Pennsylvania State Employees 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]

September 19, 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 12, 2014 concerning ID [redacted]. In your letter, you explained that our member had additional concerns. He stated that PSECU placed a delay on him “for not responding about proof of unauthorized [redacted] purchases; however, I was on vacation in August when these first appeared and believe it or not and PSECU well knows that for over one month I could not get into my bank account”. He also explained that the transactions do not appear on his statement or online.
 
The inability to access the homebanking system was caused due to a human key input error made on the member’s account that prevented our system to allow the member to change his password within our homebanking system. We corrected the account error and the member successfully logged into his account.
 
Through the review of the account, I determined that on August 21, 2014, the member’s card was used which initiated a security phone call to the member. The next day, the member contacted us verifying that some of the charges were unauthorized. The card was closed and a new card was ordered for the member. 
 
The unauthorized transactions posted on August 22, 2015. The transactions are included in the member’s August account statement. The transactions can also be viewed online
once the member logs into his account. By clicking on the History field located on the left side, he can select the account and timeframe he would like to review. The account history displays up to 90 days of previous transactions and will encompass the previously mentioned transactions.
 
I hope this helps. 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

December 15, 2016 [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 e-mail dated December 7, 2016 regarding a complaint the Revdex.com (Revdex.com)...

received about PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted]. Please know that we have contacted the individual via telephone on December 14, 2016 and came to a resolution. We will also follow up with the individual through the mail. Thank you for sharing this complaint with PSECU and if you have any questions or feel I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at [redacted]. Sincerely, Tammy H[redacted] PSECU Chief Administration OfficerJeffery ** S[redacted], President

November 13, 2015Dear [redacted],I am writing in response to your email dated November 3, 2015 regarding correspondence received by the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) concerning PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted].Please know that a reply will be sent to the individual directly. PSECU is...

unable to share this reply with the Revdex.com because PSECU's response includes account specific information. 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 [redacted].Sincerely,Ivana J Administration Analyst

[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:Complaint won't be closed until I receive a $10 check from PSECU
Regards,
Miles Yinh

December 22, 2017    [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 e-mail dated December 15, 2017 regarding a complaint the Better...

Business Bureau (Revdex.com) received about PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted].   Please know that we attempted to contact the individual by telephone on December 21, 2017 to come to a resolution.   We encourage the individual to contact us directly at ###-###-#### and dial extension [redacted] and one of our trained Member Service Representatives will be able to assist.   Thank you for sharing this correspondence with PSECU.   Sincerely,   Tammy H[redacted] PSECU Chief Administration Officer   cc: Gregory ** S[redacted], President

Attempting to acquire a mortgage from PSECU, proof of my domestic relations deposits were requested by providing banking statements. I provided these banking statements. However, I blackened out my personal banking information such as debits and credits that were not related to domestic relations. I was told by the Underwriting dept at PSECU that my mortgage would not be approved if a full banking statement was not provided. I stated that I provided the information that they requested (proof of domestic relations deposits). I was told that they need to investigate my banking to see if I had acquired an additional loans over the past few months that would not have shown up on my credit report. I stated that was not what was requested by the bank on the written form that I had received. It only requested proof of domestic relations deposits which was provided. Privacy is an issue here. They have no right to track my banking information. What was requested was given. It should have ended there.

[redacted] Revdex.com of Metropolitan Washington DC and Eastern PA [redacted]I am writing in response to your email dated October 26, 2015 regarding a complaint the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) received about PSECU, which was assigned the # of...

[redacted].Please know that a reply was sent to this individual on November 3, 2015. 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.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 ###-###-####.

January 3, 2017 [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 e-mail dated December 27, 2016 regarding a complaint the Better Business...

Bureau (Revdex.com) received about PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted].   Please know that we corresponded with the individual via telephone on December 24th and December 28th 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

April 25, 2014
 

class="MsoNormal">**. [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 April 16, 2014 concerning ID [redacted]. In the letter, the member explained that her services were revoked along with her [redacted] credit card suspended and online services deactivated. The member also suggests that her payments were to be adjusted to reflect the date they were due.
 
Through the review of the account, I determined that on March 7, 2014, a deposit was made in the amount of $300.00 and an immediate withdrawal occurred in the amount of $350.00 at a [redacted] Community Credit Union ATM. A day later, at the same Credit Union, another deposit was made in the amount of $500.00. The funds were also immediately withdrawn. PSECU attempts to make funds from deposits available to members on the business day that we receive their deposit. However, there are instances where funds members deposit by check may be delayed for a longer period of time. Some of those instances may be that the member may have overdrawn their account repeatedly in the last six months. Another reason holds are placed on checks deposited may be that we believe a check deposited may not be paid.
 
On March 14, 2014, PSECU’s representative reviewed the account and determined that during the period starting January 1, 2014 through March 18, 2014, twenty (20) checks were presented for payment on the account where the funds were not available. Each time, a Non-Sufficient Funds fee was assessed to the account. PSECU’s representative attempted to contact the member by telephone to discuss the account activity as well as inform her that a hold will be placed on the most recent deposit. Unfortunately, the representative was unable to reach the member by telephone. The representative immediately followed up with a letter to inform the member that a hold will be placed on the latest deposits in the amount of $500.00 and $300.00. Through further review of the account, PSECU’s representative revoked the member’s services.
 
In an email dated March 28, 2014 to the member, I explained that as a courtesy, we will waive the last three overdraft fees. Additionally, I explained that the member’s [redacted] loan payment was due for March 25, 2014 and her Vehicle loan payment was due for March 18, 2014. I further explained that if a payment is mailed to PSECU by Saturday, March 29, 2014, we will effective date the payments for when they were due.
 
A partial Vehicle loan payment and a Personal Service Loan payment was made on Saturday, March 29, 2014. We have effective dated the payments. Additionally, a payment was made to the [redacted] Loan which will be effective dated as well.
Revdex.com
Response ID: [redacted] (con’t) pg. 2 of 2
 
 
PSECU considers its services to be an additional benefit to our members. Due to the activity on the member’s account, PSECU feels that the services were closed properly in the member’s best interest and PSECU’s. We ask that all future loan payments are made in the form of a Cashier’s Check, Money Order or a cash deposit at one of our branch offices. The mailing address for payments is PSECU, P.O. Box 67012, Harrisburg, PA 17106-7012.
 
PSECU provides members a chance to re-apply for additional services after one year when services are terminated on an account. The member may apply for services again on March 18, 2015.
 
The member did request an account history statement which was mailed to her on March 31, 2014. However, as a courtesy, I am attaching another copy for her review.
 
This non-public information is being disclosed to you in accordance with Regulation P Ҥ 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 the current status of the account. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [redacted].
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
[redacted]Chief Administration Officer
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cc: Gregory A. Smith, PSECU President

I have asked for copies of all signed documents regarding Joint accounts that I have signed. I have never received these. I was also told by PSECU that they sent several mailings regarding the unpaid loan to the [redacted] address which is not correct. I would not have allowed my credit to be ruined by [redacted] not paying. Again, I would like copies of all correspondence PSECU claims they sent to my home. They sent one letter recently in response to the Revdex.com claim listing dates they sent correspondence, however they stated they sent notices in July, Aug, Sept and Oct of 2012, however the loan wasn't deficient until Nov 2012 according to the online account and my credit report. I would like to be sent ALL documents related to this account that I signed to be the Joint Account holder since I have no documentation regarding this, also I would like mailed copies of all letters they claim were sent to my address. I am starting to think this is a loan that was applied for by my ex over the phone with PSECU and they have no documentation with my signature stating that I am joint owner. I would like these documents furnished, as I have asked for them many times without success.
Thank You
[redacted]

I am writing in response to your email dated February 26, 2015 concerning ID [redacted],
In the individual's rebuttal, he contested our response to his February 17, 2015 complaint. He explained that his complaint will not be closed until he receives a $10.00 check from PSECU.
As mentioned in our February 25, 2015 reply to the individual's compliant, PSECU is unable to refund the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society's ([redacted]) $10.00 membership due since it is not a PSECU fee. The individual paid this fee to the [redacted] in order to become a [redacted] member. The individual elected to join the [redacted] so that he would fall within PSECU's field of membership and be eligible to join the credit union.
Also stated in the prior reply was an explanation as to why the individual was asked questions regarding the use of his account. During phone conversations which took place on August 18, 2014 and August 21, 2014, the individual indicated that he needed the account to accept wires to receive payments for things he resells. Members are required by PSECU to have a business account if they plan to use the account for business purposes, The individual established an Individual Account with PSECU and not a Business Account. Additional questions were asked on August 21, 2014 to validate the individual's identity after his account was locked due to invalid password attempts.
As explained in the initial reply, the individual's access to Online Banking was temporarily restricted due to a combination of invalid password attempts, failed security questions, and overall concerns related to his account. For security reasons, PSECU does not disclose the extent of these controls. Furthermore, PSECU follows the NCUA Part 748-Security to protect the security and confidentiality of member information, which includes protection against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any member.
Temporary restrictions on the account expired on August 27, 2014 and the individual could have used Online Banking after this date if he unlocked the account by correctly answering a series of security questions. However, he did not attempt to answer any security questions until November 7, 2014, in which he attempted a self-service unlock, and answered the questions incorrectly. Following this, the individual did not contact PSECU until February 17, 2015 and on such date his account was unlocked. Although, he never reattempted to login to his account and instead requested PSECU close the account. PSECU received his Closed Account Form on February 23, 2015 and closed his account on February 25, 2015. Additionally, the individual's minimum required share balance of $5.00 was returned to the individual.
I trust that this information adequately addresses the individual's concern and PSECU considers this matter closed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,
Tammy H[redacted]
Chief Administration Officercc; Gregory A. S[redacted], President

January 14, 2016
Dear [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 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: They put the delay on me for not responding about proof of unauthorized [redacted] purchases; however, I was on vacation in August when these first appeared and believe it or not and PSECU well knows that for over one month I could not get into my bank account.  Thank God I had direct deposit of my paycheck and could access cash to withdraw through an ATM with my long-time PIN number or else no bills would have been paid and I would not even have been able to buy gas to drive to work.  Also, now that they have fixed the electronic error which prevented access to MY OWN money, these unauthorized [redacted] purchases their security people reviewed with me over the telephone in August are not showing on my bank statement or online as it they never happened.  So, I cannot fill out the dispute form since these transactions are now nowhere to be found in my bank statement.  So, now what do I do?  I guess I will keep looking at each months' bank statement upon receipt to see if they pop up or post again because I cannot find any unauthorized postings on my August 2014 statement which I recently got in the mail.  Thank you, John Shugars
Regards,
[redacted]

August 27, 2014Dear [redacted],
I am writing in response to your letter dated August 19, 2014 concerning ID [redacted].
In the individual's rebuttal, he contested our response to his August 8, 2014 complaint. He explained that PSECU is still reporting a judgment on his [redacted] credit report.
Through further review of our records, it was determined that PSECU is not reporting the individual's charged-off Signature loan to the credit bureaus. Seven years from when the loan was charged-off was March 27, 2014 and PSECU has not reported the loan since March 1, 2014. Further, none of PSECU's credit reporting on the individual is currently derogatory.
Please know that PSECU's Administration Analyst followed-up with the individual to provide clarification on the matter. The individual was informed by phone on August 27, 2014 that our initial, aforementioned findings, as stated in our August 15, 2014 reply, remained valid. He was further informed that his charged-off loan was being reported within the public records section of his credit report by the [redacted] County Courthouse. The individual was advised to conduct further research with [redacted] and [redacted] County Courthouse as PSECU did not have the authority to correct the matter. Additionally, he was informed that our Administration Analyst was available at [redacted] to answer any further concerns he may have regarding this matter.
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 information was helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you feel I may be of additional assistance,
I hope this information helps to resolve the individual's concern. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write again or contact me by telephone at [redacted].
Sincerely,
Tammy HChief 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:
The history of a share account versus a loan account are completely irrelevant to each other.  The credit union breeched their agreement with me to provide me with a loan in which now they are revoking services due to a share account which have nothing to do with each other. Upon which disclosures did it state regarding revoking share services is it acceptable to revoke credit card and loan services in which have nothing to do with the product it self? By law which terms of agreement did I not satisfying by paying my loan on time in order to discontinue services? Which lawful documents were provided to me to justify these actions? None.
Until this situation is resolved, PSECU should be held liable for any credit reporting that should not be made to the credit bureau since I have no received documents that provide justifications of these findings. I still have not received any coupon books or loan statements. In speaking with other financial institutions the justifications and findings for this matter have had ill resolution. No financial institution should be able to practice business and provide such ill services to their members if the result of inadequate research of one instance where the credit union has felt they had reason to believe they would not be paid although the checks had already cleared through the Federal Reserve. I can only imagine how many other members have faced the same treatment, because PSECU decided to not work with their members to get the situation resolved. It is quite obvious that PSECU has no member concern.
Regards,
[redacted]

--------- Forwarded message ----------From: Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC <[email protected]>Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 at...

10:59 AMSubject: Fwd: Case id [redacted]To: [redacted] <[redacted]@myRevdex.com.org>---------- Forwarded message ----------From: [redacted].com <[redacted].com>Date: Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:44 PMSubject: Case id [redacted]To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dear Sir or Madam,
 
I just wanted to add that when I told PSECU that I am a truck driver that I drive the lower 48 states plus Canada, how can I tell you where I will be for two weeks when I don't know that? I was told that I might have to call in more frequently. I asked what if something happens along the way and my route changes? Was told that my debit services could be disrupted and turned off for possible fraudulent actives. How can any bank service impose such harsh business ethics on any customer? How professional is that?
 I understand that identity theft is serous, but this is gone too far when it effects my out on the road for work.
 
One more thing, PSECU are coming out with debit cards with a chip on it. I asked if that would be better for me to have to help with me not telling them where I will be in my travels. I was still told that I would still have to call or email them where I will be traveling, or card would still be turned off.
 
I really hope something can be done to help this situation.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
[redacted]
 
Sent from my [redacted] Tablet

June 4, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com of
1337 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Dear [redacted],
I am writing in response to your letter dated May 27, 2014 concerning ID [redacted].
The individual stated in her message that payments for an auto loan are not...

being applied. She explained that this occurs despite her inclusion of all necessary information on the checks to make sure they are applied. She further alleged that PSECU’s customer service has made threats to her son requesting an additional $100.00 to stop repossession of the automobile. She noted that it has been one month since she made her last payment and it still hasn’t been applied to her loan. She further stated that PSECU has argued for the past five months that payments are not being made on time and does not admit any fault. She requested immediate payment of the auto loan.
In researching the auto loan and payments in question, I reviewed the individual’s accounts and reached out to PSECU’s Director of Auto Collections. It was determined that the individual’s son originated an auto loan with PSECU in the amount of $21,199.70 on April 28, 2011. The individual is a joint owner on the son’s account but is not a co-signer of the loan. Additionally, notes from a September 25, 2013 phone conversation stated that the son made the loan for his mother’s use. The notes also detailed that she was taking responsibility for its payments, although, the loan’s obligation has been his in its entirety.
In regards to the payments not applied, PSECU followed normal procedures and practices regarding delinquent auto loans. In the past six months, the automobile has been out for repossession twice. The most recent repossession was ordered on April 9, 2014, when the loan was 40 days past due with $682.78 delinquent. The individual’s payment of $341.39 on April 18, 2014 was placed on hold in the joint account’s savings share. This was done because the payment was not enough to bring the loan current and pay the repossession cancellation fee. The borrower was informed in the past that he needed to pay any past due amounts and repossession fees assessed to close a repossession order. He was made aware of this in phone conversations which took place on January 3, 2014 and May 21, 2014. Additionally, since September 13, 2013, PSECU sent eleven notices to the borrower informing him of various delinquencies pertaining to the auto loan in addition to numerous phone calls.
Response to Revdex.com – ID [redacted]
Page 2 of 2
Through a review of phone conversations PSECU had with the individual’s son, it was determined that they were cordial in nature. In contrast to the individual’s claim of threats made, the PSECU representatives who spoke to the individual’s son acted professionally.
An exception was made on May 30, 2014 to not charge the individual the $100.00 repossession fee. The repossession order was cancelled and the previous payment was applied to the total delinquent amount. As of June 4, 2014, the member is seven days delinquent with a total $341.39 past due.
This non-public information is being disclosed to you in accordance with Regulation P Ҥ 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 information was helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you feel I may be of additional assistance.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Chief Administration Officer
cc: [redacted] President

November 13, 2015
Dear [redacted],
I am writing in response to your email dated November 3, 2015 regarding correspondence received by the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) concerning PSECU, which was assigned the ID of [redacted].
Please know that a reply will be sent to the...

individual directly. PSECU is unable to share this reply with the Revdex.com because PSECU's response includes account specific information. 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 [redacted].
Sincerely,
Ivana J
Administration Analyst

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