Selco Community Credit Union

Dear Ms [redacted] , Thank you for sharing your concern about your recent interaction with SELCO I apologize for the difficulty experienced when you attempted to close your account over the telephone One of our primary concerns is protecting our members' money, and our identification procedures are an important element of this process Unfortunately, it prevented us from providing you the level of service you deserved On January 18, 2017, a call center supervisor contacted you to address the situation, and your account with SELCO was closed A check was mailed to the address on file for the balance of the account, and you should be in receipt of it shortly If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 541-686- Thank you for your membership with SELCO in recent years We appreciate your business Best regards, Tiffany W [redacted] SVP of Finance and Member Solutions SELCO Community Credit Union

I represent SELCO SELCO Community Credit Union ("SELCO") and I write in response to Ms[redacted] 's recent complaint.This history surrounding this loan should prove helpfulThe history was taken from SELCO's coresystem which attaches dates when the input occurs and is thus what was said and known at the timeInother words, while memories fade, the system notes remain accurate and unchanged.On 9/30/16, a SELCO Collector contacted the primary borrower, Ms [redacted] 's ex-spouseMr[redacted] indicated vehicle had been in an accident and may be totaled but will be in to make thepaymentsMember made payment on 10/5/2016.It should be noted that members are expected to continue making payments on loans until the matter isfully resolvedOftentimes insurance companies do not pay the loan in full or timely so the burden tokeep the loan current remains on the member until the loan is fully resolved.On 10/26/a past due notice was mailed addressed to both parties at the address provided.On 11/8/another notice mailed and an attempt to call without success was madeThe voice mailwas not set up for the phone number on file.On 11/10/another phone call attempt was made.On 11/15/another call was attempted and the member was emailed.On 11/17/another call was attempted.On 11/21/another written notice was mailed along with another attempted call without success.On 11/23/another attempted call was made.On 11/25/another call was attempted and Mr [redacted] was emailed.Calls were again attempted on 11/28/and 11/30/The member was again emailed.On 12/2/another call was attempted at primary numberA message was left on Mr [redacted] 's cellphone and he was emailed.On 12/5/a repossession demand letter was mailed to the address in our system and Mr [redacted] wascalled at both numbers with a message left on his cell phone.On 12/7/SELCO called the landline, and cell phone leaving a message.On 12/9/another call to the landline and cell phone with message left.On 12/12/another call to landline and cell phone with message leftThe same for 12/14/and12/15/Also on 12/15/16, a call was attempted to Ms [redacted] 's work number as listed on the loandocumentsThe phone number was inaccurate.On 12/16/16, repossession orders were issuedThe vehicle was not located.On 1/25/the repossession order was closed and a skip claim was filed with SELCO's insurancecompanySkip claims are filed when the vehicle cannot be located timely.Contrary to Ms [redacted] 's assertion, SELCO was not on notice from Geico of a total lossIn fact,SELCO received notice on 2/14/from its insurance carrier that the vehicle was totaled in Septemberand there was coverage through Geico at that time of the accidentA SELCO employee reached out toGeico and spoke with [redacted] and [redacted] and they acknowledged they should have reached out toSELCO but it has taken them a long time to get to this point [redacted] and [redacted] were provided averbal payoff for the loan.On 2/28/17, Ms [redacted] filed a credit dispute indicating she is not responsible because the debtbelongs to her ex-spouse per a divorce judgmentThe credit reporting was and is accurate.Unfortunately, divorce judgments to not relieve one of the underlying contractual liability unless theobligation is refinanced to remove the former spouseMs [redacted] should be disappointed with herex-spouseIt is curious that while Ms [redacted] was aware of the negative credit reporting, to myknowledge, Ms [redacted] did not reach out to SELCO to discuss her concerns until April, 2017.On 3/10/17, a SELCO employee contacted Geico and talked to HannahHannah apologized thatnobody had followed up with SELCOHannah stated they needed a copy of the titleThe title wasemailed immediately.On 3/22/17, SELCO received a Geico check for less than the payoff amount.On 4/3/17, Ms [redacted] chats into the Service Center asking about GAP (a form of insurance meant tocover part of the difference between the insurance payoff and the loan balance)The Service Centeremployee provided Ms [redacted] with the Collector's contact information.On 4/6/17, the Collector called Ms [redacted] without leaving a voice mail and emailed Ms [redacted] .On 4/7/Ms [redacted] emailed the collector indicating she was contacting Nissan of Portland to get acopy of paperworkMs [redacted] indicated she remembers having GAP on the loan and that her exhusbandis less than helpful with locating documentsMs [redacted] indicates we should contact her exspouseas this is his truck and his liability per the divorce decreeThe Collector emailed Ms [redacted] indicating she was able to locate copies of the loan documents but was unable to find any GAP policypurchasedThe Collector then advised Ms [redacted] to reach out if Nissan says otherwiseThecollector also indicated that there was a remaining balance and that arrangements needed to be madeand that both parties remain responsibleThe Collector was under the impression there was no GAP asa copy of the policy was not present with the other loan documents.On 4/7/17, Ms [redacted] em ailed the Collector indicating she was still working with Nissan and her exspouseto locate the paperworkMs [redacted] asked the Collector if SELCO had a department thatoffers GAPThe Collector emailed Ms [redacted] that SELCO has an insurance company and that shecontacted the Company to see if they can helpLater in the day, the Collector emailed Ms [redacted] indicating that SELCO Insurance Company was able to locate the policy.Note that GAP is often sold through the dealer and not necessarily though the Credit Union so notseeing a policy would not necessarily raise a concern that we should reach out to our own InsuranceCompanyI will share, however that while the Collector was unable to find the GAP policy with theassociated loan documents as one would normally expect if we sold the policy, the Collector couldhave reached out to SELCO's Insurance Company in an effort to assist or otherwise confirm thepresence or absence of GAPI will address this customer service effort with the Collection team.However, I would note that between the date of raising the possibility of GAP and to discovery of thepolicy was just days.On 4/7/17, Ms [redacted] inquires whether or not GAP will cover late fees assessed to the accountTheCollector emailed Ms [redacted] indicating the loan was substantially past due, that GAP may not pay infull and that GAP does not pay for skip payments or feesThe Collector shared that GAP may havepaid sooner if SELCO was made aware earlier; however, SELCO had been trying to reach someonesince October, and it took filing skip claim to discover the vehicle was totaledThe discoverywas not realized until 2/14/17, well over three months after significant efforts to resolve this matter.The Collector also shared with Ms [redacted] that Geico indicates they were waiting on documents fromMs [redacted] and the primary borrower to finalize the claim.As you can see there is significant history associated with this fileUnfortunately, and as is often thecase in divorce matter, ex-spouses do not always communicate effectivelyWhat compounded thismatter was that Geico, whose employees have apologized for the delay, did not reach out to SELCO soSELCO had no idea about the status of this matter for some period of timeWhere it was left inSeptember was a question as to whether or not the vehicle was totaledOftentimes vehicles arerepairedIt was not until February, that SELCO became aware the vehicle was totaledItinconceivable that SELCO would go to the lengths to issue repossession orders and then to file a skipclaim if it knew Geico had totaled the vehicleI hardly see how SELCO was negligent hereSELCOmade numerous efforts to reach the borrowers.Where we stand now is a GAP claim has been filed and we are hopeful the claim will be approved.We should know within a few daysI am confident SELCO will reach out to Ms [redacted] once wehave notice of the outcomeI also understand that another small refund is due relating to CollateralProtection Insurance that was placed on the loan.I would also share that it appears SELCO had no valid phone numbers for Ms [redacted] In addition, itdoes not appear SELCO had a valid email for Ms [redacted] Having contact information very likelycould have changed the course of this matter.While my response may be less than satisfactory to Ms [redacted] I do apologize for her experienceIbelieve Ms [redacted] was placed in a difficult position, primarily because of the inactions of her formerspouseI believe there is plenty to learn from this experience, especially remaining in contact andaware of an obligation where parties have separated or divorced.In closing, I would encourage Ms [redacted] to remain in contact as we finalize this matterHopefully,we can get this matter to a favorable resolution soonWe will reach out to Ms [redacted] once we knowthe status of the GAP refund and discuss next steps.Respectfully,Steven L M [redacted] VP, Administration & General Counselcc: [redacted] (Internal Auditor) - Via email

Ms [redacted] previously filed a complaint with the CFPB, the substance of which mirrors the complaint with the Revdex.com I responded to that complaint in great detail on August 24, After a thorough investigation into this matter, including but not limited to, reviewing written materials and discussions with multiple different Departments within SELCO Community Credit Union (“SELCO”), Ms [redacted] ’s claims are baseless, inflammatory, and, frankly, nothing more than libelous statements meant to shock and alarm folks in an effort to intimidate SELCO employees into conceding to her demands Quite simply, Ms [redacted] ’s claims are beyond troubling Please consider the below, which is supported by objective and verifiable evidence: In 2011, Ms [redacted] was facing a foreclosure with Wells Fargo Bank Forest Park Credit Union (merged by SELCO in 2012, hereinafter collectively referred to as “SELCO”) agreed to refinance the Wells Fargo loanAs part of this refinance, SELCO agreed to interest-only payments for four years, followed by a balloon payment of the balance due January 31, SELCO’s refinance of Wells Fargo was instrumental in Ms [redacted] maintaining possession of her home When the balloon payment came due at the end of January, 2015, Ms [redacted] sought to refinance or modify her mortgage again as she was unable to make the balloon payment Since she did not qualify for a traditional mortgage refinance, SELCO offered to review her situation for a possible loan modification To facilitate the modification process, the modification specialist agreed that Ms [redacted] could continue making the interest only payments for an additional two months while SELCO worked with her on the modification Ms [redacted] alleges in her complaint that SELCO employees gave her a “paper-chase and run-around,” regarding the modification Ms [redacted] ’s statement is patently false The Loan Modification Specialist was clear in what documents were necessary to evaluate the request, including verified income documentation The Loan Modification Specialist mailed Ms [redacted] documents on February 4, with a request she return the completed materials on or before February 24, Ms [redacted] failed to return any documents until April 4, 2015, some two months after the request and well over one month after the documents were due And, what’s more, the documents delivered did not include certification of income as specifically requested On April 6, 2015, the Loan Modification Specialist informed Ms [redacted] via phone and email that her profit and loss statements needed to be certified by her accountant The Loan Modification Specialist followed up with Ms [redacted] regarding the missing income certification within two days of receiving the requested materials, which was very timely Unfortunately, Ms [redacted] delayed another days before delivering the required material Notwithstanding Ms [redacted] ’s delays in delivering the required materials, the Loan Modification Specialist processed the loan modification request pending the return of the certified income documents This process included the Loan Modification Specialist working closely with Ms [redacted] as well as carefully reviewing her financial circumstances Ms [redacted] ’s complaint infers SELCO refused to consider her current financial situation, which, again, is simply not true and contrary to the objective facts, including her delay in providing the modification materials, the certified income statements and that the fact that she signed the modification agreement agreeing to its terms In fact, as I understand it, Ms [redacted] actually expressed thanks and confirmed she had the ability to meet the modification agreement repayment terms Ms [redacted] ’s now troubling statement that she were forced to refuse the agreement is alarming at a minimum Ms [redacted] alleges the modification offered little to no payment relief Let me demonstrate the libel associated with this statement: To begin with, a balloon payment of well in excess of $200,was due on January 31, The modification merely increased the monthly minimum payment some $over the interest only payment she enjoyed during the previous four years More importantly, however, the modification allowed Ms [redacted] to avoid paying the very significant balloon payment and also included an advance of several thousands of dollars to pay her overdue property taxes, taxes that she was supposed to pay I believe that if you asked people if SELCO’s modification provided significant relief, I think all people would say yes, unless one of them was Ms [redacted] Amazingly, Ms [redacted] failed to make the first payment due under the modification agreement which was due in May, Instead, she filed Chapter bankruptcy While Ms [redacted] ’s bankruptcy case was pending, she only made sporadic, small partial payments, and her loan became increasingly past due; no collection efforts were pursued at this time because of the automatic stay associated with the bankruptcy Ms [redacted] indicated within her bankruptcy petition that she was going to reaffirm the newly modified, and now past due mortgage On two separate occasions, SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist offered to bring the loan current if Ms [redacted] would reaffirm the loan Both offers, however, were ignored Then, on September 9, Ms [redacted] ’s Chapter bankruptcy was discharged, leaving her mortgage debt discharged but still past due For some number of months following Ms [redacted] ’s bankruptcy discharge, she worked closely with SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist in an attempt to bring the loan current, but Ms [redacted] was unable or unwilling to make even her regular payments under the modification Despite SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist repeatedly trying to make arrangements with Ms [redacted] to get on a path towards being current, Ms [redacted] repeatedly failed to follow through and make the payments she promised to make A post discharge letter was sent to Ms [redacted] at the end of February, Ms [redacted] then called SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist requesting more time to bring in funds SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist gave Ms [redacted] a final extension, April 1, However, Ms [redacted] made no payments whatsoever, and she did not attempt to contact anyone at SELCO thereafterOn April 18, 2016, SELCO referred the account to a law firm to begin foreclosure proceedings Contrary to Ms [redacted] ’s libelous assertions, SELCO has tried very hard to work with her over the past several years as demonstrated herein and as supported by objective evidence Despite SELCO’s herculean efforts to assist Ms [redacted] over the past several years, there becomes a time when a unilateral effort is no longer sufficient to maintain the status quo That time is now Frankly, even if SELCO was in a positon to consider another modification, I do not believe it should as doing so would be to re-obligate Ms [redacted] to a discharged debt which would be in violation of the discharge order Ms [redacted] obtained in her Chapter bankruptcy I believe there is simply nothing more SELCO can do for Ms [redacted] I trust SELCO’s response resolves this matter in full

Dear *** ***:I represent SELCO Community Credit Union ("SELCO") and I write in response to Mr***'srecent complaint.Mr*** inaccurately describes events and I believe his grievances are generally without merit.SELCO responds as follows:Mr*** indicates SELCO " [a]thitratily (sic) applied
(sic) expensive insurance policy tomy loan (sic) then proceeded to amortize it over one year, making my payment double."On or about January 26, 2016, Mr*** signed a retail installment agreement in connectionwith the purchase of a pickup truckBy signing the agreement, Mr*** agreed to complywith Section of the contract which requires that he insure the collateral with collisionand comprehensive insurance and that the insurance be suitable to usFurther, by signingthe agreement, Mr*** also agreed to comply with Section of the contract which saysthat if Mr*** fails to comply with Section (insurance requirements), SELCO canpurchase insurance and Mr*** will pay the costs: in full upon demand, over time withinterest or as additional payments at the end of the agreementJust below Section of thecontract, a large font, bold warning further describes insurance requirements and theconsequences for failing to do soIt's important to note that the remedies are at SELCO'soption, not that of Mr***Further, Mr*** also signed two agreements to provideinsurance which sets forth the requirements pertaining to acceptable insuranceBecauseSELCO did not receive proof of adequate insurance, its third party vendor began sending aseries of letters to Mr*** at the address he providedDespite multiple notices mailed toMr***, he failed to obtain adequate insurance as required by the contractAccordingly,and far from arbitrary, insurance was placed on his loan.Mr*** indicates the policy is very expensiveMr*** is correct in this regard.However, it is important to note that the insurance industry is regulated by the state and thepremium amounts are approved by the state of OregonFurther, and more importantly, Mr.*** was advised the policy is to protect the collateral only and that the premium isgenerally higher than what he could purchase on his own.Mr*** also opines the loan is for five years "and the policy was for five years"Thisstatement is inaccurateAs the notices to Mr*** specifically provide, the policy is for aperiod of monthsFurther, the notices to Mr*** also advise Mr*** the premiumwill be amortized over months, which was doneThe payment was increased from$to $(Premium of $3,amortized over months at the contract rate of4.99% = $+ $(Original Payment)).Mr*** indicates he had insurance on the vehicle but not the "inadequate coverage theyrequire"Even if Mr*** is correct in his representation as to the coverage/quality ofinsurance, it's important to note that Mr*** agreed, pursuant to contract, to obtaininsurance satisfactory to SELCO and SELCO defined the elements of satisfactoryinsuranceFurther, Mr*** did not have the unilateral right to amend the terms of thecontract that he previously agreed to and SELCO did not agree to any such amendment.Thus, any argument about the coverage/quality is wholly without merit.Finally, Mr*** attempts to impugn the integrity of SELCO employees addressing thismatterHaving personally spoke with Mr*** and understanding his position, inter alia,that notwithstanding his failure to comply with the terms of the agreement, he desires anoutcome that largely avoids being held accountable in the same way as other similarlysituated membersAccordingly, I am not surprised Mr*** believes SELCO employeesshould be apologetic for his failures and that he would believe enforcing the terms of thecontract amounts to extortion.I trust SELCO's response resolves this matter

Dear Ms. [redacted],
Thank you for sharing your concern about your recent interaction with SELCO.  I apologize for the difficulty experienced when you attempted to close your account over the telephone.  One of our primary concerns is protecting our members' money, and our...

identification procedures are an important element of this process.  Unfortunately, it prevented us from providing you the level of service you deserved.
On January 18, 2017, a call center supervisor contacted you to address the situation, and your account with SELCO was closed.  A check was mailed to the address on file for the balance of the account, and you should be in receipt of it shortly.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 541-686-5340. 
Thank you for your membership with SELCO in recent years.  We appreciate your business.
Best regards,
Tiffany W[redacted]
SVP of Finance and Member Solutions
SELCO Community Credit Union

Ms. [redacted] previously filed a complaint with the CFPB, the substance of which mirrors the complaint with the Revdex.com.  I responded to that complaint in great detail on August 24, 2016.
 
After a thorough investigation into this matter, including but not limited to, reviewing written...

materials and discussions with multiple different Departments within SELCO Community Credit Union (“SELCO”), Ms. [redacted]’s claims are baseless, inflammatory, and, frankly, nothing more than libelous statements meant to shock and alarm folks in an effort to intimidate SELCO employees into conceding to her demands.  Quite simply, Ms. [redacted]’s claims are beyond troubling.
 
Please consider the below, which is supported by objective and verifiable evidence:
 
In 2011, Ms. [redacted] was facing a foreclosure with Wells Fargo Bank.  Forest Park Credit Union (merged by SELCO in 2012, hereinafter collectively referred to as “SELCO”) agreed to refinance the Wells Fargo loan. As part of this refinance, SELCO agreed to interest-only payments for four years, followed by a balloon payment of the balance due January 31, 2015.  SELCO’s refinance of Wells Fargo was instrumental in Ms. [redacted] maintaining possession of her home.
 
When the balloon payment came due at the end of January, 2015, Ms. [redacted] sought to refinance or modify her mortgage again as she was unable to make the balloon payment.  Since she did not qualify for a traditional mortgage refinance, SELCO offered to review her situation for a possible loan modification.
 
To facilitate the modification process, the modification specialist agreed that Ms. [redacted] could continue making the interest only payments for an additional two months while SELCO worked with her on the modification.
 
Ms. [redacted] alleges in her complaint that SELCO employees gave her a “paper-chase and run-around,” regarding the modification Ms. [redacted]’s statement is patently false.  The Loan Modification Specialist was clear in what documents were necessary to evaluate the request, including verified income documentation.  The Loan Modification Specialist mailed Ms. [redacted] documents on February 4, 2015 with a request she return the completed materials on or before February 24, 2015.  Ms. [redacted] failed to return any documents until April 4, 2015, some two months after the request and well over one month after the documents were due.  And, what’s more, the documents delivered did not include certification of income as specifically requested.   On April 6, 2015, the Loan Modification Specialist informed Ms. [redacted] via phone and email that her profit and loss statements needed to be certified by her accountant.   The Loan Modification Specialist followed up with Ms. [redacted] regarding the missing income certification within two days of receiving the requested materials, which was very timely.  Unfortunately, Ms. [redacted] delayed another 30 days before delivering the required material.
 
Notwithstanding Ms. [redacted]’s delays in delivering the required materials, the Loan Modification Specialist processed the loan modification request pending the return of the certified income documents.  This process included the Loan Modification Specialist working closely with Ms. [redacted] as well as carefully reviewing her financial circumstances.  Ms. [redacted]’s complaint infers SELCO refused to consider her current financial situation, which, again, is simply not true and contrary to the objective facts, including her delay in providing the modification materials, the certified income statements and that the fact that she signed the modification agreement agreeing to its terms.   In fact, as I understand it, Ms. [redacted] actually expressed thanks and confirmed she had the ability to meet the modification agreement repayment terms.  Ms. [redacted]’s now troubling statement that she were forced to refuse the agreement is alarming at a minimum.
 
Ms. [redacted] alleges the modification offered little to no payment relief.  Let me demonstrate the libel associated with this statement:  To begin with, a balloon payment of well in excess of $200,000 was due on January 31, 2015.  The modification merely increased the monthly minimum payment some $121 over the interest only payment she enjoyed during the previous four years.   More importantly, however, the modification allowed Ms. [redacted] to avoid paying the very significant balloon payment and also included an advance of several thousands of dollars to pay her overdue property taxes, taxes that she was supposed to pay.  I believe that if you asked 100 people if SELCO’s modification provided significant relief, I think all 100 people would say yes, unless one of them was Ms. [redacted].
 
Amazingly, Ms. [redacted] failed to make the first payment due under the modification agreement which was due in May, 2015.  Instead, she filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
 
While Ms. [redacted]’s bankruptcy case was pending, she only made sporadic, small partial payments, and her loan became increasingly past due; no collection efforts were pursued at this time because of the automatic stay associated with the bankruptcy.  Ms. [redacted] indicated within her bankruptcy petition that she was going to reaffirm the newly modified, and now past due mortgage.  On two separate occasions, SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist offered to bring the loan current if Ms. [redacted] would reaffirm the loan.  Both offers, however, were ignored.  Then, on September 9, 2015 Ms. [redacted]’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy was discharged, leaving her mortgage debt discharged but still past due.
 
For some number of months following Ms. [redacted]’s bankruptcy discharge, she worked closely with SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist in an attempt to bring the loan current, but Ms. [redacted] was unable or unwilling to make even her regular payments under the modification.  Despite SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist repeatedly trying to make arrangements with Ms. [redacted] to get on a path towards being current, Ms. [redacted] repeatedly failed to follow through and make the payments she promised to make.
 
A post discharge letter was sent to Ms. [redacted] at the end of February, 2016.  Ms. [redacted] then called SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist requesting more time to bring in funds.  SELCO’s Bankruptcy Specialist gave Ms. [redacted] a final extension, April 1, 2016.  However, Ms. [redacted] made no payments whatsoever, and she did not attempt to contact anyone at SELCO thereafter. On April 18, 2016, SELCO referred the account to a law firm to begin foreclosure proceedings.
 
Contrary to Ms. [redacted]’s libelous assertions, SELCO has tried very hard to work with her over the past several years as demonstrated herein and as supported by objective evidence.
 
Despite SELCO’s herculean efforts to assist Ms. [redacted] over the past several years, there becomes a time when a unilateral effort is no longer sufficient to maintain the status quo.  That time is now.   Frankly, even if SELCO was in a positon to consider another modification, I do not believe it should as doing so would be to re-obligate Ms. [redacted] to a discharged debt which would be in violation of the discharge order Ms. [redacted] obtained in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  I believe there is simply nothing more SELCO can do for Ms. [redacted].
 
I trust SELCO’s response resolves this matter in full.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Sincerely,[redacted]
I have the title and confirmation of closed accounts. I wish nothing more to do with this sham of a business.

I represent SELCO SELCO Community Credit Union ("SELCO") and I write in response to Ms.[redacted]'s recent complaint.This history surrounding this loan should prove helpful. The history was taken from SELCO's coresystem which attaches dates when the input occurs and is thus what was said...

and known at the time. Inother words, while memories fade, the system notes remain accurate and unchanged.On 9/30/16, a SELCO Collector contacted the primary borrower, Ms. [redacted]'s ex-spouse. Mr.[redacted] indicated vehicle had been in an accident and may be totaled but will be in to make thepayments. Member made payment on 10/5/2016.It should be noted that members are expected to continue making payments on loans until the matter isfully resolved. Oftentimes insurance companies do not pay the loan in full or timely so the burden tokeep the loan current remains on the member until the loan is fully resolved.On 10/26/16 a past due notice was mailed addressed to both parties at the address provided.On 11/8/2016 another notice mailed and an attempt to call without success was made. The voice mailwas not set up for the phone number on file.On 11/10/16 another phone call attempt was made.On 11/15/16 another call was attempted and the member was emailed.On 11/17/16 another call was attempted.On 11/21/16 another written notice was mailed along with another attempted call without success.On 11/23/16 another attempted call was made.On 11/25/16 another call was attempted and Mr. [redacted] was emailed.Calls were again attempted on 11/28/16 and 11/30/16. The member was again emailed.On 12/2/16 another call was attempted at primary number. A message was left on Mr. [redacted]'s cellphone and he was emailed.On 12/5/16 a repossession demand letter was mailed to the address in our system and Mr. [redacted] wascalled at both numbers with a message left on his cell phone.On 12/7/16 SELCO called the landline, and cell phone leaving a message.On 12/9/16 another call to the landline and cell phone with message left.On 12/12/16 another call to landline and cell phone with message left. The same for 12/14/16 and12/15/16. Also on 12/15/16, a call was attempted to Ms. [redacted]'s work number as listed on the loandocuments. The phone number was inaccurate.On 12/16/16, repossession orders were issued. The vehicle was not located.On 1/25/17 the repossession order was closed and a skip claim was filed with SELCO's insurancecompany. Skip claims are filed when the vehicle cannot be located timely.Contrary to Ms. [redacted]'s assertion, SELCO was not on notice from Geico of a total loss. In fact,SELCO received notice on 2/14/17 from its insurance carrier that the vehicle was totaled in Septemberand there was coverage through Geico at that time of the accident. A SELCO employee reached out toGeico and spoke with [redacted] and [redacted] and they acknowledged they should have reached out toSELCO but it has taken them a long time to get to this point. [redacted] and [redacted] were provided averbal payoff for the loan.On 2/28/17, Ms. [redacted] filed a credit dispute indicating she is not responsible because the debtbelongs to her ex-spouse per a divorce judgment. The credit reporting was and is accurate.Unfortunately, divorce judgments to not relieve one of the underlying contractual liability unless theobligation is refinanced to remove the former spouse. Ms. [redacted] should be disappointed with herex-spouse. It is curious that while Ms. [redacted] was aware of the negative credit reporting, to myknowledge, Ms. [redacted] did not reach out to SELCO to discuss her concerns until April, 2017.On 3/10/17, a SELCO employee contacted Geico and talked to Hannah. Hannah apologized thatnobody had followed up with SELCO. Hannah stated they needed a copy of the title. The title wasemailed immediately.On 3/22/17, SELCO received a Geico check for less than the payoff amount.On 4/3/17, Ms. [redacted] chats into the Service Center asking about GAP (a form of insurance meant tocover part of the difference between the insurance payoff and the loan balance). The Service Centeremployee provided Ms. [redacted] with the Collector's contact information.On 4/6/17, the Collector called Ms. [redacted] without leaving a voice mail and emailed Ms. [redacted].On 4/7/17 Ms. [redacted] emailed the collector indicating she was contacting Nissan of Portland to get acopy of paperwork. Ms. [redacted] indicated she remembers having GAP on the loan and that her exhusbandis less than helpful with locating documents. Ms. [redacted] indicates we should contact her exspouseas this is his truck and his liability per the divorce decree. The Collector emailed Ms. [redacted]indicating she was able to locate copies of the loan documents but was unable to find any GAP policypurchased. The Collector then advised Ms. [redacted] to reach out if Nissan says otherwise. Thecollector also indicated that there was a remaining balance and that arrangements needed to be madeand that both parties remain responsible. The Collector was under the impression there was no GAP asa copy of the policy was not present with the other loan documents.On 4/7/17, Ms. [redacted] em ailed the Collector indicating she was still working with Nissan and her exspouseto locate the paperwork. Ms. [redacted] asked the Collector if SELCO had a department thatoffers GAP. The Collector emailed Ms. [redacted] that SELCO has an insurance company and that shecontacted the Company to see if they can help. Later in the day, the Collector emailed Ms. [redacted]indicating that SELCO Insurance Company was able to locate the policy.Note that GAP is often sold through the dealer and not necessarily though the Credit Union so notseeing a policy would not necessarily raise a concern that we should reach out to our own InsuranceCompany. I will share, however that while the Collector was unable to find the GAP policy with theassociated loan documents as one would normally expect if we sold the policy, the Collector couldhave reached out to SELCO's Insurance Company in an effort to assist or otherwise confirm thepresence or absence of GAP. I will address this customer service effort with the Collection team.However, I would note that between the date of raising the possibility of GAP and to discovery of thepolicy was just 4 days.On 4/7/17, Ms. [redacted] inquires whether or not GAP will cover late fees assessed to the account. TheCollector emailed Ms. [redacted] indicating the loan was substantially past due, that GAP may not pay infull and that GAP does not pay for skip payments or fees. The Collector shared that GAP may havepaid sooner if SELCO was made aware earlier; however, SELCO had been trying to reach someonesince October, 2016 and it took filing skip claim to discover the vehicle was totaled. The discoverywas not realized until 2/14/17, well over three months after significant efforts to resolve this matter.The Collector also shared with Ms. [redacted] that Geico indicates they were waiting on documents fromMs. [redacted] and the primary borrower to finalize the claim.As you can see there is significant history associated with this file. Unfortunately, and as is often thecase in divorce matter, ex-spouses do not always communicate effectively. What compounded thismatter was that Geico, whose employees have apologized for the delay, did not reach out to SELCO soSELCO had no idea about the status of this matter for some period of time. Where it was left inSeptember was a question as to whether or not the vehicle was totaled. Oftentimes vehicles arerepaired. It was not until February, 2017 that SELCO became aware the vehicle was totaled. Itinconceivable that SELCO would go to the lengths to issue repossession orders and then to file a skipclaim if it knew Geico had totaled the vehicle. I hardly see how SELCO was negligent here. SELCOmade numerous efforts to reach the borrowers.Where we stand now is a GAP claim has been filed and we are hopeful the claim will be approved.We should know within a few days. I am confident SELCO will reach out to Ms. [redacted] once wehave notice of the outcome. I also understand that another small refund is due relating to CollateralProtection Insurance that was placed on the loan.I would also share that it appears SELCO had no valid phone numbers for Ms. [redacted]. In addition, itdoes not appear SELCO had a valid email for Ms. [redacted]. Having contact information very likelycould have changed the course of this matter.While my response may be less than satisfactory to Ms. [redacted] I do apologize for her experience. Ibelieve Ms. [redacted] was placed in a difficult position, primarily because of the inactions of her formerspouse. I believe there is plenty to learn from this experience, especially remaining in contact andaware of an obligation where parties have separated or divorced.In closing, I would encourage Ms. [redacted] to remain in contact as we finalize this matter. Hopefully,we can get this matter to a favorable resolution soon. We will reach out to Ms. [redacted] once we knowthe status of the GAP refund and discuss next steps.Respectfully,Steven L M[redacted]VP, Administration & General Counselcc: [redacted] (Internal Auditor) - Via email