and the other was in the amount of $800.00, totaling $1,780.00, not $2,300.00.

[redacted] admits that she did not count the money before she made the deposit. We advise our members to always verify the funds that they are depositing. Our records indicate that BECU denied the provisional credit and notified [redacted] by letter. However, it appears that [redacted] requested a second review of this matter and BECU provisionally credited [redacted]'s account again on October 11, 2013. Upon further review, we will inform [redacted] whether the provisional credit will be denied or remain as a permanent credit.

Sincerely,

Legal Department

Cannot agree more with the previous complainant.

If possible, I would POST pictures of our driveway installed last March. Pictures are worth a thousand words! We have communicated with & were promised by Big B & Sons Asphalt they would be here to repair 7-8 times. Our drive began caving in around the 1st week of June, alittle over 2 months later. Big B & Sons also installed an additional drainage pipe across drive. Ironically? they collapsed this pipe while doing work, which now holds a virtual pond of water on our drive.My husband & I discovered this by attempting to push a 1/2" PVC pipe thru drainage pipe...no luck! Completely closed...water pooling on our drive.

Tonight, Jan. 21, 2015 I twisted my ankle while getting out of my truck, in our drive. I fell into one of the 2 pits created due to water, less than contracted asphalt, and horrible workmanship. We will have to make the repair but... I will make it my MISSION to inform future homeowners to RUN...NOT WALK from BIG B & SONS BLACKTOPPING IN SHEPHERDSVILLE KY.

Review: I was issued a check. I called the issuing bank and verified account and funds. I was told the check and funds were available. I deposited the check in my account. I waited a week before withdrawing any funds. Prior to withdrawing funds I called BECU to verify the check had cleared the issuing bank and was told it had cleared and I could withdraw funds, so I did. The next day I checked my account online and saw it was overdrawn by almost $3,000.00. The check had been returned as alter/fict. I then called BECU to find out why I had been told the check had cleared when in fact it had been returned. The answer I received was "I apologize for the inconvenience, there is nothing we can do." I was then told I could contact Loss Prevention to set up payment arrangements so my direct deposits would not all be taken and I could still pay bills. When I called I was told I could not make payments, everything had to be paid once and any money deposited into the account would go toward the negative balance. Nobody at BECU was willing to work with me to resolve this situation all they wanted was their money.Desired Settlement: I would like this matter investigated further and monies returned to my account. Or I would like BECU to work with me to resolve the negative balance. Also, treat me like I am a human and not a dollar sign.

Business

Response:

Member was a victim of a scam and spent the fraudulent funds.

Review: On June 17 2014 I had this company resurface my drive way and was told how many years of business they were in and how great their work was. I was told not to drive on driveway for one or two days'. I waited three days before driving on it,when I pulled on the drive a place by the garage crumbled and broke apart.It apparently was not compacted down hard enough. I called [redacted] who I dealt with and complained about the problem.a couple of days later he came out and looked at the drive and told me he would be back on the seventh of July 2014 to cut that part out and repair it.I showed him another part of the drive that looked to porous and not compacted down enough. He said he would take care of that too by heating the area with a torch and putting sand on it and compacting it to give it a smoother more dependable surface.I have called them numerous time and get their voice mail, I leave a message and they refuse to contact me back. I am being given the run around by this company who apparently is not living up to the promises or guarantee of the company.Desired Settlement: I want my driveway to be repaired the correct way or I want a complete refund for poor workmanship.I want this done in a timely professional manner.

Business

Response:

This complaint has been resolved.

Review: There was an agreement in January 2012 to reduce payment and interest rate. The payment was reduced, the months were added on to contract without reducing the interest rate. The rate was to be reduced from 9.75% to 7.75%. I noticed in approximately July 2014 when my overall amount due seemed so high, that it was never applied. I inquired about this and they claimed they reduced the interest but it was only for a couple months they went back and gave me credit for about $1000 which does not add up to 2.5 years of interest. The car loan started in November 2007, amount of $6000 was added to loan and undetermined for what. I have paid for 7 years and the balance is still $17000 which does not add up, nobody pays for 14 years to get car paid off! I inquired several times about the payments etc., I asked for an audit of the payments and loan contract but they stated they do not have an audit department. They have repossessed my vehicle with the amount owing after paying for 7 years. I believe the calculation of the loan is incorrect and I do not owe that much balance.Desired Settlement: I am seeking an internal audit of payments, the interest rate not being applied or an offsite audit of the loan and balance. I believe I do not owe that much left on the car.

They need to prove the amount of interest reduced for that 2.5 year period.

I have it all in writing.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/12/18) */

[redacted] Revdex.com Complaint # XXXXXXXX

December 18, 2014

In her complaint to the Revdex.com, Ms. [redacted] raises a few issues with respect to her auto loan. She wants the following issues resolved: (1) a record/audit of her payments; (2) whether the interest rate of 7.75% was applied to her loan; and (3) why her balance has not been paid down despite the fact that she financed the loan in November 2007 for 72 months.

Regarding the first point above, we are attaching a detailed payment history of Ms. [redacted]' auto loan from the date she financed the loan with BECU. This payment history shows the imposition of charges for collateral protection insurance which added to the balance of the loan and was only partially reversed given an actual lapse in insurance coverage, along with several late payments and the resulting late charges, as well the impact of a number of loan modifications agreed to by the borrower, including periods of interest only payments.

Regarding Ms. [redacted]' second point above, BECU did modify her loan in January 2012. Although the modification contract that Ms. [redacted] agreed to does not reference any reduction in her interest rate (the original contract rate was 9.75%), when questioned by Ms. [redacted] in 2014, we agreed to honor the lower interest rate of 7.75% based on conversations held with her in 2012. We backdated the reduced rate to the date of the 2012 loan modification, but because of system constraints, performed calculations outside of the loan record and made a one-time adjustment to the account with funds credited against the loan balance. Had Ms. [redacted] received the lower interest rate dating back to the January 2012 modification, Ms. [redacted]' auto loan would be reduced by $1,184.56. Therefore, BECU applied this amount to Ms. [redacted]' auto loan and reduced the balance.

All of these factors help explain why the loan balance has not been reduced in a manner consistent with a customary repayment schedule in which payments remain at the scheduled amounts and are paid on time, without penalties or other charges. Despite the several loan modifications and BECU's efforts to assist in allowing her to retain the vehicle, it was ultimately repossessed last month.

Although the redemption period has expired, we continue to hold the vehicle and if Ms. [redacted] would like to redeem it, she can pay the loan current, including the repossession and storage fees within the next 10 days.

If she would like to talk with a BECU representative to answer any lingering questions, she can contact BECU's at X-XXX-XXX-XXXX, ext. 5370 and we [redacted] be happy to more fully explain the loan history.

Sincerely,

Compliance Department

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2014/12/24) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

I need the interest rate reduction of 7.75% in writing showing dates of when reduction started, balance of principal/interest on date started and showing for the 2.5 years the numbers reduced and the total outcome. You can state all you like but it needs to be calculated in writing in the ledger to be accurate.

Also, I received a statement of still owing and I do not owe as of November 4, 2014 when the car was repossessed and is not in my possession.

Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2015/01/30) */

January 30, 2014

Ms. [redacted] is not the primary borrower on the account in question so she would not be receiving any statements. BECU sends statements only to the primary borrower. BECU does not send statements to the primary borrower after the debt has been charged off.

BECU Compliance Dept.

Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 17, 2015/02/03) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

I get all the statements and letters etc., so not sure what you are talking about but it has always come to me and my address. My response last time was that I WAS receiving the statements after repossession and I wanted to know why, where is the car, has it been sold etc??

Review: I called in for a ten day payoff on my 2005 Nissan Titan financed with BECU on Monday March 24, 2014 around 4:00 in the evening. I was told the ten day payoff was $3966.55. I went to pay $3966.55 off Tuesday Morning at the Tukwilia Branch. I had not recieved the payoff in the mail as of yet (because mailing takes time.) but when I got to the bank I was told they would add additional fees of 390. I tried to contest and they refused to honor the payoff from Monday night. I called the call center they gave the same payoff. I asked if there were any additional fees. They said no. I asked to speak to a supervisor. I spoke to [redacted] and he said that there were additional fees that they would not waive and I had to pay them. Sorry to me that I was not informed by the customer service team when I called for a payoff. I went and got the additional funds because I just wanted to get it over with. Then paid the payoff with additional fees at the tukwila center. [redacted] the teller tried to give me a hand written reciept for $4350.99 with no account number on the paper. I refused this reciept and asked for a real one. One generated by the computer system. Then I asked for my Afidavid in leiu of Title. [redacted] said they could provide one because it was a paper title. I asked for the title. [redacted] claimed the paper title was in California. I said how could that be I bought the vechicle in Puyallup Wa and I have lived here since 1985. I asked for a release of interest for the vechicle with a notorary. They would not provide any authenticated paperwork for the payoff. I said how would I deal with the DOL if I do not have my paperwork. [redacted] in tukwilia said the payoff would be transfered electronically to the DOL and all I need is my reciept. I said that does not sound right I was not born yesterday. I should get some authenticated documentation. I went straight to the DOL and what do you know. There is no electronic transfer of information and my reciept was not good enough proof of payoff. The DOL person gave me a release of interest and said to take it back to the BECU. I went to a financial center in bothell at this point and they signed the paperwork. I did not get the paper till 5:30. This process to my entire day let alone they did not uphold my ten day payoff quote. I was a long standing cutomer with BECU for over ten years and never had any real tranactions other than deposit withdrawal payment. I have closed my accounts as they should have more attention to detail and should provide proper payoff amounts and not blind side customers with hidden fees when they enter the bank. I had to make multiple trips to wells fargo that morning and multiple trips to BECU and multiple trips to the DOL because of misinformation provided by BECU employees reguarding payoff and process of paperwork. I should have been provided a release after paying the vehicle in full and all additional fees not quoted for payoff. Terrible customer service. Not honoring quoted ten day payoff amounts. Adding fees, and not providing proper documentation in a timely fashion after payoff.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of fees not quoted for vehicle payoff and cost of gas for addtional travel due to misinformation and not being provided the proper paperwork.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/04/08) */

Member [redacted] Revdex.com Complaint Response

#XXXXXXXX

April 8, 2014

On March 24, 2014, Ms. [redacted] contacted BECU and requested a pay-off amount for her auto loan. BECU's policy, when members ask for loan pay-off amounts, is to provide an estimate, as we cannot be sure that the amount quoted might not change between the date of the pay-off quote and the date that the member pays the balance in full. On loans such as Ms. [redacted]'s, interest charges accrue daily, so any estimated pay-off amount can deviate day-to-day until the date of final pay-off.

Additionally, BECU staff was not aware that Ms. [redacted]'s vehicle had been subject to a repossession, as the vehicle was over 120 days past due. We regret that Ms. [redacted] was frustrated as a result of an incorrect pay-off quote. However, the fact remains that BECU did provide the full amount Ms. [redacted] needed to pay ($4,350.99, including the $390 "close" fee) in order to obtain title to the vehicle. The close fee is assessed by the repossession company and reflects its fees for trying to locate the vehicle and repossessing it. Our business records indicate that repossession proceedings began on January 13, 2014.

Regarding Ms. [redacted]'s claim that a BECU teller refused to provide her with a computer-generated receipt of the pay-off when she paid the balance in full, our systems do not have the capacity to print a receipt for this purpose. The teller did accommodate Ms. [redacted]'s request by providing her the information in a handwritten format. Nonetheless, Ms. [redacted] eventually receive documentation of her payment in full when she receives her periodic statement.

Ms. [redacted] claims that BECU did not provide her an affidavit in lieu of title. In her case, BECU would not have provided an affidavit in lieu of title because a paper title was already on file. The paper title was stored at a BECU location in California. Our records indicate that we ordered the paper title which she should either have already received or which she [redacted] receive very shortly.

Once Ms. [redacted] has the paper title in her possession, she [redacted] need to take the title, along with BECU's release of its security interest (this document has also been provided to her) to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV [redacted] remove BECU from the title (as it no longer holds a security interest in the vehicle) and provide her a title with just her name. This document should arrive in the mail within six to eight weeks.

We thank Mr. [redacted] for bringing this matter to our attention and believe that the issues have been resolved.

BECU

Review: I applied for Credit Card insurance around 2010. They charge over 1% of my balance as insurance. I have wanted this removed since 2012. I have faxed a request to have it removed by nothing has happened. I want the insurance collection on the credit card removed. It's not fair that I'm asked to fax my request a second time.Desired Settlement: Correct my credit card account so that I'm no longer using their insurance product. I seek reparations for being overbilled.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/09/23) */

September 23, 2014

Revdex.com Complaint #XXXXXXXX

BECU received Mr. [redacted]'s request to remove the Loan Payment Protection coverage on his Visa card on September 15, 2014. BECU removed the Loan Payment Protection coverage on September 16, 2014. Prior to that date, we had no record of any request to remove the coverage from Mr. [redacted]'s account.

Mr. [redacted] is no longer responsible for paying the premium on this product, as it has been canceled.

Compliance Dept.

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/09/27) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

I am still seeing charges for Loan Payment Protection on my latest statement.

Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/10/16) */

Revdex.com Complaint # XXXXXXXX

October 16, 2014

Response

Mr. [redacted]'s Visa statement cycle closes on the 8th day of each month. BECU received his request to cancel loan payment protection ("LPP") on the 16th of September, which is when BECU removed it. Since Mr. [redacted]'s statement cycle had already closed for the month of September this explains was why he still saw an LPP payment posted to his account. Beginning in October, when his statement cycle closes on the 8th, he will no longer see the line item LPP charges.

If Mr. [redacted] sees an LPP payment on his account when he receives his October statement, we would like him to contact us at X-XXX-XXX-XXXX, ext. 1399. We will remove the payment and re-credit his account.

Thank you.

Compliance Department

Review: I deposited a check into the bank for $1724, it was from the [redacted] which has been in business for 75 years.I have deposited several checks from them into my account and never have they held a check before. The bank for some reason put a hold on this check and held it for an unreasonable amount of time 7 days. I had paid bills off of that check and had no idea they were going to hold this check. They returned one of my bills and potentially more now will be returned. This is costing me overdraft fees for uncollected funds as well as fee's from the returned bills. This is not OK. The money is there in the account so they should never have returned a thing.Desired Settlement: I want the NSF fees put back into my account and all of the fees I am charged by these bills that are being returned reimbursed to me by BECU and a letter to each creditor explaining that the money was in my account and that THEY (BECU) returned their payments because they opted to hold my check.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/10/02) */

October 2, 2014

Revdex.com Complaint # XXXXXXXX

BECU responds to the complaint that Ms. [redacted] submitted to the Revdex.com on September 25, 2014. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] states that BECU inappropriately placed a hold on funds that she deposited into her account for the amount of $1,724.00. We have reviewed her complaint and provide the following response.

Ms. [redacted] agreed to the terms and conditions of the BECU Account Agreement booklet when she applied for membership. The Account Agreement states that, for check deposits made into accounts owned by a primary member who has had an active Member Share Savings account for more than 90 days, BECU generally makes non-cash deposits available for withdrawal on the business day following the date of deposit (noting that the date of deposit will be counted as the following business date when the deposit is made on or after 3:00pm PST).

However, there are exceptions to this policy, as disclosed in our Account Agreement. When an account has overdrawn repeatedly in the last six months (as had occurred with the account in question), all accounts owned by the same primary member as the affected account may be subject to extended funds availability holds for all check deposits. These holds may delay the funds availability until the fifth business day following the date of deposit. This explains why BECU placed a hold on the funds that Ms. [redacted] deposited.

Should an extended hold policy become necessary for any of the reasons stated in the Account Agreement, BECU's policy is to notify the primary member of the account(s). BECU also informs the primary member when the funds would be available for withdrawal (see attached documents).

In Ms. [redacted]'s case, thirteen NSF fees posted to the account in question during the one year period from September 22, 2013, through September 22, 2014, including five NSF fees posted during the six month period prior to September 23, 2014 regarding the deposit in question in the amount of $1,724.00. The account into which Ms. [redacted] made this deposit shares a daily provisional credit limit of $500.00 for check deposits, under which the first $500.00 of all check deposits made on the same deposit date, with all other deposit accounts owned by the same primary member, are immediately credited to the account (see attached notice).

An additional deposit was made into the account in question on the same deposit date for $66.40. These funds from the deposit were immediately available. Regarding the $1,724.01 check that Ms. [redacted] deposited on September 23, 2014 via ATM, BECU made $433.60 of these funds immediately available therefore fully satisfying the daily provisional credit limit of $500.00.

According to the extended hold policy as previously stated, the remaining $1,290.40 was placed on hold, to become available on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 (the fifth business day following the date of deposit).

Regarding Ms. [redacted]'s claim that BECU should reverse the NSF fee that accrued on the account in question, our records indicate that BECU reversed, as a one-time courtesy, an NSF fee in the amount of $25.00. As stated in BECU's Account Agreement, if a member withdraws funds that have not yet cleared for final payment via the banking system (those funds that are treated as not yet payable or finally paid, e.g. the $1,290.40 that was on hold from the $1,724.00 deposit), thus causing the available balance of an account to be overdrawn, BECU assesses an NSF fee of $25.00 for each uncollected item.

In the future, if Ms. [redacted] spends funds that are subject to exception holds prior to the date the hold(s) is released and then subsequently overdraws her account, BECU [redacted] not reverse any NSF charges that she incurs.

Sincerely,

Compliance Department

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/10/08) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

I was charged 2 NSF fees and only one was reversed. I will be looking for another bank to do my business.

Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/10/16) */

Revdex.com Complaint # XXXXXXXX

October 16, 2014

Second Response

Ms. [redacted] indicates that she does not accept BECU's response dated October 2, 2014. Specifically, she requests that BECU reverse not one, but two NSF fees that posted to her account. In our prior response, BECU clearly described its policy regarding provisional credit of funds/check holds deposited into an account. In Ms. [redacted]'s case, since she had a history of returned items and NSF fees, BECU's written policy, as documented in the Account Agreement (the terms to which Ms. [redacted] agreed), clearly state that she will be subject to check holds.

Also in our prior response, BECU indicated that we would reverse one NSF in the amount of $25.00 as a one-time courtesy only. We notified her in that letter that should have any other NSF fees or incur any other NSF fees in the future, we would charge her an NSF fee of $25.00.

Therefore, based on BECU's Account Agreement and based on our communication to Ms. [redacted] in our response dated October 2, 2014, BECU will not reverse any more NSF fees.

Sincerely,

Compliance Dept.

Review: Trying to get refinance on home. took over 6 months. House not good enough, house is worth 228,00 by appraiser, 318,000 by city. We think that they waited so long, until interest rates went up, then decided not to go through with refi, also because of our ages.Desired Settlement: We want them to go through with the deal and refi our house.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2013/07/08) */

July 8, 2013

Revdex.com Complaint Response - [redacted]

Complaint #XXXXXXXX

[redacted] claims that BECU is obligated to refinance his home. As a regulated financial institution, BECU has strict underwriting standards. We cannot approve every member's request for refinancing. We always inform our members that loan approval is subject to qualification. In [redacted] case, his home did not satisfy BECU's underwriting standards. Specifically, the independent appraiser that BECU retained determined that the property needed improvements, was not being utilized for its highest and best use (this is a Fannie Mae requirement), and the freeway noise created external obsolescence (an external condition that has the effect of lowering property values). All of these factors contributed to the diminished value of the property such that the property was insufficient as collateral for the loan. Therefore, BECU denied [redacted] request for a refinance.

BECU acknowledges that this process was challenging for [redacted] but our business records indicate that some of the delay was attributed to lack of documentation from [redacted] Once we received the proper documents, we were able to process the loan within our internal timelines considering that at the time [redacted] applied for the loan, we had a huge volume of loans to process. Our records also indicate that BECU made every effort to keep [redacted] informed of the process and next steps and that he was duly informed of the situation.

We regret that [redacted] was not satisfied with the outcome, but BECU made every effort to communicate with him in a timely manner and informed him of the process and next steps. Ultimately, this loan was not approved because the condition of the property did not meet BECU's underwriting standards.

Sincerely,

Legal Department

Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 13, 2013/08/13) */

Appraiser stated the subject was worn and out date, yet all materials/conditions reflect in

average condition. Appraiser notes $12,000 Estimate for repairs. Roof on garage has since been replaced, however BECU would not allow us to send a photo showing has been completed. Appraiser notes C4 condition, which states normal wear and tear but adequately maintained and requires only minimal repairs to building and cosmetic repairs. All major building components have bee adequately maintained. Appraiser has

appraised the subject "as is". BECU notes that the appraiser has stated that the highest

and best use of the subject is multi family per Fannie Mae guidelines. Present land use of the subjects neighborhood is 85% one unit and the subject is zoned R4 which allows for res, single family, detached, 1 strct, 4000 sq ft min. Appraiser should have reflected subject as legal non-conforming which allows subject to be re-built to original structure if destroyed per [redacted] Everett City Planning-XXX-XXX-XXXX) The subject neighborhood is predominantly single family homes, Subject was appraised as a single

family, not as a "proposed" multi-family so value has not been overstated as noted on the appraisal addendum. The appraised value is based on the site "as is" NOT on the potential of the future site when sub-divided.

BECU also marked the subject rear as an issue, which is actually the left side f subject,

but does not state the issue. We were also not given the option to make any repairs BECU wanted. Camps provided are all on the other side of the freeway. Remaining economic life of the subject is 45 yrs, which is greater than any 30 yr. mortgage. BECU to advise which documents where not provided to them in a timely manner. If it is the W2(per [redacted],ok to PTF W2 March6). Who is [redacted] and why was he informed of our personal business, loan progress.

Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2013/08/30) */

August 28, 2013

Revdex.com Second Complaint Response - [redacted]

Complaint #XXXXXXXX

BECU stands by its initial response. [redacted] claims that BECU is obligated to refinance his home. As a regulated financial institution, BECU has strict underwriting standards. We cannot approve every member's request for refinancing. We always inform our members that loan approval is subject to qualification. In [redacted] case, his home did not satisfy BECU's underwriting standards. Specifically, the independent appraiser that BECU retained determined that the property needed improvements, was not being utilized for its highest and best use (this is a Fannie Mae requirement), and the freeway noise created external obsolescence (an external condition that has the effect of lowering property values). All of these factors contributed to the diminished value of the property such that the property was insufficient as collateral for the loan. Therefore, BECU denied [redacted] request for a refinance.

BECU acknowledges that this process was challenging for [redacted], but our business records indicate that some of the delay was attributed to lack of documentation from [redacted] Once we received the proper documents, we were able to process the loan within our internal timelines considering that at the time [redacted] applied for the loan, we had a huge volume of loans to process. Our records also indicate that BECU made every effort to keep [redacted] informed of the process and next steps and that he was duly informed of the situation.

We regret that [redacted] was not satisfied with the outcome, but BECU made every effort to communicate with him in a timely manner and informed him of the process and next steps. Ultimately, this loan was not approved because the condition of the property did not meet BECU's underwriting standards.

Sincerely,

Legal Department

Review: My wife had a credit card with BECU and accumulated rewards points for using the card which I also used but only as an otherized user. Unfortunately she passed away in June of this year. I went to the credit union to settle our accounts and remove her name from them. They told me the points were no longer valid due to her death. I told them that if there had been a balance on the credit card I would have been liable to re-pay this. Then why should they not be liable to pay me tne rewards points. I believe this to be un-ehtical and very one sided. If it wasn't for their depositors they would not be in business. This is not how you treat your depositorsDesired Settlement: I believe they owe me the points just for the fact that I already lost the love of my life but I was also a user of the credit card.

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/08/05) */

August 5, 2013

Revdex.com Complaint Response # XXXXXXXX

First and foremost, we are sorry to hear about [redacted] death. BECU wishes to convey its condolences to [redacted]. We have reviewed[redacted] claim and we will honor the Visa Rewards points that the [redacted] had earned. Our records indicate that the [redacted] had earned 24,635 points, which would equate to approximately $246 if the points were redeemed. BECU will apply a $246 credit to [redacted] Visa account on file [redacted]

We hope our actions resolve the matter for [redacted].

Sincerely,

Legal Department