Sign in

Suffolk Federal Credit Union

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

Suffolk Federal Credit Union Reviews (2)

Review: I took out a loan with Suffolk Federal for a car loan in an amount of $19,000. Before the underwriter of the loan would release the funds, they requested a lien release from the alleged seller and Honda Motor Company. The alleged seller, when directly contacted by Suffolk Federal, faxed over a lien release to their loan representative or underwriter. We have later come to find out the lien release was fraudulent and the car was repossessed. At no time did Suffolk Federal do their due diligence by contacting Honda Motor directly or the NY DMV to confirm the information faxed to them. I was not a part of this process. Due to Suffolk Federal's negligence, the car was repossessed by Honda and Suffolk Federal has not offered any assistance to clear up this matter. They refuse to speak with Honda, and refuse to put me in contact with the Director of Collections so I may see about deferring the loan due to the fraudulent lien release that they directly asked for from a convicted felon and that they negligently accepted. They only refer me to their attorney and refuse to even give me a courtesy of a loan deferment so my credit will not be affected by their negligence.Desired Settlement: I will like this loan of $19,000 discharged in its entirety because they failed me as a lender. They requested specific documents from this purported seller and, despite having first hand knowledge that a convicted felon was still fraudulently seeking victims, now want me to be responsible paying back a loan due to their mistake.

Business

Response:

Suffolk Federal Credit Union has reviewed the complaint submitted by [redacted] to the Revdex.com, and provides the following response: In summary, it appears that both [redacted] (as purchaser) and Suffolk Federal Credit Union (as lender) were defrauded by the individual who sold a vehicle to [redacted] in November of 2015. As such, SFCU understands [redacted]’s dismay upon Honda’s repossession of the vehicle. However, SFCU has done no wrong, and at all times dealt with [redacted] fairly, honestly, and responsibly. In October of 2015, [redacted] applied to SFCU for a loan to finance his purchase of a 2015 Honda. He indicated to SFCU that he was buying the vehicle from someone named “[redacted]”, whom we have since come to learn was actually [redacted]. It is important to note that SFCU itself had no affiliation with [redacted], and that [redacted] became involved with [redacted] on his own prior to approaching SFCU to ask for a loan. In considering [redacted]’s loan application, SFCU required [redacted] to provide various documents, including a copy of the title to the vehicle that he was planning to purchase. [redacted] provided a copy of the title bearing the owner’s name [redacted], which document reflected “no liens recorded” on the vehicle. SFCU did not rely solely on this document, however. In an abundance of caution and in an effort to verify that title to the vehicle was indeed free and clear from liens as stated, SFCU independently searched the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). In doing so, SFCU itself discovered that there were two liens in Honda’s name listed in connection with the vehicle that [redacted] intended to purchase. SFCU then notified [redacted] of this fact and indicated that [redacted] needed to obtain lien releases to show that the liens had been paid in order for SFCU to approve the loan. Based upon SFCU’s experience in vehicle loan underwriting, it understands that a prior loan obligation might be legitimately paid off and satisfied while the associated lien could still be reflected in the DMV’s records. This occurs if a lien release was not filed with the DMV by the owner. Such scenario is not uncommon. When SFCU’s branch representative made this notification to [redacted], [redacted] said that he would talk to the seller. Subsequently, [redacted] told SFCU’s branch representative that he spoke with the seller and that the seller had assured him that the liens had been cleared and that he would forward lien releases. After a certain amount of time passed without SFCU receiving any lien release from either [redacted] or the seller, and because [redacted] had been calling SFCU to find out the status of his loan application and was expressing concern that he would lose the opportunity to buy the vehicle, SFCU’s branch representative obtained the seller’s contact information from [redacted] and called the seller directly and asked if lien releases were forthcoming. The seller told SFCU’s branch representative that the liens were indeed paid and that he would forward the lien releases directly to SFCU. Thereafter, SFCU received two separate documents by facsimile transmission purporting to be lien releases from Honda that matched the lien information on file with the DMV. These documents bore fax headers at the top of each page purporting to indicate that they had been transmitted directly from Honda. They each designated the vehicle that [redacted] intended to purchase; they each bore a signature purporting to be that of a Honda representative; and they each claimed that the accounts had been paid in full. Only after seeing such releases did SFCU approve the loan and disburse $19,000.00 to [redacted] to finance his vehicle purchase. SFCU had no reason to believe at that time that these documents were fraudulent, or that the seller was anyone other than he had represented himself to be, i.e. a person named [redacted]. Likewise, SFCU had no knowledge or reason to believe that the seller with whom [redacted] was dealing was a convicted felon. SFCU, throughout its dealings with [redacted], sought to ensure that his loan application was processed efficiently. In reaching out to the seller, SFCU’s branch representative was attempting to facilitate the process that [redacted] had begun of gathering all documents that were needed in order for his loan application to be approved. Far from committing negligence, SFCU itself pinpointed the existence of the liens in DMV’s records and notified [redacted] of these notations, and only approved the loan after receiving the very documentation that is routinely relied upon within the lending industry as evidence of satisfaction of a prior lien. At some point after [redacted] purchased the vehicle, [redacted] contacted SFCU and informed SFCU that Honda had repossessed the vehicle from him due to nonpayment. This was the first indication to SFCU that the documents purporting to be lien releases were fraudulent. In [redacted]’s complaint, he claims that “due to Suffolk Federal’s negligence, the car was repossessed by Honda…” This is inaccurate. The vehicle was repossessed by Honda due to nonpayment of liens, which nonpayment was concealed by [redacted]’s fraud. [redacted] also asserts in his complaint that SFCU “refuse[s] to speak with Honda.” [redacted] makes this assertion because he has misconstrued SFCU’s position and overestimated its ability to “clear up this matter” for him. Specifically, after informing SFCU of Honda’s repossession of the vehicle, [redacted] asked SFCU to intervene in Honda’s sale of the vehicle. However, SFCU’s representative informed [redacted] that, under these circumstances, it was not in a position to do so because Honda is a lienholder with priority. Apparently, [redacted] misconstrued SFCU’s statement about its inability to prevent Honda from selling the vehicle as unwillingness to help him. [redacted] further asserts in his complaint that SFCU “refuse[s] to put [him] in contact with the Director of Collections so [he] may see about deferring the loan…” By way of explanation, after SFCU was notified of the seller’s fraud, and once [redacted] and his wife (an attorney) asked SFCU to discharge his loan obligation and intervene in Honda’s sale, SFCU referred the matter to its attorneys. When [redacted] asked to be put in contact with the Director of Collections in order to ask that SFCU take certain action, SFCU told [redacted] that its attorneys has been consulted and were looking into the matter. Rather than ignoring [redacted], SFCU provided [redacted] with its attorneys’ contact information. Since then, [redacted] has been in contact with them. With respect to [redacted]’s “desired settlement” as stated in his complaint, SFCU believes that his loan obligation to SFCU is not dischargeable. Again, SFCU did not engage in any wrongdoing. The wrongdoing was perpetrated solely by [redacted], and [redacted]’s remedy is as against Cohen, not against SFCU. Indeed, SFCU itself is a victim of fraud by Cohen as it disbursed to [redacted] $19,000.00 based upon Cohen’s fraudulent representation that the liens on the vehicle were satisfied, and SFCU has now lost its ability to proceed against the collateral securing [redacted]’s loan as a result of such fraud. Purely as a courtesy to [redacted], SFCU has agreed to offer him a three month deferment of the loan under terms and conditions that are in the process of being communicated to him. This gesture should not be construed as anything more than an act of courtesy made in SFCU’s discretion to its member based upon his circumstances.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

Due to SFCU’s negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, [redacted] will only accept a full discharge of the loan. The vehicle loan was more than an arms-length transaction. SFCU, and its authorized agents held a fiduciary duty to [redacted] in which they breached. They failed to protect their security interest in the loan and the vehicle, and, subsequently, [redacted] has been harmed. Until this loan is fully discharged, [redacted] is fully prepared to pursue all avenues available to avoid further harm from SFCU and to prevent SFCU from harming other hard working members. Pursuant to the loan and security agreements, [redacted] hereby relinquishes any claims of possession to the vehicle by delivering both sets of keys to SFCU. As previously mentioned, the vehicle is located at: All About Automotive II [redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]Along with a full discharge of the loan, we also respectfully request SFCU mitigate any alleged damages by seeking claim to the vehicle pursuant to its security interest.

Review: On May **, 2014, I paid Suffolk Credit Federal Credit Union $25 to stop payment on two checks. On May **, 2014, one of the stop payment checks was paid by Suffolk Federal Credit Union (without my permission)and the Credit Union charge me $30 for insufficient funds. The other stop payment check was returned unpaid (due to insufficient funds), and the Credit Union charged me another $30. I went to the branch in [redacted] to inquire what was the purpose of paying $25 for a stop payment request when they did not stop payment on either check and why they did they charge me $30 twice for checks that were marked stop payment, the [redacted], [redacted], refused to refund the $30 charges. She said she would only refund one $30 charge and that I should change my account number. I was also told that she made notations in my account. When I called the Call Center for H-E-L-P, they said there was a notation in my account written by [redacted] regarding her decision about only refunding one $30. The Call Center staff and managers said they could not reverse her decision. Some of the Call Center mangers refused to talk to me on the phone. So, I paid $25 for a stop payment request, $200 for a check marked stop payment and $60 for insufficient fees. A total of $285. I got refunded for $30. although the Credit Union paid a check marked stop payment, I only asked them to refund both $30. It was a most unpleasant experience and as a long loyal customer, I do not appreciate having notes placed in my account or being treated distastefully.Desired Settlement: I want my $30, an apology, and notes removed from my account.

Business

Response:

We are going to refund the $30. We apologize that this incident happened. Unfortunately, the stop payment came in under a different name and account number from the one provided to us by [redacted] and there was no way to effectively stop the payment. The suggestion made to her by the credit union’s staff to change her account number would be the only way to stop this from happening, aside from her giving us the exact information.

Check fields!

Write a review of Suffolk Federal Credit Union

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

Suffolk Federal Credit Union Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: CREDIT UNIONS

Address: 3681 Horseblock Rd.PO Box 9005, Medford, New York, United States, 11763

Phone:

Show more...

Add contact information for Suffolk 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