Puget Sound Electrical Apprenticeship Training Trust

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I have read the response from PSEJATC and I find it stunning that they seem to believe a their business practices are ethical in anyway. We are taught at young age that taking money that is not yours is stealing and wrong. If I was unable to re-apply at the time that I did, then they should have taken my money because it did not belong to them. I understand that I should have waited to resubmit my application and to pay my fees. However, I do not think the fees should be in forfeit because of it. I do not think it is acceptable to lose dollars for being proactive. I do not think anyone else should have to lose money for being proactive either. Frankly, its shocking that PSEJATC does not understand this and its alarming that a case even has to be filed regarding it. No where on their website, nor is it written on any of their documentation that fees received prior to the expiration of their test retake time frame are to be lost. Their web application should not have accepted any money until after the expiration of the month waiting period. What PSEJATC responded with was simply their justification as to why its OK for them to continue to take peoples money without giving anything in return. Many of the people that apply to their program are young, just out of high school and are trying to improve their quality of life. These are the people that PSEJATC has chosen to take advantage of with their business practices. PSEJATC should not be allowed to continue to operating in the way they have. They should refund the individuals monies that they have wrongfully taken and their web portal should be corrected so that they can longer continue operating as they have. Thank you very much for your help.*** ***

To Whom It May Concern:We have received a copy of the complaint that was filed by Mr*** with the Better BusinessBureau and would like to dispute his claim.The Puget Sound Electrical Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (PSETC) is not inbusiness to "steal" applicant's money as is
stated in Mr***'s complaintMr*** failed tofollow the instructions and guidelines of PSEJATC, and the Electrical Training ALLIANCE (ETA)by reapplying to the apprenticeship program too soon after initially failing the qualifying aptitudetest.The timeline and facts of Mr***'s interaction with PSEJATC is as follows:June , - Filled out an online application and paid $application feeHe did notfollow up on any of the required documentation, and his application expired.August 16, 2016- He was sent a letter stating his application was expiredHe would need toreapply and pay the $again if he wished to be considered for the apprenticeship.August 18, 2016- He applied again and paid the $application feeThis time, he followedup and provided the required documentation and was scheduled for an aptitude test.November 7, 2016- Took Electrical Training ALLIANCE (ETA) aptitude test at PSEJATC.This is a national test that all applicants must take to enter the apprenticeshipApassing score of is required to move to the interview stage of the applicationprocessAt the beginning of the testing session the Test Administrator reads offof a scriptA portion of that script reads "You cannot be rescheduled to take thisaptitude test again for six (6) monthsIn other words, six months from today's date is theearliest that you could retestIf you retake this test in less than six (6) months, there willbe undesirable consequencesYou will be identified during scoring (by the ETA}, andwill not be issued a score for that attempt "November 17, - After receiving test results back from ETA, a results letter was mailed toMr***Mr*** received a score of and failed the testThe results letterspecifically outlined the acceptable timeframe for reapplying (months) andretesting (months)In addition to the results letter send via US Mail, the informationwas also emailed to him(See copies)January 12, 2017- He filled out an online application and paid the $application feedespite the fact that he was informed he needed to wait a minimum of five (5) monthsbefore reapplying.January 18, - MsMichelle P***, Applications Desk, emailed Mr*** informing himthat his application was not valid because he did not follow guidelines and wait five (5)months before reapplying(See emails)August 2, 2017- Almost six (6) months later, Mr*** responded to the January 18, 2017email from MsP*** regarding his second applicationAt this time, he requested hisapplication fee be refundedHis request was denied.PSEJATC online application process is part of a software program that is used nationally bymany JATCsWe do not have control over parameters that are preset within the softwareTheJATC also receives anywhere from to online applications monthlyAt no time did JATCstaff inform or imply to Mr*** that once he failed the test that he was allowed to reapplywithin less than the five (5) month timeframe and that the JATC would "hold" his application untilthe five (5) month timeframe was reachedGiven the quantity of applications received within asingle month, it would be impossible to track and "hold" applicationsIt is against JATC policy todo so, and Mr*** was informed of this on several occasions.The result in the loss of the third $application fee does not rest on PSEJATC, its staff, northe software program it usesDuring the online application process, it is stated several timesthat the online fee is not refundableThe responsibility of loss of the fee lies with the fact thatMr*** failed to follow verbal instructions, written instructions, and guidelines regarding thepolicies governing the reapplication of applicants who fail the aptitude testHad he followed theJATC guidelines and waited the instructed time, then the application would have been valid andthe application fee would not have been lostThe fee was not "stolen", but rather Mr***chose to reapply early rather than wait until he was eligible to retest againWe ask that hiscomplaint against PSEJATC be dismissed in favor of the JATC.Regards,Clay HT***Training Director*Please view attached document