Prudential Financial

Re: Complainant: [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] We received your letter dated January 31, requesting information about the above referenced customerUnfortunately we are unable to release the requested information.Please understand that due to the confidential relationship that exists between Prudential and our policyholders, we are unable to release any policy information to anyone other than the owner of the policy without the express authorization of the policyownerTherefore, I am sending the information you have requested directly to the policyowner.If you have any questions, please contact me at ( [redacted] between the hours of 9:a.mand 4:p.mEastern time, Monday through FridayHearing and speech-impaired policyholders with TDD/TTY equipment can contact us at ( [redacted] .Sincerely,Carol B [redacted] , FLMI, AIRC, AAPA DirectorDirector

Complaint: [redacted] Subject: Response from Prudential official - Mary [redacted] C***, dated July 29, I am rejecting this response because: In essence, the subject response is no response! The subject recounts several acknowledged mistakes, errors, late payments, last processing, and misinformation over the last five (5) years The subject even notes an apology plus the subject acknowledges information was sent to me incorrectly If Prudential had been doing its job correctly, would the above have been necessary to write? I think not I believe a better review of most of the relevant facts about our efforts with Prudential and its named officials are summarized in the attached letter to Travis S [redacted] of October 30, with IX (9) Exhibits, attached to this Revdex.com Reject Business Response web submission Moreover, a separate letter from the State Treasurer [NC] to us dates July 16, about our accounts states that she is "...working to resolve [our] outstanding issues in a timely manner." If she had resolved our issues (in concert with Prudential), we might have received our 1099R for 2013, from Prudential, in a timely manner Instead, a letter to and a call to Prudential was necessary to get our 1099Rs The one missing finally arrived in March, This is the type of management/service/other issues that we have had each and every year since [We can recall only year where all 1099s arrived before the IRS regulated dates of January 31st; notwithstanding, even then, the 1099s did not have property identification for use in our tax preparation Another example of poor records is in the letter from Prudential to me ( [redacted] ***) dated October 8, This document has me being hired on 1-1-1900...clearly an impossibility Incorrect records, indeed, with me -- again -- having to call to correct My wife, [redacted] ***, has a similar letter All of this makes one wonder about putting the client first [In fact, the NC Office of Attorney General has pondered a related question about the 401K/ System (NC) giving tax advise That office suggests in the enclosed letter of July 27, that the Department of State Treasurer, Retirement System Division, that it may have been operating contrary to tax law for years.] These are several reasons why the subject response is no response! As to the fact of a charge to Prudential for all of our work to straighten out the Prudential (in their role in concert with the 401K/System [NC]) over a year period, please note on my attached resume that I did have the necessary licenses in NC to conduct such business(es), and I do Based on the above, the request for payment is made again...a request bolstered by Prudential, et al., agreeing to consider said payment once documentation was presented--and it has been This is only fair because, insofar as we are aware, all of the problems recounted (and others) have been caused by Prudential and their officials/employees Thank you Regards, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below MsG [redacted] failed to address the actual issues I listed in the original complaint and she also made multiple statements.First, this issue with the late fee was not whether or not it had been charged at all The issue was that it had been charged due to an error on the part of the Copper Beech office staff I had inquired about the status of my account a week prior to the due date and was assured that I had already paid my August rent On August 6th, I received a note on my door stating that my rent was past due and that I had been charged a late fee It is not my fault that I was given incorrect information by the office worker, so the late fee should have been removed or refunded.Second, I did not say that I had any outstanding work orders that needed addressed I stated that Copper Beech had neglected to address most of the work orders in a timely manner My apartment was not ready with the appropriate furniture when I moved in and I reported this immediately It wasn't until weeks (and numerous trips to the office to check on the status) later that the furniture was finally delivered to my apartment When I asked the man who delivered the furniture, he assured me that it had all been lying around in storage for over a month MsG***'s delayed response itself serves as evidence to the untimely nature of all of Copper Beech business practices; the Revdex.com gave Copper Beech 2-weeks to respond, but it took exactly before a response was provided.Third, MsG [redacted] made a statement when she said that towing signs had been posted all along Four signs were posted overnight on November One was posted at the entrance to the apartment complex behind a low-hanging branch, one was posted on the side of a dumpster enclosure about feet off from the roadway, one was nailed to a tree next to a sidewalk, and the last was nailed to a brand new 3-foot post they installed that night as well; none of the signs is easily visible from a vehicle and one shows nothing but a phone number Also, MsG [redacted] falsely claimed that the parking addendum stated that visitors could receive a "visitor pass." Unless they have updated the parking addendum without informing tenants, there is no such thing as a visitor pass.Lastly, I did not appreciate MsG [redacted] attempting to attack my character when she said "I am sure that Ms [redacted] failed to let you know that she had reported an illegal occupant living in her apartment." She tried to make it sound as if I had done something wrong, when really the opposite is true She also failed to give accurate information on the subject I had reported the illegal occupant on separate occasions over the span of a month before any action was taken.MsG [redacted] and Copper Beech did not even offer a resolution to the situation They refuse to admit that they are guilty of any wrongdoing They do not treat tenants with respect or courtesy either in writing or in person Since making the original complaint, I had to visit the office to pick up a package The staff had placed my package off to the side, separate from all other packages and not marked with my apartment number as is the protocol When it was finally found, I witnessed the staff speaking negatively about me in the back room before my package was brought out The woman who brought it shoved the box at me and grunted, "Here" before turning her back on me to return to her desk After these encounters, I am not confident that any resolution will be found unless I take legal action Regards, [redacted]

March 31, 2017Dear [redacted] :This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") regarding consumer complaint # [redacted] The complainant is a participant in the HonorHealth 403(b) Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed record keeperIn his complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding the Plan's disbursement provisions and his overall customer service experience with Prudential.HonorHealth outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions for the PlanPrudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeperIn this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules Honorhealth has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completedOur records indicate the following:According to the Plan's disbursement provisions, once a Plan participant separates service from Honorhealth all funds within the account become available for disbursementThe Plan provides that the mandatory form of benefit under the Plan is a qualified annuityIf a Plan participant is married on the date the benefits are to begin, the participant automatically will receive a Joint and Survivor annuity ("QJSA"), unless the participant and his or her spouse waive the annuity and elect an alternative form of disbursementThe spouse must consent in writing to the waiver in the presence of a notary or a Plan representativeThe Plan's QJSA provision requires a full seven calendar day waiting period with the transaction processing on the eighth calendar dayThe disbursement amount and processing date on the "QJSA Notice and Waiver' form must match the disbursement amount and processing date in our systems.On August 18, 2016, Prudential received a "Request for Transfer of Assets or Direct Rollover' form from American Funds on behalf of the complainantDue to the Plan's QJSA provisions, the complainant and his spouse are required to complete a "QJSA Notice and Waiver' prior to processing a disbursement including a direct rollover from the accountThere were no telephone calls from the complainant to our Participant Service Center regarding the direct rollover requestPrudential mailed the complainant a letter on August 19, requesting he contact Prudential via telephone to process his direct rollover and to have a "QJSA Notice and Waiver form sent to himPrudential did not receive any additional communications or telephone calls until February 22, 2017.The complainant contacted our Participant Service Center via telephone on February 22, with his financial advisor to request a total direct rolloverAt the beginning of the telephone conversation, our customer service representative discussed the Plan's QJSA provisions and emailed the complainant a "QJSA Notice and Waiver' formHowever, while the customer service representative was collecting the direct rollover instructions from the complainant's financial advisor, the telephone call disconnectedThe customer service representative was unable to complete the direct rollover request, and the complainant did not contact Prudential again until March 21, to provide the remaining direct rollover instructionsPrudential received the complainant's original completed "QJSA Notice and Waiver' on February 25, Since our customer service representative was unable to submit the direct rollover request, an additional letter was mailed to the complainant on February 27, requesting him to contact our Participant Service Center.On March 21, 2017, the complainant contacted Prudential twice regarding his direct rollover requestDuring the first telephone conversation, it was explained to the complainant that we were unable to complete his previous direct rollover due to the telephone call disconnecting and informed him of the direct rollover instructions that were needed to re-submit the direct rolloverThe customer service representative also indicated that a new "QJSA Notice and Waiver' form would be needed as the processing amount and date on the forms has to match the direct rollover information that was submittedOn this telephone call, the customer service representative placed the participant on hold twice to review the accountThe first hold time was minutes and seconds with the second hold being minute and seconds.During the second telephone call on March 21, 2017, the complainant was able to provide our customer service representative with the full direct rollover instructionsOur customer service representative disclosed the QJSA seven calendar day waiting period and emailed the complainant a new "QJSA Notice and Waiver' formPrudential received the complainant's completed form on March 23, The direct rollover processed on March 29, in the amount of $1,801.67, and the direct rollover check made payable to [redacted] was mailed on March 30, 2017.I appreciate the opportunity to review the complainant's concernsOn behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matterIf you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly P [redacted] Director, Participant Service Center

Complaint: # [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: No, all fees were not explained with my advisorIt was not till later that day that a message was left on my phone that there would be a fee taken off my fundsSo as many misstates that Prudential has made on my account, and these are only the ones I know of without getting some kind of audit done.As far as the "Prudential general account" goes, I was not asked to put that money there at any timeI will ask again, who is making income when my money and many others are having MY money and THEIR money put in a account that I-we never told you to Regards, [redacted]

This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") regarding consumer complaint [redacted] The complainant is a participant in the New Jersey State Employees Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed record keeperIn her complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding the Plan's unforeseen emergency withdrawal process.The State of New Jersey outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions (including disbursements for financial hardship) for the PlanPrudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed recordkeeperIn this role, Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules the State of New Jersey has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completedOur records indicate the following:The Plan provides unforeseen emergency withdrawals for the loss of income for either the complainant or the complainant's spouseSupporting documentation is required by the Plan to allow Prudential to process an unforeseen emergency withdrawalPrudential sends the "Unforeseeable Emergency Withdrawal Request' form to the complainant which provides examples of the required supporting documentationThe completed form and supporting documentation are returned to Prudential; however, the review and approval of the unforeseen emergency withdrawal is completed by the Plan.Prudential received the complainant's "Unforeseeable Emergency Withdrawal Request form and supporting documentation regarding the loss of income for her spouse on August 1, 2017, and the request was submitted via email to the Plan later that afternoon for reviewOn August 2, 2017, Prudential received a response from the Plan requesting the complainant to submit a letter from her spouse's place of employment indicating the number of his working hours that were reduced and the reason why there was a reduction in hoursThe letter also had to indicate when the reduction of hours began and if it was a permanent reductionPrudential sent a letter via email to the complainant on August 2, requesting the additional information.After the Plan's processing cutoff on August 7, 2017, Prudential received the requested letter from the complainant, and the documentation was submitted via email to the Plan for review on August 9, Prudential received a response from the Plan on August 11, requesting the complainant to submit a copy of her spouse's paystubs from prior to the reduction in hoursPrudential sent an email to the complainant on August 11, requesting a copy of the paystubsPer the complainant's request, a second email was submitted on August 15, 2017.On August 16, 2017, Prudential received a copy of the requested paystubs, and they were submitted to the Plan that dayWe received approval from the Plan on August 18, to process the complainant's unforeseen emergency withdrawal for $3,The unforeseen emergency withdrawal was processed on August 18, The complainant elected out of federal and state income taxes and $3,was sent via direct deposit to the complainant's back account on August 21, 2017.I appreciate the opportunity to review the complainant's concernsOn behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matterIf you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Jeffrey W [redacted] Manager, Participant Service Center

December 30, Dear [redacted] : This letter is in response to your correspondence of December 18, 2015, regarding [redacted] ***'s annuity contractThank you for bringing this inquiry to our attentionWe are continuing the process of researching the inquiry, regarding [redacted] ***'s annuity contract and will respond directly to her once we have completed our review.If you have any questions, please contact me at ( [redacted] , ext, ***I can be reached Monday through Friday, 9:a.mto 4:p.mEastern TimeWe appreciate your patience throughout the process, and hope that your client will give Prudential an opportunity to serve your client in the futureSincerely, Angelia ASenior Analyst

This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") Regarding consumer complaint #The complainant is a participant in the Covenant House Savings and Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed record keeperIn his complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding his employment status in Prudential's records and the processing of his disbursement request.Covenant House outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions for the Plan, Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeperIn this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules Covenant House has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completedOur records indicate the following:In accordance with the Plan's administrative procedures, Prudential is required to have the participant's last day of employment with Covenant House on file prior to processing a disbursement from the PlanThe last day of employment is normally received from the Plan after the participant's last payroll information is submitted by Covenant HouseThe payroll information may include contributions and/or loan repayments that would need to be applied to the participant's account prior to a disbursement being requested.The complainant initially contacted Prudential via telephone on March 11, regarding his disbursement options and indicated that he had separated service with Covenant House on March 5, The Prudential customer service representative explained that our records reflected the complainant as an active employeeThe representative also informed the complainant that the employment status change is normally submitted within one to two payroll cycles after he separated service; however, it may take up to six weeks depending on the Plan.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone March 30, 2016, April 6, 2016, and April 12, to confirm his employment status and on each occasion, the complainant was reflected as an active employee in Prudential's recordsDuring the April 12, telephone conversation, the Prudential representative submitted a request to have the complainant's employment status confirmed with the Plan since we were now beyond the one to two payroll cycle timing for the employment status updatePrudential contacted the Plan via email on April 13, The same day Prudential received notification that the complainant bad separated service with Covenant House; however, the Plan did not provide the complainant's date of separationA second email was sent to the Plan on April 15, The Plan responded later that day indicating the complainant separated service on March 5, and Prudential updated the complainant's employment status on April 18, 2016.On April 19, 2016, the complainant requested a lump sum disbursement of his entire account balance via the Prudential Online Retirement CenterThe disbursement processed on April 19, in the amount of $1,Prudential withheld the required federal income taxes and a check made payable to the complainant was mailed on April 20, for $1,090,42.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone a total of five times between April 25, and April 29, indicating that he had not received the April 20, checkThe Prudential representatives offered to place a stop payment on the check and have a new check reissued express mail at our expenseThe complainant declined the offer on these telephone callsOn May 2, 2016, the complainant elected to have the April 20, check stopped and reissuedA new check was sent via overnight delivery on May 4, 2016, at Prudential's expense, and Prudential received confirmation that the check was delivered to the complainant on May 2016.I appreciate the opportunity to review the participant's concernsOn behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matterIf you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact mc directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly P [redacted] Director, Participant Service Center

This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") Regarding consumer complaint #The complainant is a participant in the Covenant House Savings and Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed record keeperIn his complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding his employment status in Prudential's records and the processing of his disbursement request.Covenant House outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions for the Plan, Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeperIn this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules Covenant House has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative proceduresIn response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completedOur records indicate the following:In accordance with the Plan's administrative procedures, Prudential is required to have the participant's last day of employment with Covenant House on file prior to processing a disbursement from the PlanThe last day of employment is normally received from the Plan after the participant's last payroll information is submitted by Covenant HouseThe payroll information may include contributions and/or loan repayments that would need to be applied to the participant's account prior to a disbursement being requested.The complainant initially contacted Prudential via telephone on March 11, regarding his disbursement options and indicated that he had separated service with Covenant House on March 5, The Prudential customer service representative explained that our records reflected the complainant as an active employeeThe representative also informed the complainant that the employment status change is normally submitted within one to two payroll cycles after he separated service; however, it may take up to six weeks depending on the Plan.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone March 30, 2016, April 6, 2016, and April 12, to confirm his employment status and on each occasion, the complainant was reflected as an active employee in Prudential's recordsDuring the April 12, telephone conversation, the Prudential representative submitted a request to have the complainant's employment status confirmed with the Plan since we were now beyond the one to two payroll cycle timing for the employment status updatePrudential contacted the Plan via email on April 13, The same day Prudential received notification that the complainant bad separated service with Covenant House; however, the Plan did not provide the complainant's date of separationA second email was sent to the Plan on April 15, The Plan responded later that day indicating the complainant separated service on March 5, and Prudential updated the complainant's employment status on April 18, 2016.On April 19, 2016, the complainant requested a lump sum disbursement of his entire account balance via the Prudential Online Retirement CenterThe disbursement processed on April 19, in the amount of $1,Prudential withheld the required federal income taxes and a check made payable to the complainant was mailed on April 20, for $1,090,42.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone a total of five times between April 25, and April 29, indicating that he had not received the April 20, checkThe Prudential representatives offered to place a stop payment on the check and have a new check reissued express mail at our expenseThe complainant declined the offer on these telephone callsOn May 2, 2016, the complainant elected to have the April 20, check stopped and reissuedA new check was sent via overnight delivery on May 4, 2016, at Prudential's expense, and Prudential received confirmation that the check was delivered to the complainant on May 2016.I appreciate the opportunity to review the participant's concernsOn behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matterIf you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact mc directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly P [redacted] Director, Participant Service Center

August 20, 2014Dear [redacted] :This letter is in response to the consumer’s rejection of Prudential’s previous response on July 29, 2014, regarding the above referenced complaint.The additional issues raised to the Revdex.com by this member have been previously addressed in written responses provided by PrudentialPlease allow me to provide further details regarding this matter.In response to the member’s claim for not receiving a 1099-R tax form, Prudential, as payor, can confirm that all 1099-R forms for this member were mailed in a timely manner during the week of January 13, 2014.The member references that his date of hire on file was incorrectUpon hire, all members are immediately 100% vested in the NC 401(k) Plan, therefore the State of North Carolina does not utilize this date for vesting purposesHowever, when Prudential was made aware of the incorrect date it was corrected on our recordkeeping systemAlso note that there was no negative impact to member due to this incorrect date.Additionally, the member continues to request reimbursement in excess of $52,for time and effort that he spent drafting communications and placing telephone calls regarding his retirement benefitsAs stated in our letter dated November 25, 2013, the member bases his claim on language in a letter written by Prudential dated August 6, The August 6, letter does not state unequivocally that Prudential will reimburse himInstead, the letter referred to Prudential reviewing the invoices he submitted and making a determination on whether to reimburse himThe details of this matter and the member’s invoices were reviewed within Prudential, and we believe that Prudential has taken all appropriate measures to address the member’s concerns, and we do not believe it is appropriate for Prudential to pay in excess of $52,to his financial consulting firm in which he is the principal.With regard to the statement in the member’s statement regarding the letter dated July 27, from Robert C [redacted] to [redacted] ***, Director of the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer Retirement Systems Division, I have confirmed with the Retirement Systems Division that they have not been acting contrary to tax law for years.Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matterPrudential believes that we have taken appropriate measures to address this member’s concernsIf you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Mary [redacted] C [redacted] Client Service Manager Total Retirement Solutions

July 29, 2014Dear [redacted] :This letter is in response to the above complaint filed with your office by a member in the North Carolina 401(k) Plan and the North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plans”)Prudential Retirement (“Prudential”) has been retained by the state of North Carolina as the non- discretionary service provider for both Plans.The issues raised to the Revdex.com by this member have been previously addressed in written responses and the issues resolvedPlease allow me to provide further details regarding this matterIn response to the member’s claim regarding incorrect 1099R Forms, Prudential provided a corrected NC 401(k) 1099R tax form to his spouse in February because it had erroneously included an amount subject to State income taxesAdditionally, these forms include text stating that payments from the member’s Plans and North Carolina annuities are exempt from North Carolina state taxesAdditionally, Prudential provided a response letter dated September 27, 2012, explaining that we were able to accommodate his request to provide two separate 1099R tax forms for the annuitized amounts from the PlansIn a letter dated March 11, 2014, we advised that the 1099R forms previously had only the plan number listed and the not plan name, but as of the date of the letter, the 1099R would now include the plan name.The member further claims there was no resolution after Prudential acknowledged in writing the issues he has brought forthBased on prior complaints received from the member, we believe he is referencing the numerous invoices he submitted for reimbursement in excess of $52,for time and effort that he spent drafting communications and making phone calls about his retirement benefitsWe believe that we have taken all appropriate measures to address his concernsWe do not believe it is appropriate for us to pay in excess of $52,to his financial consulting firm, in which he is a principal.The member requested to annuitize his State of North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan benefitAnnuitization of his plan account benefit was and c***nues to be an available option under the terms of this planUnfortunately, the member was misinformed by Prudential about the availability of this option under this planThis matter was clarified, and an apology was provided to the memberAs requested, the member was able to partially annuitize his North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan benefitIn regards to the member’s references to issues with subsequent transactions, we believe he is referencing an issue with his spouse’s accountHis spouse, also a member in the North Carolina 401(k) Plan, received from Prudential in December the amount of $in missed earnings for a late transfer benefit paymentThis information was confirmed by Prudential in a letter to him dated December 21, The member also states he did not receive timely required minimum distribution (RMD) payments from the PlansOur records indicate that Prudential acknowledged that the member’s RMD payment from his State of North Carolina 401(k) was sent by check instead of by the requested electronic depositHis bank account was credited by Prudential on December 21, 2012, in the amount of $due to this errorThis payment was considered “Other Income” and did not generate a 1099-MISC formAdditionally, our August 29, 2012, letter further acknowledged that the member’s North Carolina 457(b) RMD was processed on July 5, 2012, and included $of interest due to the payment not processing as scheduled on June 20, 2012.Below is an additional summary of the member’s RMD history which was provided to him in a letter dated October 22, 2013: • The 401k RMD amount was $2,and was paid on December 21, 2011.• The 401k RMD amount was $2,and was paid on December 19, 2012.• The North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation RMD amount was $and was paid on June 20, 2013, and sent to him electronically on June 21, The member references “correspondence from Prudential that is contrary to the NC Supreme Court Decision”We believe that the member is referencing the letter sent to him from Prudential on February 14, 2014, which advised him that in response to a change in state law, the North Carolina Department of Revenue informed Prudential that retirees and benefit recipients must complete and submit a new tax form or update their tax withholdingDue to this change to the North Carolina tax regulations (Session Law 2013-316, House Bill 998), Prudential was directed by the State of North Carolina to solicit individuals whose benefit would be affected by the changeThe intended population for this communication were members who received a systematic payment and are subject to NC State Income Tax, and did not include this memberThis information was sent to him inadvertentlyPrudential sent him a letter on March 11, 2014, apologizing for this issue and confirmed his benefit was not affected by this changeThank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matterPrudential believes that we have taken appropriate measures to address this member’s concernsIf you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####Sincerely,Mary [redacted] C [redacted] Client Service Manager Total Retirement Solutions

Dear [redacted] ,This letter is in response to the June 12, follcorrespondence regarding consumer complaint # [redacted] Please allow me to provide a final response addressing this matter[redacted] ( [redacted] ) outlines in the [redacted] (k) Retirement Savings Plan"s (the Plan) documents the disbursement (including direct rollovers) provisions for the Plan Prudential Retirement (Prudential) has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper In this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules [redacted] has outlined int he Plan's documents and administrative procedures.Prudential has completed a further review of this matter and confirmed the complainant's direct rollover processed according to the Plan's service agreementwith Prudential Prudential forwarded the complaint to the Plan, and [redacted] agreed that Prudential followed both the Plan's and Prudential's administrative procedures As indicated in previous responses, Prudential's decision is that Prudential will not reimburse the complainant additional interest for the mailing time of the direct rollover check.Any future questions regarding this matter must be submitted directly to the Plan administrator: [redacted] , Attn: [redacted] ***, [redacted] ***, [redacted] , [redacted] ***.The Plan will only respond to the complainant's future requests or inquiries for new or additional information beyond the information previously provided, except as required by law Requests for specific information must be submitted to the Plan in writing.On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (***) [redacted] ***.Sincerely,Jeffrey W***Manager, Participant Service Center

Please find answers in regards to Ms***'s complaint: The only late fee that I see on Ms***'s account was charged on 8/5/and it was for $Rent was paid on 8/6/which was day late and the reason she was charged the $late fee. I checked her work orders and it
looks like everything has been completedThere were some delays on some of the work orders, but there are always emergencies that come up or parts maybe needed ordered at that timeSince I have been here from October, we all have gone over the work order process and had extensive training. In response to the towing, Ms*** had signed a parking addendum which states that guests must park in visitor parking or have a visitor passThe towing signs are throughout the property and have been all alongI have attached a copy of the parking pass addendum for you to reference. Also, I am sure that Ms*** failed to let you know that she had reported an illegal occupant living in her apartmentManagement sent the person in violation a letter and took care of the situation for Ms*** so she could enjoy her apartment home. Let me know if you have any questions and/or concerns. Thank you Megan G***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Ms. G[redacted] failed to address the actual issues I listed in the original complaint and she also made multiple false statements.First, this issue with the late fee was not whether or not it had been charged at all.  The issue was that it had been charged due to an error on the part of the Copper Beech office staff.  I had inquired about the status of my account a week prior to the due date and was assured that I had already paid my August rent.  On August 6th, I received a note on my door stating that my rent was past due and that I had been charged a late fee.  It is not my fault that I was given incorrect information by the office worker, so the late fee should have been removed or refunded.Second, I did not say that I had any outstanding work orders that needed addressed.  I stated that Copper Beech had neglected to address most of the work orders in a timely manner.  My apartment was not ready with the appropriate furniture when I moved in and I reported this immediately.  It wasn't until 6 weeks (and numerous trips to the office to check on the status) later that the furniture was finally delivered to my apartment.  When I asked the man who delivered the furniture, he assured me that it had all been lying around in storage for over a month.  Ms. G[redacted]'s delayed response itself serves as evidence to the untimely nature of all of Copper Beech business practices; the Revdex.com gave Copper Beech 2-3 weeks to respond, but it took exactly 7 before a response was provided.Third, Ms. G[redacted] made a false statement when she said that towing signs had been posted all along.  Four signs were posted overnight on November 7.  One was posted at the entrance to the apartment complex behind a low-hanging branch, one was posted on the side of a dumpster enclosure about 10 feet off from the roadway, one was nailed to a tree next to a sidewalk, and the last was nailed to a brand new 3-foot post they installed that night as well; none of the signs is easily visible from a vehicle and one shows nothing but a phone number.  Also, Ms. G[redacted] falsely claimed that the parking addendum stated that visitors could receive a "visitor pass."  Unless they have updated the parking addendum without informing tenants, there is no such thing as a visitor pass.Lastly, I did not appreciate Ms. G[redacted] attempting to attack my character when she said "I am sure that Ms. [redacted] failed to let you know that she had reported an illegal occupant living in her apartment."  She tried to make it sound as if I had done something wrong, when really the opposite is true.  She also failed to give accurate information on the subject.  I had reported the illegal occupant on 3 separate occasions over the span of a month before any action was taken.Ms. G[redacted] and Copper Beech did not even offer a resolution to the situation.  They refuse to admit that they are guilty of any wrongdoing.  They do not treat tenants with respect or courtesy either in writing or in person.  Since making the original complaint, I had to visit the office to pick up a package.  The staff had placed my package off to the side, separate from all other packages and not marked with my apartment number as is the protocol.  When it was finally found, I witnessed the staff speaking negatively about me in the back room before my package was brought out.  The woman who brought it shoved the box at me and grunted, "Here" before turning her back on me to return to her desk.  After these encounters, I am not confident that any resolution will be found unless I take legal action.
Regards,
[redacted]

Re: Complainant: [redacted]
Dear Ms. [redacted]We received your letter dated January 31, 2018 requesting information about the above referenced customer. Unfortunately we are unable to release the requested information.Please understand that due to the confidential relationship that exists...

between Prudential and our policyholders, we are unable to release any policy information to anyone other than the owner of the policy without the express authorization of the policyowner. Therefore, I am sending the information you have requested directly to the policyowner.If you have any questions, please contact me at ([redacted] between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Hearing and speech-impaired policyholders with TDD/TTY equipment can contact us at ([redacted].Sincerely,Carol B[redacted], FLMI, AIRC, AAPA DirectorDirector