Washington Federal

July 15, Via Online Portal P.OBox DuPont, WA RE: [redacted] , Complaint # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com: This is in response to the above mentioned complaint (“Compliant”) received by Washington Federal “the Bank”), from the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) on July 8, In the Complaint, [redacted] (“Ms [redacted] ”) alleges that for the past two years she has been receiving bills on a safe deposit box that was closedWe appreciate the opportunity to respond The branch where the safe deposit box (the “Box”) was located indicated that they never received the signed off contract from Ms [redacted] and had tried to reach out to Ms [redacted] but the telephone number on file was a non-working numberThe Bank’s leadership closed the Box on July 8, and waived any fees that were showed as being dueThe Bank did not report Ms [redacted] ’s Box to the credit bureausThe Bank regrets any inconvenience that Ms [redacted] may have experienced We appreciate the opportunity to respond and respectfully request that the matter be closed Sincerely, Monsy M [redacted] Vice President & Compliance Manager

RE: [redacted] ,Complaint # [redacted] This is in response to the above mentioned complaint letter (the "Complaint") received by Washington Federal (the "Bank") from the Revdex.com (the "Revdex.com") on June 29, In the Complaint [redacted] (" MS [redacted] ") alleges that she was charged an NSF fee when she had sufficient funds in her accountShe also alleges that a Bank representative indicated she would not be charged a fee and that she was neverthelessWe appreciate the opportunity to respondThe Bank has researched Ms [redacted] 's account and found that on May 22, 2015, Ms [redacted] had an $payment to [redacted] reject due to insufficient funds in the account and received a $NSF feeHer available balance at the time the payment rejected was $That same day her payment was presented, on May 22, 2015, Ms [redacted] made a deposit in the branchHowever, the $payment to [redacted] had already been presented and returned before the deposit was madeNo holds were placed on the depositOn June 19,2015, Ms [redacted] made three ATM deposits, and all but $was placed on hold through June 24, A payment to [redacted] for $was presented and paid on June 23, At the time of the payment to ***, Ms [redacted] 's available balance was $The $NSF fee was waived by the Bank as the funds were on hold at the time the [redacted] payment was presentedWe appreciate the opportunity to respond and respectively request that the matter be closed

I have been with Washington federal for two weeks now and this is the worst banking experience I have ever hadI had over dollars available on online banking and my card declined for dollars, I called to ask why and the operator said "Well your card declined because you have no money." I was flabbergasted I asked for a supervisor and I was put on hold for minutesWhen the call was finally answered it was the same person saying that a supervisor was not available and she could have one call me as soon as their available, I asked her how long it would be and she said that it might not be until pm (it was 5)I said that it was unacceptable and I wanted to have my card fixed at once, She told me that the visa reps weren't in until Monday, and I would have to call backI hung up and called back and asked for a supervisor right away and got oneHe told me that I had pending transactions that did not show in online bankingAs a company that's business is in other peoples money don't you think that they should be accurate in what you have in your account? I wrote down the charge amounts and determined that the charge that declined at the Point of sale went through TIMES!!! and there was nothing that they could do until Monday This is also the first bank I hadn't been issued a temporary debit card until the one with my name on it arrived I will never bank here againeven if you pay me

July 29, Via Online Portal P.OBox DuPont, WA RE: Complaint # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com: This is in response to the above mentioned complaint (“Compliant”) received by Washington Federal (“the Bank”), from the RevDex.com (“Revdex.com”) on July 20, In the Complaint, the consumer alleges that she went to ACU Credit Union and found out that the Bank incorrectly reported four late loan payments to the credit bureauShe further alleges that she called the Bank but did not receive a responseWe appreciate the opportunity to respond The Bank researched and has verified that there were four late loan payments in the last months; three in and one in The information regarding the late loan payments that the consumer alleges was incorrect, was in fact, correct The Bank complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act which states that information reported to the credit bureaus must be reported accurately The Bank does respond to written inquiries regarding information incorrectly reported to the credit bureausThe customer should include their name, address, the exact nature of the disputed information, and include any documentation, if applicable, with the inquiryThe Bank will investigate and respond within the timeframes prescribed by regulation We appreciate the opportunity to respond and respectfully request that the matter be closed Sincerely, Brent R [redacted] Consumer Compliance Officer

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I have had same account that required no monthly fee in the last upgrade you had 2-years ago you tried to change me over to a account with a monthly fee and before that I had a account with [redacted] as they transitioned over to Washington Federal My complaint is that you force upon clients a monthly fee instead of putting them in a account that you charge them a monthly fee (Green account) instead of putting them in the free (Basic account) with a opportunity to upgrade to other type of accounts You can look at my account I have NEVER with you or [redacted] wrote a check only so being limited to checks a month was no problem for me Sincerely, [redacted]

June 3, Via Online Portal P.OBox DuPont, WARE: [redacted] ***, Complaint # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com: This is in response to the above mentioned complaint (“Compliant”) received by Washington Federal (“the Bank”), from the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) on May 26, In the Complaint, the customer alleges that mechanics liens were placed against his property and that he is in default under Section of the Deed of TrustThe customer alleges that he not in default and that the Bank charged attorney’s fees to himWe appreciate the opportunity to respondThe loan documents expressly require that the customer keep the property free from all mechanics liens as stated in the Loan Agreement, Section 2, the Construction Loan Agreement & Assignment of Account, Section, 10.B, and the Deed of Trust, Section A title report dated February 24, 2016, issued by the title company to the Bank showed at least two mechanic's liens recorded against the customer’s propertyAdditionally, the Bank’s loan documents expressly permit the Bank to obtain legal counsel to enforce the documents and charge reasonable fees to the customer as stated in the Loan Agreement Section 5, the Construction Loan Agreement Section C, and in the Deed of Trust Section The Bank appreciates the opportunity to respond and respectfully requests that the matter be closedSincerely, Monsy M [redacted] Compliance Officer & Interim Compliance Manager