Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union

January 14, 2016Dear *** ***,I am writing in response to your email dated January 7, regarding correspondence that was assigned the td of ***In the correspondence, the member explained that she spoke with several staff members regarding a PSECUbill payer check for $to *** ***
that was returned due to insufficient fundsThe member explained that she was under the impression that a hold was placed on the funds once the bill payer was scheduled and was confused of the returned paymentThe member contacted *** *** who informed her that the check was paidThe member contacted PSECU again the following day and the PSECU representative again explained that the check was returned to *** *** and a fee chargedThe member assumed that the check is "null and void" and used the bill payer service to send another payment to *** *** for $On January 6, 2016, the member logged into her PSECU account and noted that the first bill payer check in the amount of $was presented for payment again and paidAdditionally, the $payment to *** *** was also processed and paid causing an overpayment to *** ***The member would like to have a $payment due on January 12, waived as she is now unable to make that payment.When signing up for the Bill Payer service, members agree that payments can be made by two methods; 1) Electronic payment or 2) Check paymentFor reference, I am enclosing the full Terms and Conditions for the Bill Payer Service that members agree to when they sign up for the serviceThe disclosure is also available to members at all times within their Online Banking account.By signing up for the Bill Payer service, members authorize PSECU to debit their Checking Share on the date the payment is transmitted to an electronic payeeAdditionally, for the bill payers using the check billing method, members authorize PSECU to debit their Checking Share on the date the check is presentedMembers are also responsible for resolving any overpayment, late payment, missed or non-receipt of a payment, or charges assessed by payees.Through the review of the account, I determined that a bill payer check was mailed to *** *** for Son December 18, On December 28, 2015, the available balance on the account was $The bill payer check for Swas presented for payment and returned (not paid) to *** *** on the same dayA $Non-Sufficient fund (NSF) fee was due at that timeSince $was available in the account, the partial fee of $was charged on the same day, The remaining NSF fee amount of $was still due and was charged to the account on December 31, 2015.The member contacted us on December 29th and December 30thDuring both phone calls, the process of sending Bill Payer checks was explained to the member and the member was asked to contact PSECU again once the remaining $fee is charged and request a courtesy refundThe possibility of *** *** resubmitting the $Bill Payer check payment was not discussed in neither of the phone calls.Through further review of the account, I noted that the member initiated another *** *** payment and a Bill Payer check for $was sent on December 31, 2015,On January 6,2016, the member contacted PSECU at which time the representative refunded the entire $Non-Sufficient Funds fee as a courtesy to the memberThe member explained that the Bid Payer check of $was resubmitted for payment by Weils Fargo and was paidThe member further informed the representative that she scheduled an additional $Bill Payer check to *** *** that cleared on January 5, 2016.In regards to the member's request to waive the $payment due on January 12, 2016, members are responsible for resolving any overpayments to merchants by contacting the merchant directly.I hope that this information helpsPlease do not hesitate to write again if you feel that I may be of any further assistance.Sincerely,Tammy H Chief Administration Officer

I am writing in response to your email dated November 4, regarding additional concerns shared with the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) pertaining to complaint ID ***.Please know that a follreply was mailed to this individual on November 9, PSECU is unable to share this follreply with the Revdex.com because both the complaint and the followup reply included account-specific information, and the individual did not provide PSECU with permission to share this account-specific information with the Revdex.com.Thank you for sharing this complaint with PSECU and if you have any questions or feel may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at ###-###-####

February 7, 2018Dear *** ***,I am writing in response to your e-mail dated February 1, 2018, regarding correspondence the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) received about PSECU, which was assigned ID ***In the correspondence to the Revdex.com, the individual claims he attempted to correct errors on
his credit report with PSECUAdditionally, he claims one vehicle loan is being reported to the credit bureau on three tradelines and a personal loan is showing a balance of $3,even though it was paid in full for less than full balance.Through the review of PSECU records, we did not locate records where the individual made attempts to contact PSECU either through the official disputing channels (disputing with the credit bureaus) or direct disputes with the credit union.After receipt of Revdex.com's correspondence where the individual disputed the accuracy of information, PSECU staff performed a review of the accountAs a result of the review, we concluded the information was inaccurate as furnished by PSECU to the consumer reporting agencies (i.e., credit bureaus)Accordingly, PSECU notified and furnished accurate information to each of the credit reporting agencies to which inaccurate information was initially furnished.Please note that it may take up to days for the credit report to reflect the updated informationIf the individual still finds that the credit report is inaccurate after the initial waiting period, we ask that he dispute the information with the credit bureau or provide the information directly to PSECUPSECU will investigate the dispute and respond appropriately as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.I apologize for any inconvenience this may have causedI hope this information is helpfulPlease do not hesitate to write again if I may be of any further assistance.Sincerely,Tammy H. Chief Administration Officer

March 30, 2016I am Writing in response to your email dated March 21, regarding a complaint the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) received about PSECU, which was assigned the ID of ***.Please know that a reply was mailed to this individual on March 30, PSECU is unable to share this reply
with the Revdex.com because both the complaint and reply included account-specific information, and the individual did not provide PSECU with permission to share this account-specific information with the Revdex.comPlease note that this reply was provided to the Revdex.com by both fax and mailTherefore, if this reply is electronically distributed to the individual, it may arrive before the individual receives PSECU's mailed response.Thank you for sharing this complaint with PSECU and if you have any questions or feel may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at ***.Sincerely,Tammy H.Chief Administration Officer

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I've already taken care of the monetary issues, as you can probably tell Your response was discourteously untimely and did not address the issue of misinformation and rudeness given to your "member" Thank you for acknowledging the issue, but thankfully I am respectful and responsible enough to take care of everything myself I will not be recommending your services to anyone anymore as I had done before
Regards,
*** ***

July 29, Dear *** ***,I am writing in response to your letter dated July 22, regarding Complaint ID ***In the individual's correspondence, he explained that a repossession order was issued on June 25, when he was days delinquent on the loanHe was not aware
of the repossession order and made a payment of $on June 27, His regular monthly payment is $and with the $payment, he was under the impression that he was current on the loanHowever, his vehicle was repossessed on July 2, 2015.I discussed the account with PSECU’s Collections ManagerThrough the review of the account, we determined that on June 25, the vehicle was assigned for repossession at days delinquencyPrior to that, PSECU attempted to contact the member via telephone (6/3, 6/5, 6/9, 6/12, 6/16, 6/19, 6/22, 6/25)Additionally, a 21-day delinquent notice was mailed to the member on May 11, On June 27, a payment was made in the amount of $The payment covered a partial payment of $for April 20th, a full monthly payment of $for May 20th, and a partial payment of $for June 20thAdditionally, on July 24, 2015, a payment of $was made satisfying his June 20th payment with a partial payment of $and satisfying his July 20th payment of $206.95.At this time, the member is current on his loan and the vehicle is in the member's possessionThe next payment due date is August 20, As a courtesy to our member, we waived the repossession fee that we were charged by the repossession agencyWe kindly ask our member, if he is unable to make a loan payment in the future, to please communicate with our Collections Staff regularly to avoid any issues.I hope this information helpsPlease do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at *** if you feel I may be of further assistanceSincerely,Tammy HChief Administration Officer

January 14, 2016Dear [redacted],I am writing in response to your email dated January 7, 2016 regarding correspondence that was assigned the ID of [redacted]. In the correspondence, the member explained that she spoke with Several staff members regarding a PSECU bill payer check for S160 to [redacted] that was returned due to insufficient funds. The member explained that she was under the impression that a hold was placed on the funds once the bill payer was scheduled and was confused of the returned payment. The member contacted [redacted] who informed her that the check was paid. The member contacted PSECU again the following day and the PSECU representative again explained that the check was returned to [redacted] and a fee charged. The member assumed that the check is "null and void" and used the bill payer service to send another payment to [redacted] for $300. On January 6, 2016, the member logged into her PSECU account and noted that the first bill payer check in the amount of $160 was presented for payment again and paid. Additionally, the S300 payment to [redacted] was also processed and paid causing an overpayment to [redacted]. The member would like to have a S200 payment due on January 12, 2016 waived as she is now unable to make that payment.When signing up for the Bill Payer service, members agree that payments can be made by two methods; 1) Electronic payment or 2) Check payment. For reference, I am enclosing the full Terms and Conditions for the Bill Payer Service that members agree to when they sign up for the service. The disclosure is also available to members at all times within their Online Banking account.By signing up for the Bill Payer service, members authorize PSECU to debit their Checking Share on the date the payment is transmitted to an electronic payee. Additionally, for the bill payers using the check billing method, members authorize PSECU to debit their Checking Share on the date the check is presented. Members are also responsible for resolving any overpayment, late payment, missed or non-receipt of a payment, or charges assessed by payees.Through the review of the account, I determined that a bill payer check was mailed to [redacted] for $160 on December 18, 2016. On December 28, 2015, the available balance on the account was $25.66. The bill payer check for $160 was presented for payment and returned (not paid) to [redacted] on the same day. A $30 Non-Sufficient Fund (NSF) fee was due at that time. Since $25.66 was available in the account, the partial fee of $25.66 was charged on the same day. The remaining NSF fee amount of $4.34 was still due and was charged to the account on December 31, 2015.The member contacted us on December 29th and December 30th. During both phone calls, the process of sending Bill Payer checks was explained to the member and the member was asked to contact PSECU again once the remaining $4.34 fee is charged and request a courtesy refund. The possibility of [redacted] resubmitting the $160 Bill Payer check payment was not discussed in neither of the phone calls.Through further review of the account, noted that the member initiated another [redacted] payment and a Bill Payer check for $300 was sent on December 31, 2015.On January 6, 2016, the member contacted PSECU at which time the representative refunded the entire $30 Non-Sufficient Funds fee as a courtesy to the member. The member explained that the Bill Payer check of $160 was resubmitted for payment by [redacted] and was paid. The member further informed the representative that she scheduled an additional $300 Bill Payer check to [redacted] that cleared on January 5, 2016.In regards to the member's request to waive the $200 payment due on January 12, 2016, members are responsible for resolving any overpayments to merchants by contacting the merchant directly.I hope that this information helps. Please do not hesitate to write again if you feel that may be of any further assistance.Sincerely,Tammy HChief Administration Officer

November 20, 2015Dear [redacted],I am writing in response to your email dated November 16, 2015 regarding the second correspondence received by the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) concerning PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted].In our Revdex.com response submitted on November 13, 2015, it was stated that PSECU will send a response to the individual directly. This response was mailed on November 18, 2015.Thank you for sharing this complaint with PSECU and if you have any questions or feel may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at [redacted].Sincerely,Tammy H.Chief Administration Officer

Good Morning, We sent the below response to this compliant via USPS on Friday, January 13, 2017.Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.Sincerely,Tammy H[redacted]January 13, 2017 [redacted]Revdex.com of Metropolitan Washington DC and Eastern PA1337...

North Front StreetHarrisburg, PA 17102 Dear [redacted]:   I am writing in response to your e-mail dated January 4, 2017 regarding a complaint the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) received about PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted].  Please know that we corresponded with the individual via telephone on January 12, 2017 and came to a resolution.  Thank you for sharing this correspondence with PSECU. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at [redacted]. Sincerely,  Tammy H[redacted]Chief Administration Officer cc: Gregory *. S[redacted], President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:My checking account is closed through PSECU where I also have two different loans with. The checking was closed because I did not follow their policy because of some mistakes on my part which I admit. However I also now have no access to the online portion of my loans. This has now gone on for three months which I have not always had access to my loans. This also creates difficulty in paying the loans on time since I don't know how much, when and were to pay the loans. When I call they keep saying I have options however I really have no clue what is going on with the loans. This clearly is not a legal event that is going on, not having access, getting statements, emails saying what my balance is, what I owe, when I owe it and where I should send payment.I would like a few things. #1 Refund of all late fees in the year 2017 #2 Have online access to pay and see my balances. #3 Be able to pay off loans through the ATM and then transfer to the loans. In return I will pay $1,000 on one loan and $1,000 on another loan to show some good faith on my part. Thank you for your time.
Regards,
[redacted]

April 4, 2016Dear [redacted]...

[redacted],I am writing in response to your email dated March 28, 2016 regarding additional correspondence received by the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) concerning ID [redacted]. In the letter, our member explained that she was advised that her services were revoked due to her Share account being overdrawn and not the loan being delinquent. She further claims that during the phone conversation with PSECU's representative, she explained that she would attempt to make a payment; however, a promise to make a payment was not made. Additionally, the member explained she does not feel like she needs to re-apply for an account that was locked out.Through the review of the account, it was determined that on January 20, 2016, our member contacted PSECU by telephone at which time PSECU's representative informed her that the services on the account were revoked due to both the negative share and the delinquency on the loan. The representative also advised the member when she brings both (the checking share and the loan) current, she may re-apply for services. The member explained that she has an account at another financial institution and not having services was "no big deal". The member explained that she started a new job and could only pay the share account and not the loan at that point. Additionally, on March 22, 2016 the member spoke to another PSECU representative. A promise to pay by March 25, 2016 was made when the member explained that she is being paid that week.We have not received the payment.We ask that the member contact our Collections Department at ###-###-####, select option #*, and dial extension [redacted] to make a payment. Once the account is in good standing for six months, the member may re-apply for services (e.g., check card, online banking, etc.).I hope that this information helps. Please do not hesitate to write again if you feel that may be of any further assistance.Sincerely,Tammy H. Chief Administration Officer

[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:
I've already taken care of the monetary issues, as you can probably tell.  Your response was discourteously untimely and did not address the issue of misinformation and rudeness given to your "member".  Thank you for acknowledging the issue, but thankfully I am respectful and responsible enough to take care of everything myself.  I will not be recommending your services to anyone anymore as I had done before.
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 Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: my account was locked to me for logging in ability PRIOR to being closed, which resulted in the negative on the CHECKING account. Yes, I told the rep on the phone it was no big deal but I would really like to have access to my bank account again as it is easier for me to have two accounts. My other bank account I am un happy with. I haven't been able to make the promised payments as other things arise. I'm sure that every person reading these messages has had unexpected medical expenses come up...I would love to restart my payments on these but I've had unexpected medical bills come up and am unable to pay anything else...I had to move out of my apartment to even afford my car payments...but if you want me to be homeless and carless and not go to my job, sure I'll resume these payments. I don't think it's fair that after having this account for 6 years it's being closed to my online account being locked out before I could even have a chance to remedy the situation, which in turn made it worse than it really is. I would have been willing to contact PSECU and work out a remedy if they hadn't been rude to me along with closing out my account. I don't believe I should have to reapply when I couldn't remedy the situation.
Regards,
[redacted]

May 19, 2014Dear **. [redacted],I am writing in response to your letter dated May 9, 2014 concerning ID [redacted]. We previously responded to the inquiry; however, it appears that our member had additional concerns.Through previous correspondence with your office, we explained that the member’s services were revoked due to improper account activity. One of the reasons listed was the excessive Non-Sufficient Fund activity. In her response to the Revdex.com, the member explained that the history of share accounts and the history of loan accounts are “completely irrelevant to each other”. The member claims that we breeched our agreement with her and inquired which disclosures would allow us to revoke her [redacted] line of credit as well.Over the past three years, the account was reviewed four times due to improper activity. One of those instances resulted in the member losing her online deposit ([redacted]) service because she was making the [redacted] deposits but not mailing the checks in a timely manner. This included checks drawn on her other financial institution that were returned to us as Non-Sufficient funds. Writing checks drawn on an account without having the funds available can be a violation of Title 18 Pa.C.S § 4105. Below is a summary of a few checks the member wrote when the account did not have sufficient funds to cover the checks:Check Date    Amount             Balance on the day       Check Presented for Payment         Paidthe check was written1/01/14           $1,200.00                               $60.00                     1/17/14                                    No1/25/14           $1,200.00                                $ 0.00                     2/07/14                                    No2/14/14            $ 100.00                               -$40.51                     3/04/14                                   No2/26/14            $ 400.00                                 $30.94                     3/03/14                                   No3/03/14            $ 139.00                                  $ 0.00                     3/11/14                                   No
In regards to the member’s inquiry about disclosures addressing the [redacted] line of credit being closed, PSECU's Loanliner ©Credit and Security Agreement states: “Any financial service provided by PSECU may be used for any transaction permitted by law. You agree that you will not use any service for any transaction that is illegal under applicable federal, state, or local law. You agree that illegal use of any financial service will be deemed an action of default or breach of contract. Use of any financial service in a manner not permitted by law may cause that service or related services to be terminated at PSECU’s discretion.”Additionally, PSECU’s Agreements and Disclosures state: “Any financial service provided by PSECU may be used for any transaction permitted by law. You agree that illegal use of any financial service will be deemed an action of default or breach of contract. Use of any financial service in a manner not permitted by law may cause that service or related services to be terminated at PSECU’s discretion. Furthermore, PSECU’s Agreements and Disclosures state: “PSECU reserves the right to decline any transaction that we consider fraudulent, suspicious, or illegal”.Due to the above-mentioned activity on the account, PSECU feels that the services on the account as well as the [redacted] line of credit were closed properly in the best interest of the member and PSECU.Lastly, the member claimed that she did not receive her coupon books and statements. Through further review of the account, I determined that the member’s Personal Service Loan, [redacted] loan, and Vehicle loan were set up as regular cash payments. The member’s Signature loan was set up with a coupon repayment method and the coupons were mailed on February 3, 2014. Our records further indicate that the member keeps receiving her monthly statements.This non-public information is being disclosed to you in accordance with Regulation P “§ 1016.15(a)(1), (2)(iii) and (7)(iii). It is our intention that this information be strictly used for those limited purposes; i.e., for resolving consumer disputes or inquiries and regulatory investigation.I hope this helps clarify and resolves the member’s inquiry. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [redacted].Sincerely,

5in; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"> 
September 11, 2014
 
 
 
[redacted]
Revdex.com of
Metropolitan Washington DC and Eastern PA
1337 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
 
 
Dear [redacted],
 
I am writing in response to your letter dated September 4, 2014 concerning ID [redacted]. In our member’s complaint, he explained that he was contacted regarding unauthorized [redacted] transactions and was asked to dispute these transactions once they post to the account. He explained that PSECU recently implemented a change to the homebanking product concerning the User ID and password. He explained that, due to this change, he is unable to log into his account even after making several login attempts. The member requested that we fix the login to his homebanking and refund the unauthorized charges to his account.
 
We recently implemented a change on how our members log into their accounts through our website. The change was implemented to increase the security within our homebanking system and to further protect our members’ account security.
 
I reviewed and discussed the member’s account in further detail with PSECU’s eCommerce Manager. Through the review of the account, we determined that an entry error occurred not allowing the member to change his password. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused. We corrected the account error and contacted the member via telephone on September 5, 2014. The member successfully logged into his account during the telephone conversation.
 
Through further review of the account, I determined that a representative contacted the member on August 22, 2014 regarding unauthorized [redacted] transactions and asked him that once the transactions post to his account to submit a [redacted] Dispute Form. The [redacted] Dispute Form was emailed to the member the same day. As of September 11, 2014, we have not received the [redacted] Dispute Form. We ask the member to submit the completed form either via fax to [redacted] or scan the signed form and email it to [redacted]. Once we receive the completed form, we will be able to research the dispute and provide a provisional credit until the dispute is resolved.
 
Again, I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused our member.
 
Please do not hesitate to write again if you feel we may be of further assistance or call me directly at [redacted].
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Tammy H[redacted]Chief Administration Officer
 
cc: Gregory *. S[redacted], PSECU President

[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 response has done nothing to remedy the untimeliness of PSECU to resolve their error in putting the lien on my unowned property although I accept their acknowledgment of error to me and will remain a customer of PSECU and hope that in the future any dealings with them will result in more satisfaction for me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

This bank is horrible. They locked my account because they said I files bankruptcy which I did not and my credit score is 785 so its obvious that I didn't. I have a loan with them now it is like pulling teeth to try to pay it because the is closed my account and the refuse confirmation numbers when I pay it. Do not deal
With these clowns they are clueless.

January 14, 2016Dear [redacted],I am writing in response to your email dated January 7, 2016 regarding correspondence that was assigned the td of [redacted]. In the correspondence, the member explained that she spoke with several staff members regarding a PSECUbill payer check for $160 to...

[redacted] that was returned due to insufficient funds. The member explained that she was under the impression that a hold was placed on the funds once the bill payer was scheduled and was confused of the returned payment. The member contacted [redacted] who informed her that the check was paid. The member contacted PSECU again the following day and the PSECU representative again explained that the check was returned to [redacted] and a fee charged. The member assumed that the check is "null and void" and used the bill payer service to send another payment to [redacted] for $300. On January 6, 2016, the member logged into her PSECU account and noted that the first bill payer check in the amount of $160 was presented for payment again and paid. Additionally, the $300 payment to [redacted] was also processed and paid causing an overpayment to [redacted]. The member would like to have a $200 payment due on January 12, 2016 waived as she is now unable to make that payment.When signing up for the Bill Payer service, members agree that payments can be made by two methods; 1) Electronic payment or 2) Check payment. For reference, I am enclosing the full Terms and Conditions for the Bill Payer Service that members agree to when they sign up for the service. The disclosure is also available to members at all times within their Online Banking account.By signing up for the Bill Payer service, members authorize PSECU to debit their Checking Share on the date the payment is transmitted to an electronic payee. Additionally, for the bill payers using the check billing method, members authorize PSECU to debit their Checking Share on the date the check is presented. Members are also responsible for resolving any overpayment, late payment, missed or non-receipt of a payment, or charges assessed by payees.Through the review of the account, I determined that a bill payer check was mailed to [redacted] for S160 on December 18, 2016. On December 28, 2015, the available balance on the account was $25.66. The bill payer check for S160 was presented for payment and returned (not paid) to [redacted] on the same day. A $30 Non-Sufficient fund (NSF) fee was due at that time. Since $25.66 was available in the account, the partial fee of $25.66 was charged on the same day, The remaining NSF fee amount of $4.34 was still due and was charged to the account on December 31, 2015.The member contacted us on December 29th and December 30th. During both phone calls, the process of sending Bill Payer checks was explained to the member and the member was asked to contact PSECU again once the remaining $4.34 fee is charged and request a courtesy refund. The possibility of [redacted] resubmitting the $160 Bill Payer check payment was not discussed in neither of the phone calls.Through further review of the account, I noted that the member initiated another [redacted] payment and a Bill Payer check for $300 was sent on December 31, 2015,On January 6,2016, the member contacted PSECU at which time the representative refunded the entire $30 Non-Sufficient Funds fee as a courtesy to the member. The member explained that the Bid Payer check of $160 was resubmitted for payment by Weils Fargo and was paid. The member further informed the representative that she scheduled an additional $300 Bill Payer check to [redacted] that cleared on January 5, 2016.In regards to the member's request to waive the $200 payment due on January 12, 2016, members are responsible for resolving any overpayments to merchants by contacting the merchant directly.I hope that this information helps. Please do not hesitate to write again if you feel that I may be of any further assistance.Sincerely,Tammy H Chief Administration Officer

November 20, 2015Dear [redacted],I am writing in response to your email dated November 16, 2015 regarding correspondence received by the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) concerning PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted]. In the correspondence to the Revdex.com, the individual explained that a loan...

application was started where he agreed for PSECU to pull his credit report. He did not complete the loan application; however, a credit report was pulled by PSECU. The individual is asking that PSECU remove the inquiry from the credit report.I discussed the correspondence with PSECU's Credit Services Manager who is making the credit report correction. We submitted a request to the Credit Bureau to remove the inquiry from the credit report on November 20, 2015. It takes approximately two weeks for the Credit Bureau to process this information.I hope that this information helps. Please do not hesitate to write again if you feel that may be of any further assistance.Sincerely,Tammy H

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:They have a judgement on my credit report ([redacted]) and it needs to be removed! I will take legal action. This is over seven years old.remove it or else!
Regards,
[redacted]