Sign in

Schools First Federal Credit Union

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Schools First Federal Credit Union? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Schools First Federal Credit Union

Schools First Federal Credit Union Reviews (35)

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[I found that I did not agree with some of the items in this dispute. I was not given proper notice of the reposession. I didn't bring this up in this complaint but I feel it now needs further explanation. I had called Schools First before my vehicle was repossessed and explained that I had moved and I was being sent mail to the wrong address. Schools First did not believe that a call stating that I had moved and they were sending mail to the wrong address was a correct way to advised them that I had moved and that they were sending mail to the wrong address. I did not received proper notice and it actually took several phone calls to correct this simple problem.
I also think it is injust that even though I was 28 days past due I had just received my vehicle back from a redemption and was in a PAYMENT ARRAIGMENT WITH SCHOOLS FIRST. On top of that they sent the notices of repossession to the wrong address after not updating my address even after several phone calls with Schools First associates.  
Also, I never said that the repossession was illegal. I had stated that the repossession agency did not adhere to proper Califonia Repossession Law due to personal property missing. I even included a copy of my dispute that clears up the false claims as stated in the response. I only brought this dispute up because a Schools First associate from the collections department. I feel Schools First should keep their word and honor a removal of a repossession from my credit report.]
Regards,
[redacted]

Our Member [redacted] stated that the debt on her husband’s account was decreed in divorce as his responsibility.   Ms. [redacted] and her husband have joint responsibility of the debt at...

SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union.  The joint financial responsibility supersedes the divorce decree and is aligned to the standard business practices we have in place for our membership/customers.  Therefore, the debt remains both Ms. [redacted] and her spouse’s joint contractual responsibility.  The divorce decree does not excuse her financial responsibility for the joint debt.  We have contacted our Member to discuss this situation.

We received the correspondence regarding Ms. [redacted]’s complaint referenced above.  She indicates that she is having difficulty in receiving billing statements.  Her loan is set-up on quarterly statements being mailed to [redacted] Street, [redacted]. ...

On January 9, 2017, Ms. [redacted] told us that she was not receiving her statements.  We confirmed her address above and she advised that she was unable to receive mail at this address and provided a PO Box address for future correspondence, but left the [redacted] Street address as her physical address. In reviewing our records, we were unable to locate prior conversations with our Member where she informed the Credit Union that she was not receiving statements.   We also reviewed Ms. [redacted]’s account and show that she has full online banking access.  Our records indicate that she has not attempted to log-in to our online banking since at least June 2016.    Ms. [redacted]’s auto loan was 46 days past-due on November 17, 2016 when we sent her a demand letter declaring her loan in default and requesting either a full payoff of the loan or to make satisfactory payment arrangements (Exhibit A attached).  On December 2, 2016, we sent a second demand letter (Exhibit B attached) again requesting either a full payoff of the loan or to make satisfactory payment arrangements, and tried to contact her at [redacted] and sent her an email to [redacted]YAHOO.COM (Exhibit C attached).  Since we had no response to any of our communication efforts, finally on December 13, 2016, we assigned her car for repossession when her loan was over 70 days past-due.    In reviewing the call from January 9, 2017, Ms. [redacted] inquired about her car loan delinquency.  She was provided accurate information about the status of the loan and was informed that the mailed check payment received on January 4th was not accepted and returned to her because the check was in the amount of $341.86 and the past due amount due on the loan was $1,025.58.   As of the date of this letter, her loan is 76 days past due with a total balance due of $1,025.58.   Our collections notes do not reflect that we spoke with Ms. [redacted] in the month of December, however, she contacted us on November 4, 2016 to inquire about opening a checking account. From January 2016  to December2016, we attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] 14 times via phone regarding the delinquency on her auto loan and were unsuccessful in reaching her. According to our records, she did call the Credit Union 8 times with 7 of those conversations being to initiate check by phone payments.   After researching and reviewing this complaint, we have determined that the delinquency on Ms. [redacted] vehicle loan is accurate and that the Credit Union was not aware of our Member’s change in address until January 9, 2017. We do not discuss timeframes for vehicle repossessions with our Members because many different factors trigger repossession efforts which can begin at any time during the delinquency period.   To show our commitment to work with Ms. [redacted], we will temporarily place repossession efforts on hold and will contact Ms. [redacted] to determine if we can come to a satisfactory payment arrangement that will satisfy the past due amount on her vehicle loan.  In addition, she can contact [redacted]@schoolsfirstfcu.org to schedule a time to discuss the repayment arrangement in detail.   Sincerely,       [redacted] Vice President, Collections and Loan Servicing

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. There seems to be some confusion by SFFCU Administration as to my initial complaint in which they either tried to avoid addressing or just lack of concern for a 9 year member. In my opinion, and whyI have filed this complaint, it is a combination of both.First of all my complaint never mentioned an October 13th phone call. In fact I couldn't give you the exact days I have called about this on going issue, but what I can give you is the day I mentioned in my complaint, October 28th. A day after October 13th where SFFCU Administration confirms, and I thank them for this confirmation, myelf, making a phone call about the same ongoing issue I address in my initial complaint. Once again my complaint has to do with October 28th leaving October 13th irrelevant except the fact that it proves SFFCU did nothing to protect me from collecting ongong NSF (Insecure Funds Fees). Also I mentioned I walked into the Huntington Beach Branch Office and did not make a phone call which adds to the irrelevancy and validity of SFFCU Administration response. Any and all previous recorded phone calls have no merit.Second of all, I never mentioned a return of any funds to me as no funds have been taken from me from either SFFCU or [redacted] leaving this same response from SFFCU Administration irrelevant and veered away from the actual complaint arising from October 28th where I walked into SFFCU in hopes of finally resolving this. What I did mention was talking with a Employee of SFFCU about blocking and or removing [redacted] from being able to withdraw funds from my account. I mentioned that I was assured they would be taken off and it would not happen again. No mention about returning funds and I have no dispute with [redacted] about being owed money or about owing money.Third, I mentioned the NSF fees that SFFCU allowed to build up after October 28th, the day I was assured would not happen again. Furthermore SFFCU never suffered a loss of funds as they chain because no funds were paid to [redacted]. The only funds they lost were from NSF fees from me which they allowed to occur leaving me in debt for something I did not do and went to my full extent to avoid.The response from SFFCU Administration does not speak of the actual matter at hand but tries to veer off in a completely different agenda. Compare my complaint and the response from SFFCU. Looks like a compare and contrast paper for Communication and Composition class and did nothing to address the complaint. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Our Member contacted SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union on February 2, 2015 and a credit dispute of the tradeline was filed on this date.  The dispute falls under the Fair Credit Reporting Act under which we have thirty (30) days to complete, however we have expedited our research on this matter...

based on the urgency communicated by our Member.Our research should be completed by February 18, 2015, and we will contact our Member once we have concluded the investigation. Sincerely,[redacted]Vice President, Member Service ExperienceSchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union

August 27, 2015We are responding
to the complaint filed against SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
(“SchoolsFirst”) with the Revdex.com on August 13, 2015 by [redacted]
[redacted].
Our records
reflect that Ms. [redacted] has been a SchoolsFirst member since April 23, 2009.  On or...

about April 29, 2015, Ms. [redacted]
purchased a car from [redacted] (“[redacted]”) and she financed her
purchase with an auto loan from SchoolsFirst. 
As of the date of this response, Ms. [redacted] is a SchoolsFirst member in
good standing. 
On or about
June 16, 2015, SchoolsFirst was contacted by [redacted] to inform us that Ms. [redacted] visited the
[redacted] dealership location on May 4, 2015 and due to her interaction with one of their employees wanted to provide a “heads up”
that assistance may be needed in this matter. 
[redacted] had been providing assistance to Ms. [redacted] in obtaining her
vehicle’s license plates and had called to notify us that she had complaints
about their customer service and several [redacted] employees. 
[redacted]
informed us that the delay in getting Ms. [redacted] her license plates was due to
the DMV’s policy that license plates cannot be sent to a P.O Box, which is
apparently what Ms. [redacted] had listed as her address.  According to [redacted], Ms. [redacted] refused
to provide them with her physical address therefore causing further delays.  [redacted]s’ Business Development
Manager offered to meet Ms. [redacted] at
a SchoolsFirst branch, her home, job or anywhere that was convenient for her to
get this resolved.
SchoolsFirst
records reflect several attempts on our part to address Ms. [redacted]’ concerns,
which are centered on her belief that she was receiving unsatisfactory customer
service from [redacted].  For example, [redacted]
[redacted], Assistant Manager of Consumer Loans for SchoolsFirst, contacted Ms.
[redacted] on June 16, 2015 and spoke with her regarding her concerns with
[redacted]. Ms. [redacted] instructed Mr. [redacted] not to speak with [redacted] about
her situation.  Mr. [redacted] has several
email exchanges with Ms. [redacted] referencing this request.
From
approximately June 16, 2015 to August 13, 2015, Ms. [redacted] had several conversations
with Mr. [redacted] and [redacted], Assistant Manager of Consumer Loans for
SchoolsFirst, regarding her concerns with [redacted].   Ms. [redacted] indicated she was not satisfied with
Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted]’s responses, so she requested to speak to me on
August 13, 2015.
I spoke with Ms.
[redacted] by telephone on the afternoon of August 13, 2015, during which time she
reiterated her complaints against [redacted] pertaining to their alleged poor
customer service and a part on her vehicle that needed replacing.  Ms. [redacted] also stated that she did not
believe calls she had placed to Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] were being returned
quickly enough.   Later that same day, I had a follow-up conference call
with Ms. [redacted] that included Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted].  We wanted to be
sure that we addressed her concerns relative to SchoolsFirst.   During
this call with Ms. [redacted], we apologized for how she felt she was treated and we
advised her that SchoolsFirst was not ignoring her messages.  We explained that we were in the process of
investigating her complaints against [redacted] and had planned to call her
with our findings, but she ended up contacting us first.
With the foregoing in mind, we note that
the settlement desired by Ms. [redacted] involves returning the vehicle (and
presumably unwinding the existing loan) and obtaining another loan with
SchoolsFirst so that she may purchase a different vehicle.  We feel that we have appropriately addressed
Ms. [redacted]’ concerns relative to SchoolsFirst and as such, we respectfully we
decline to comply with her request to unwind her loan transaction with us.  Ms. [redacted]’ allegations are against
[redacted] relative to their customer service and car repair issues she alleges
she is experiencing.  Based on
SchoolsFirst’s conversations with [redacted] representatives, it is our understanding
that [redacted] has directly responded to Ms. [redacted]’ complaints.  Accordingly, there is nothing further that
SchoolsFirst can do for Ms. [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Manager,
Consumer Loans

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
One of three things that [redacted] called me is about removing the accounts
from my credit.  I asked for a letter stating that. She said she would
mail out soon. I waited and called back.  [redacted] kept promising that it
will send out soon. I sent in a letter but never got a respond from
School 1st.  The question I raised here is the morale of the business
that School 1st employees and School 1st itself.  The empty promise is
given out to keep me satisfied at that time.  It's a fraud.  Until now,
School 1st actually keeps lying to Revdex.com and me. For example, in the
respond School 1st stated that School 1st has contacted me to discuss
this situation.  No contact was ever made at all, except [redacted]
sent me the email to confirm my complaint.  Please see below for the
email.  The matter is to solve the question that I raised here.  School
1st never sent me the written notice that I asked but keeping saying it
mailed, even calling your team is saying the same thing.  My matter was
aware with your team at that point.  Why is School 1st never sent out a
letter stating the outcome of my complaint at all during January 2013?
I prefer School 1st contact me by email only since the paper trail is needed.
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:04 AM, [redacted] <l[redacted]> wrote:

Dear Ms. [redacted],
 
We
have received the information filed with the Revdex.com on
October 20, 2014.  Your complaint has been referred to our Vice
President of Collections for handling.  A team member from the credit
union will contact you shortly
to begin resolution.
 
Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you in the meantime. 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
[redacted]
Vice President, Member Service Experience
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
714.258.4000  x [redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
For the record, onMay 4 I did not go in to [redacted]. I contacted the Rental location in Mid City on North La Brea inquiring as to why the rental car contract had not been closed out on April 29 when I returned it . I returned it to the sales associate who I purchased my car from (and returned the rental car to) on April 29. I made three 3 different phone calls and the car sales associate took 4 business days to process the paperwork. I waited 4 calendar days to get my refund because the car sales associate did not assist as he was supposed. He also told me to give my old mailing address for my application and license plates. Therefore, my license plates got sent to my old address. I called three times and was told my plates were on the way. I finally was able to communicate with the asst manager and he said my plates were mailed to an old a address. I was told to pay DMV fee to replace the plates and I'd be reimbursed, even though their sales associate made the mistake. I stated they could mail my plates to my new address which was not a post office box and they refused. They never offered to bring them to my home. They said I could get them at my bank but the banks are further away from my home and this conflicted with my work schedule. They refused to take my address again and said I had to come into the dealership on the day the plates arrived even when I said I felt uncomfortable coming in and even thoughI informed them this was the anniversary of my parent's death. 
I contacted [redacted] regarding difficulties with the Asst Manager's poor customer service regarding finding getting my car repaired. [redacted] stated she would call me back before the end of the day. She never did. The next day , 28 hours later I contacted her. She  told me an Rnterprise representative said she was forbidden from contacting me. I asked to speAk to her supervisor because she refused to contact [redacted] regarding my customer service issues. [redacted] contacted r and said he could not tell me what [redacted] had shared with them regarding my contract and repair. I contacted their manager [redacted] to assist me with getting my car repaired and find out the conversations  discussed  involving my contract with [redacted], the car repair and poor customer service [redacted] 's Asst Manager provided. 
Regards,
[redacted]

We have contacted our Member regarding this complaint and provided the enclosed response by email on August 29, 2014.  We will continue to work with our Member regarding this issue:

Dear Ms. [redacted],
Once again, my sincere apologies for your VISA payment being
misapplied to your mortgage and the lack of follow up that occurred. 
While the mispost has been corrected, the larger issue of the cause is not yet
determined.  As I shared on the phone, this is a priority since we want to
ensure other Members do not experience a similar issue and want to reassure you
that it will not happen to you again.   We take these issues very seriously
since your trust, and that of all our Members, remains the foundation of the
relationships we try to build.  I have shared your experience with the
Long Beach branch manager and this will be a coaching opportunity for the
teammember involved.
As discussed yesterday, I have researched the flow of
payments for your VISA credit card and mortgage.  Here are my insights:
·        
VISA credit card and mortgage payments go to
different PO boxes in different cities.  When Members send in mortgage
payments they go to: Payment Processing Center, PO Box 51301, Los
Angeles, CA 90051-5601.  They are processed by Cenlar, our
mortgage servicer, located in New Jersey.  VISA payments go to:  SFFCU,
PO Box 11908, Santa Ana, CA 92711-1908.  They are processed by our
Document Management team in Tustin.
·        
Mortgage and VISA credit card statements are
issued separately.  They each have coupons that are on the lower half of
the statement.  These coupons have the preprinted return addresses above
for the respective product.  The address for VISA appears on the lower
left portion of the coupon, while the mortgage return address is on the lower
right portion of the coupon.  The mortgage statement is on 8 ½ by 11 inch
stock, while VISA, like many credit card statements, is only 8 ½ by 7 inches. 
The return envelopes also reflect these different sizes.  The envelopes
each have a “see through” window where the return address on the coupon will
show through.  These “see through” windows are located differently on the
envelope to accommodate the different position of the return address; VISA on
the lower left and mortgage on the lower right.
·        
Unfortunately, during payment processing at
Cenlar and here in Tustin, the coupons are not retained, so I am unable to
obtain a copy of the one that accompanied your payment.  If you keep your
statements, you may want to confirm that the VISA  coupon was removed from
the July 22nd statement.  I will email you  “blacked out”
copies of your statements for July and August once you confirm receipt of this
emai
I remain perplexed as to how the VISA payment ended up at
the PO Box for our mortgage servicer given the different addresses, coupon
sizes and addresses.  I have checked with our team and this particular set
of circumstances appears unique. 
I had hoped I would be able to identify a weakness in our
team or process that caused the error; however, I have not found it.  That
being said, we fully accept responsibility for the problem and hope that we can
earn back your trust and rebuild our relationship.   Please do not
hesitate to call me at 714-466-8108 with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
SVP, Lending
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union

Schoolsfirst Federal Credit Union contacted our Member on October 10, 2014.  The transfer of $250.00 to US Bank had been stopped as of October 2, 2014 and all fees returned to Ms. [redacted]'s account.  We have responded via letter to our Member and attached a copy of response. ...

Understandably, Ms. [redacted] has stated she will verify this has been corrected to her satisfaction in November when this transfer does not happen.
The Credit Union will use this as a training opportunity with parties involved to ensure similar incidents do not happen to other Members.
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
Vice President, Member Service Experience
714.258.4000, ext.[redacted]

October 14, 2015
Roman">
Revdex.com
Re:         RevDex.com Complaint ID XXXXXXX
               Mr.
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Membership [redacted]
               Auto
Loan [redacted]
              
Dear Revdex.com,
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union (the “credit union” or
“SchoolsFirst FCU”) has received the correspondence regarding Mr. [redacted] and
we have researched his credit dispute request. We have determined that the
credit union followed proper procedures in handling the repossession that Mr.
[redacted] is referring to and our reporting of the repossession to the credit
bureaus is accurate.
On March 17, 2015 SchoolsFirst FCU received an impound
notice dated March 6, 2015 from [redacted]. indicating that the
2002 Acura RSX had not been picked up by the registered owner. At the time the impound
notice was received, Mr. [redacted]’s payment on the vehicle loan was 25 days
past due. The impounded vehicle was subject to a 30-day hold unless picked up
by the lienholder. On March 17, 2015 we attempted to reach Mr. [redacted] via
phone, email, and letter to advise him of the impound notice. We did not
receive a response from Mr. [redacted]. On March 25, 2015 we made the decision
to pick up the vehicle as it was accruing storage fees of $40.00 per day. The
impound repossession assignment was sent to ** [redacted] and on March 26,
2015 [redacted] picked up the vehicle from the impound yard. On March 30,
2015 we received a call from Mr. [redacted] who advised us he was aware of the
impound repossession. We discussed the terms of the repossession and advised Mr.
[redacted] of the prerequisites needed in order for the credit union to release
the vehicle back to him.
On April 8, 2015 Mr. [redacted] attempted to pick up his
personal belongings from [redacted] and notified us that his personal
belongings were missing. We engaged with [redacted] to initiate a claim to
investigate the loss. [redacted] did not have a record of any personal
belongings. A claim was then initiated with the impounding company, [redacted]., and they did not have record of any personal belongings either. Although
both inquiries resulted in no record of personal belongings and it was not
clear who was responsible for the loss, [redacted] in good faith took
responsibility for the loss and engaged with Mr. [redacted] in itemizing the
missing belongings and their value. As a result, [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]
came to an agreement that a lump sum payment of $813.00 would satisfy his claim
of missing personal belongings. This agreement also stated that SchoolsFirst
FCU and [redacted] would be released from all future claims resulting from
the March 30, 2015 repossession. This agreement is supported by a written
document signed by Mr. [redacted] dated May 3, 2015.
Mr. [redacted]’s concern regarding the credit reporting of
the repossession was addressed several times. On July 1, 2015, Mr. [redacted]
called us to request that we remove the repossession credit reporting on the
basis that having possessions missing from his vehicle at the time of
repossession made the repossession illegal. 
We explained to Mr. [redacted] that having missing items does not make a
repossession illegal. Further, the security agreement signed by Mr. [redacted]
on 05/14/2014 for the vehicle loan in question states under paragraph 9: WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE IN DEFAULT indicates that:
‘We will not be responsible for any
other property not covered by this Agreement that you leave inside the Property
or that is attached to the Property.’
On September 3, 2015, Mr. [redacted] submitted a credit
dispute. This investigation revealed that the credit reporting accurately
reflects his payment history and repossession status.
In reviewing Mr. [redacted]’s claim and our records, both
SchoolsFirst FCU and [redacted] followed proper procedures and worked in
conjunction to address his concerns. If you have any questions or would like
any additional information, please contact me at 714-258-4000 [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Department Manager, Collections
714-258-4000 ext. [redacted]

August 27, 2015
"Arial",sans-serif;">We are responding
to the complaint filed against SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
(“SchoolsFirst”) with the Revdex.com on August 13, 2015 by [redacted]
[redacted].
Our records
reflect that Ms. [redacted] has been a SchoolsFirst member since April 23, 2009.  On or about April 29, 2015, Ms. [redacted]
purchased a car from [redacted] (“[redacted]”) and she financed her
purchase with an auto loan from SchoolsFirst. 
As of the date of this response, Ms. [redacted] is a SchoolsFirst member in
good standing. 
On or about
June 16, 2015, SchoolsFirst was contacted by [redacted] to inform us that Ms. [redacted] visited the
[redacted] dealership location on May 4, 2015 and due to her interaction with one of their employees wanted to provide a “heads up”
that assistance may be needed in this matter. 
[redacted] had been providing assistance to Ms. [redacted] in obtaining her
vehicle’s license plates and had called to notify us that she had complaints
about their customer service and several [redacted] employees. 
[redacted]
informed us that the delay in getting Ms. [redacted] her license plates was due to
the DMV’s policy that license plates cannot be sent to a P.O Box, which is
apparently what Ms. [redacted] had listed as her address.  According to [redacted], Ms. [redacted] refused
to provide them with her physical address therefore causing further delays.  [redacted]s’ Business Development
Manager offered to meet Ms. [redacted] at
a SchoolsFirst branch, her home, job or anywhere that was convenient for her to
get this resolved.
SchoolsFirst
records reflect several attempts on our part to address Ms. [redacted]’ concerns,
which are centered on her belief that she was receiving unsatisfactory customer
service from [redacted].  For example, [redacted]
[redacted], Assistant Manager of Consumer Loans for SchoolsFirst, contacted Ms.
[redacted] on June 16, 2015 and spoke with her regarding her concerns with
[redacted]. Ms. [redacted] instructed Mr. [redacted] not to speak with [redacted] about
her situation.  Mr. [redacted] has several
email exchanges with Ms. [redacted] referencing this request.
From
approximately June 16, 2015 to August 13, 2015, Ms. [redacted] had several conversations
with Mr. [redacted] and [redacted], Assistant Manager of Consumer Loans for
SchoolsFirst, regarding her concerns with [redacted].   Ms. [redacted] indicated she was not satisfied with
Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted]’s responses, so she requested to speak to me on
August 13, 2015.
I spoke with Ms.
[redacted] by telephone on the afternoon of August 13, 2015, during which time she
reiterated her complaints against [redacted] pertaining to their alleged poor
customer service and a part on her vehicle that needed replacing.  Ms. [redacted] also stated that she did not
believe calls she had placed to Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] were being returned
quickly enough.   Later that same day, I had a follow-up conference call
with Ms. [redacted] that included Mr. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted].  We wanted to be
sure that we addressed her concerns relative to SchoolsFirst.   During
this call with Ms. [redacted], we apologized for how she felt she was treated and we
advised her that SchoolsFirst was not ignoring her messages.  We explained that we were in the process of
investigating her complaints against [redacted] and had planned to call her
with our findings, but she ended up contacting us first.
With the foregoing in mind, we note that
the settlement desired by Ms. [redacted] involves returning the vehicle (and
presumably unwinding the existing loan) and obtaining another loan with
SchoolsFirst so that she may purchase a different vehicle.  We feel that we have appropriately addressed
Ms. [redacted]’ concerns relative to SchoolsFirst and as such, we respectfully we
decline to comply with her request to unwind her loan transaction with us.  Ms. [redacted]’ allegations are against
[redacted] relative to their customer service and car repair issues she alleges
she is experiencing.  Based on
SchoolsFirst’s conversations with [redacted] representatives, it is our understanding
that [redacted] has directly responded to Ms. [redacted]’ complaints.  Accordingly, there is nothing further that
SchoolsFirst can do for Ms. [redacted].
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Manager,
Consumer Loans

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
One of three things that [redacted] called me is about removing the accounts
from my credit.  I asked for a letter stating that. She said she would
mail out soon. I waited and called back.  [redacted] kept promising that it
will send out soon. I sent in a letter but never got a respond from
School 1st.  The question I raised here is the morale of the business
that School 1st employees and School 1st itself.  The empty promise is
given out to keep me satisfied at that time.  It's a fraud.  Until now,
School 1st actually keeps lying to Revdex.com and me. For example, in the
respond School 1st stated that School 1st has contacted me to discuss
this situation.  No contact was ever made at all, except [redacted]
sent me the email to confirm my complaint.  Please see below for the
email.  The matter is to solve the question that I raised here.  School
1st never sent me the written notice that I asked but keeping saying it
mailed, even calling your team is saying the same thing.  My matter was
aware with your team at that point.  Why is School 1st never sent out a
letter stating the outcome of my complaint at all during January 2013?
I prefer School 1st contact me by email only since the paper trail is needed.
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:04 AM, [redacted] <l[redacted]> wrote:
Dear Ms. [redacted],
 
We
have received the information filed with the Revdex.com on
October 20, 2014.  Your complaint has been referred to our Vice
President of Collections for handling.  A team member from the credit
union will contact you shortly
to begin resolution.
 
Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you in the meantime. 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
[redacted]
Vice President, Member Service Experience
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
714.258.4000  x [redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]

On October 31, the following response was sent to our Member to the email supplied in this complaint.  As of today, November 6, 2014, Ms. [redacted] has not responded back to the credit union.
 
Dear Ms.
[redacted],
I wanted to first
acknowledge your frustration in trying to resolve this issue.  I assure you our intention is to try to find
a resolution for the complaint filed with the Revdex.com. 
Typically in
instances where a divorce decree is involved the financial responsibility
supersedes the decree.  In efforts to
help our Members resolve joint ownership separation through divorce we will typically
have our Members apply to have the loan refinanced and ownership transferred if
they qualify on their own. 
We have done
extensive due-diligence to retrieve any documentation that reflects refinance
information, divorce decree, or any other supporting information to
substantiate your request to have this removed from your credit history.  Unfortunately we don’t have information to
support this request. 
Through our
research we found some information where on November 2012 through December 2012
you called in to offer repayment plans for these losses at a rate of $25 a
month.  We in turn countered for 10% down
and 2% of the balances but that was not something you were able to commit to at
that time.
We did in
fact make the exception to allow your credit card ending in 5281 to remain open
as well as financial services for your own Membership, yet there are no records
of removing the financial responsibility for that losses.
In good
faith we would like to review this matter further but will ask that you please
provide us with a copy of the divorce degree to the contact information listed
below.  By sending this information does
not guarantee that the trade line will be removed from your credit history but
we will certainly review all information to take this request in consideration. 
You are
welcome to reach us in any form that you’re most comfortable with we look
forward to your response.
Hugo [redacted]
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union
Assistant Manager
Collections Department
Email h[redacted]
Ph. 714/258-4000 ext [redacted]
Fax 714/258-4180
Serving School Employees as OCTFCU since 1934
NOTICE:  The information contained in this message is
intended for the addressee(s) only and may be confidential, proprietary, or
legally privileged.  If you have received this message in error or there
are any problems with the transmission, please immediately notify us by return
e-mail.  The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this
message is strictly forbidden.  The sender will not be liable for any
damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a
third-party or as a result of any virus being transmitted.  This notice is
automatically appended to each e-mail message transmitted from the sender's
e-mail domain.

On December 21, 2017, we received complaint [redacted] from the Revdex.com regarding Non-Sufficient Fund (NSF) fees being charged to [redacted]’ SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union account. During our investigation it was discovered that Mr. [redacted] contacted SchoolsFirst FCU on...

October 13, 2017, with concerns that [redacted] was debiting his account when funds were not available, causing numerous subsequent NSF fees.  In listening to this phone call, Mr. [redacted] stated that he did in fact provide his debit card number, routing number and account number to [redacted], and each time when authorizing these debits his account had available funds.   Mr. [redacted] appears to be under the presumption that when he authorizes a [redacted] transaction the funds are debited immediately. What Mr. [redacted] may not understand is that this type of transactions may take 2-3 business day for the debit to take place. At the time these debits occurred from [redacted], Mr. [redacted] had already withdrawn the account funds causing the NSF fees to be charged.   At the conclusion of our investigation, we have determined that the NSF fees assessed to Mr. [redacted]’ account were in fact valid.  The transactions in question were authorized and when presented for payment the account did not have sufficient funds. Based on this finding we have determined no monies will be refunded to Mr. [redacted].   If you have questions, regarding our findings please contact me at ###-###-####, extension [redacted].   Sincerely,     [redacted] Manager, Payroll Services

Check fields!

Write a review of Schools First Federal Credit Union

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Schools First Federal Credit Union Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 2115 N Broadway, Santa Ana, California, United States, 92706

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Schools First Federal Credit Union.



Add contact information for Schools First Federal Credit Union

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated