Members 1st Federal Credit Union

Members 1st Federal Credit Union Charged my account two additional overdraft fees for transactions that although you had the funds for and made the purchases outright it allows them to take money out your account that is not rightfully there's.I was charged two additional overdraft fees for transactions that although I had the funds for and made the purchases outright because I didn't use my pin and the purchases had holds on it that allowed them to over charge your account. I was charged $74.00 for purchases I made when I had the funds for said purchases.Take from the poor to give to the already wealthy, what a bank...Members First, YEAH RIGHT.

Good Afternoon, Members 1st does charge a Dormant/Inactive Account fee on small balance accounts after 18 months of inactivity.  The fee is $20 per quarter.  This charge is listed with our Service Charges and complies with the disclosure requirements of Truth-in Savings.  Our...

Service Charge schedule is mailed annually to all Members 1st members with their December statements, and is available for members and non-members to view anytime on our website at members1st.org.  In addition, members are sent a letter at the beginning of the month in which the account will be assessed the first dormant fee.  [redacted] was mailed the dormant fee warning letter on September 1, 2016 requesting that she activate  her account prior to the end of September.  A copy of the letter can be provided upon request.  She has not activated her account since receiving the letter.   The dormant fee warning letter and dormant account fee are in place to encourage members to take action to keep their account active and avoid having their inactive account turned over to the state treasury in accordance with unclaimed property regulations.   The last activity for [redacted]’s account was March 6, 2015.  [redacted] was assessed the quarterly dormant fee on September 30th and December 31st.    Although the fee was properly disclosed and charged, Members 1st will honor [redacted]’s request to refund the two fees, mail her a check for the balance and close her account. She was contacted today regarding the return of funds to her account. Respectfully-George N[redacted]

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: [redacted]>Date: Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:02 PMSubject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].To: Revdex.com...

[redacted]Please close this complaint. The business resolved the issue.

Good Afternoon, In the complaint dated 3-16-17, [redacted] states that he co-signed an auto loan for his sister.  This statement is incorrect as our documents indicate that the loan was made to [redacted], in his name only, on September 30, 2014, with a first payment due on November 14,...

2014.  We later learned through our collection efforts that [redacted] apparently purchased the car for his sister, and that she had possession of the car and was to make the payments.  Since the loan was in [redacted] name only, he was solely responsible for repayment of the loan and all collection contacts were directed to him.  The first payment on the loan was not paid by the due date so collection efforts were initiated on November 24, 2014.  There were sixteen contacts including late notices, letters, and telephone calls between November 24, 2014 and June 1, 2015.  A repossession order for the car was placed on June 1, 2015.  Although a payment was received on June 12, 2015, it was for less than the regular monthly payment and the account was already 59 days past due at the time the payment was received.  Because the loan was still past due (the loan was never brought current) and no repayment plan had been established with [redacted] to bring the account up-to-date, the repossession order was not revoked and the car was repossessed on June 16, 2015.  All required repossession notices were sent to [redacted] and he was advised that the car could be redeemed if the loan was paid in-full.  The loan was not paid off and the car was ultimately sold at auction on July 30, 2015.George N[redacted]EVP of Retail Delivery, Marketing and Public Relations[redacted]P.O. Box **Mechanicsburg, PA [redacted]###-###-#######-###-####, ext. [redacted]We put our members first.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I will try and get back to you
Regards,
[redacted]

March 23, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania1411 K St NWWashington, DC 20005Re: [redacted]Customer Service Issue: FraudComplaint ID [redacted]Dear [redacted]:We are writing in response to the complaint filed against us by the above referenced member. The borrower...

filed adispute on February 25, 2016 claiming that a fraudulent charge in the amount of $59.95 was made on her account onFebruary 22, 2016 by Thrive Market. The dispute was received by our card services department on February 26, 2016.As a result of the disputed charge the member’s checking account balance was overdrawn and her account was chargeda $37 non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee.In response to the member’s dispute, we took the following actions:1. The $37 NSF was refunded to the member’s account on February 25, 2016.2. A dispute case was opened and a provisional credit of $59.95 was deposited to the member’s account and anAcknowledgement Letter was sent to the member on March 2, 2016.3. As a result of the dispute case, Thrive Market provided a credit to the member’s account in the amount of$59.95 on March 9, 2016.4. A letter was sent to the member on March 14, 2016 notifying her that, since Thrive Market provided a credit forthe amount of the dispute ($59.95), we would be removing our provisional credit of $59.95 on March 25, 2016.The member’s account has been completely restored with no loss incurred and she has been notified of every actiontaken to resolve her dispute. We have attempted to contact her to ensure that she fully understands these actions buthave not yet been able to make contact with her.Sincerely,Kevin * L**EVP, OperationsMembers1st Federal Credit Union

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Regards,
[redacted]

Good Morning,[redacted] opened a joint checking account at Members 1st on June 3, 2016.  At the time of the account opening, the accountholders set up fee-free overdraft transfer protection and additionally opted-in for extra courtesy pay coverage of debit/check card transactions. ...

This optional courtesy pay service is a discretionary service in which the credit union may offer a limit to cover debit/check card transactions when the accountholder is using their debit/check card but has insufficient available funds in their checking account. [redacted] account had a courtesy pay limit of $100 granted on July 28th which is still in effect.  In August she made purchases using her debit/check card that exceeded the balance of her account.  She is correct in stating that holds are placed on the checking account at the time of the purchase and authorization of funds.  However, courtesy pay fees are not assessed until the transaction actually posts to the checking account.  Members 1st does disclose the amount of the courtesy pay limit that is offered to its members via online banking.  The purchases that [redacted] is questioning from August 10th are listed below along with the available balance in her account at the time the transaction was posted to her account:                 August 10th    [redacted] purchase of $15.72 with account balance of $3.70                 August 10th   [redacted] purchase of $6.35 with account overdrawn balance of ($30.27)                 August 10th   [redacted] purchase of $51.81 with account overdrawn balance of ($73.62)  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information. Thank you! Considering that this is a new checking account and [redacted] may not be familiar with the optional courtesy pay service she elected, Members 1st has refunded the $111 in fees as requested. We also suggest that [redacted] may want to opt out of the optional courtesy pay service.  If she does that, in the future if she would use her debit/check card when there are insufficient funds she would be declined the purchase but would avoid insufficient funds fees.  I have left a voice mail message for [redacted] to offer my assistance in reviewing her checking account activities. Tell us why here...

[redacted] applied for an auto loan at [redacted] of Bethlehem on May 16, 2017.  Members 1st Federal Credit Union has a Motor Vehicle Retail Finance Agreement with [redacted] of Bethlehem that authorizes them to originate loans for members and prospective members of the credit...

union.  [redacted]’s loan application to purchase a 2016 [redacted] was submitted to Members 1st Federal Credit Union by [redacted] of Bethlehem.  When he applied for this loan he gave authorization to pull his credit file.  Therefore, [redacted]’s assertion that the credit inquiries were not authorized is incorrect.  The credit inquiries were made with his authorization.

Members 1st Federal Credit Union responded to the consumer and considers this matter addressed.

We responded to the consumer's complaint. We are sorry that she does not like our response, but we consider the matter closed.

March 31, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania1411 K St NWWashington, DC 20005Re: [redacted]Customer Service Issue: FraudComplaint ID [redacted]Dear [redacted]:We received the message indicating that the member has rejected our response to their complaint.Unfortunately, there is no further information we can provide in regard to this complaint. The memberhas not suffered any financial loss and we have provided copies of all correspondence that was sent tothem. In addition, we have attempted to contact the member via telephone but have not beensuccessful. It was our hope that we would be able to provide a satisfactory resolution to this complaintby speaking directly with the member.While we consider this matter to be closed, we would be happy to speak directly with the member inorder to resolve this complaint if they would contact us at ###-###-####.Respectfully,George N[redacted]EVP, Retail Delivery, PR and Marketing

This transaction involved a counterfeit check. When the item was presented
there was no reason given to suspect it's validity. The credit union ran it's
normal fraud procedures. The check was returned the very next day as
counterfeit. The member
is responsible for the return of the funds that...

were paid out.Thank you,George N[redacted]

AR-SA;">This transaction involved a counterfeit check. When the item was presented
there was no reason given to suspect it's validity. The credit union ran it's
normal fraud procedures. The check was returned the very next day as
counterfeit. The member
is responsible for the return of the funds that were paid out.
Thank you,
George N[redacted]

Members 1st Federal Credit Union takes consumer concerns very seriously. We will be working privately to resolve this matter.

We have reviewed the history of the related matter and we have determined that multiple notices and 5 seperate communications were made to the member with no response. The loan insurance issue history indicates that the member did not fulfill the obligation that was required for insurance. We are...

more than willing to work with the member at their convenience. Feel free to contact us should you need additional details.

I had an issue with S[redacted] XM radio charging my account without my permission and causing an overdraft (I filed a complaint about S[redacted] with the Revdex.com). I contacted the Members 1st telebranch and spoke with someone named Kaitlyn. She was so wonderful!!! She explained to me the different types of banking laws and Members 1st policies (she was very knowledgeable!) and also suggested a few ways to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. She then taught me how to set up and use overdraft protection. She also got my overdraft fee waived. The next day, S[redacted] faxed her over documentation stating that it was indeed their mistake, and Kaitlyn called me to confirm that everything had been sorted out. It was great that I was able to talk to the same person who knew exactly about the situation, and that she reached out to me even though she didn't have to since the fee had already been waived and I was going about my normal business again. Customer service like that that Kaitlyn provided is exactly why I choose to do banking with Members 1st. A big thank you to her and the credit union!

7/12/14
On 4/18/14 an unidentified non-Member
appeared at our [redacted] branch and presented a check in the amount of
$550.00 made payable to them and drawn off the account of [redacted].  At the time the check was presented, [redacted]’s account reflected a balance of...

-$429.30.  The branch however, cashed the check in the
interest of member service and when the check was processed, the account still
reflected a negative balance, constituting a loss to the credit union and
initiating a bad check investigation by the Loss Prevention Department.As part of that investigation, a courtesy
letter was sent to [redacted] regarding the bad check, (see attached).  On 4/24/2014 [redacted] called the
investigator conducting the case and advised him she had a Direct Deposit
Payroll check that would post to the account on 5/2/14 which would cover the
loss of the check.On 5/2/2014 two electronic deposits
posted to [redacted]’s account, one deposit in the amount of $20.00 and one
deposit in the of $596.07 however, at the time of the deposits, [redacted]
account reflected a negative balance of -$673.27 which did not include the $550
outstanding bad check as part of the investigation.   While the negative balance on [redacted]’s
account was reduced the outstanding check was not mitigated because the deposit
that [redacted]’s indicated would cover the check was not enough to cover both
the negative balance on her account and the check.  From 05/02/2014 to 06/30/2014, [redacted]’s account continued to reflect balances in and out of the negative and
on 06/30/14 the available funds of $474.69 in the checking was transferred to
the savings of [redacted]’s account by Loss Prevention in the amount to be
applied to the outstanding bad check.  As
a result of the transfer, [redacted] made several telephone calls to Loss
Prevention and Telebranch demanding the return of the $474.69 that the transfer
caused her a financial hardship and such a practice was unfair to her.On Wednesday,
07/09/2014, The AVP, Loss Prevention and Security Services spoke with [redacted] regarding her concerns.  During
the conversation, the AVP of Loss Prevention and Security Services reminded [redacted] that her situation was precipitated by the fact that [redacted] had
written a bad check to someone and that she could not cover the check even with
subsequent deposits and informed [redacted] that in accordance with the
membership agreement, the credit union had the right to adjust her account
without notice for any loss she caused the credit union, particularly with
respect to fraud and since writing a bad check is a criminal offense in
Pennsylvania, the bad check she wrote could be considered fraud.  Additionally, the AVP of Loss Prevention and
Security Services discussed with [redacted] that her overall account
relationship with Members 1st over the past two years reflected many
more negative balances than positive balances and that the instant situation
was a symptom of a much larger issue that she was creating.As part of the conversation, the AVP of
Loss Prevention and Security Services asked [redacted] if she incurred any fees
as a result of the transfer and [redacted] agreed that she did incur fees as a
result of two check items returned on her account because of the transfer for a
total of $111.00.  The AVP of Loss
Prevention and Security Services offered to return the fees as a gesture of
goodwill and [redacted] related her approval. 
The conversation was concluded at that point and [redacted] appeared to
understand and be satisfied with the results. 
The account was subsequently adjusted on 07/09/2014 to reflect a deposit
of $111.00 for the return of the incurred fees.