In that case, I agree with you that this is nonsense. Sorry for any assumptions.
Starting Score: ~500 (12/01/2008)
FWIW, I called PSECU directly about a month and a half ago and point blank asked if I would be eligible to join whether it be through an affiliate program or otherwise. The rep politely informed me that no - that regardless of employment and affiliation, I have to be a PA resident. Otherwise, I was not eligible. Pretty much the answer that I expected. Anyway - it was a good try, Duncanrr! It was worth a shot!
@Walt_K wrote:In that case, I agree with you that this is nonsense. Sorry for any assumptions.
No problem. We are all here for each other. The days of me doing something financially (even $75) without doing my research are behind me 
@Duncanrr wrote:
@Walt_K wrote:
@Duncanrr wrote:
@LS2982 wrote:
IMO, its worthless to fight it. Your going to have a relationship with a bank that pretty much knows you started a whole bunch of problems to get in. They want PA residents, and that's that unfortunately.I know. Its the principle of the thing now.
What principle? This whole thing started out of a discussion as to whether someone had found a loophole to get in. It's hard to say that it's clear cut that you should be able to get in this way when everyone was skeptical from the beginning. Did anyone call PSECU and ask whether they'd be able to get in before spending the $75 for the application fee? It would be one thing if a rep said yes, and you went and signed up for the organization that would give you eligibility and then were also out the $75 for the application. But to know that membership has generally been closed to out of state residents and then to comb through their website to see if you can find a loophole, not ask them about it before submitting an app, and then get indignant about being denied, what principle is at play? This seems like a big waste of time to me.
Yes, on 9/26 around roughly 6:00 pm central time I called PSECU and spoke with Emilie, a lovely PSECU CSR. I told her exactly what I was doing and why and she put me on hold and confirmed with manager that me being out of state wasnt an issue. I did this prior to spending the $75 on 6/27 around roughly 10:00 am central time.
I can back Duncanrr up 100% on this. BEFORE I ever paid the $75, I called PSECU and I also spoke to Emily, who claimed that me being out-of-state would not cause me to be rejected. I also called twice more and spoke with Jen and Sandy who said the same as Emily. All they said is that they would be asking for proof upfront of my membership with the qualifying organization and if I could provide that, all would be good. I made it a point to call 3 times and spoke to 3 different reps who all claimed the same thing. When I very first applied my app status said "approved pending" and then went to "Referred". I called in again and all they wanted was ID verifying who I was. I sent that and then 4 days went by and today I get a notification that my app had been cancelled. I never would have just up and paid $75 for a blind shot in the dark without verifying the information first. It just seems now they don't want to honor what they had originally stated, which bothers me. When I called them this last time the rep said they had "reviewed" their contract with PASEO and made "recent" changes to stipulate that you had to be in-state. She would NOT elaborate on how recent "Recent" meant and Absolutely refused to provide me with such proof, other than her mere words. Im honestly not the type to cause problems, IM very polite and respectful, but I think they are being very unethical here.
@gettnthere wrote:
@Duncanrr wrote:
@Walt_K wrote:
@Duncanrr wrote:
@LS2982 wrote:
IMO, its worthless to fight it. Your going to have a relationship with a bank that pretty much knows you started a whole bunch of problems to get in. They want PA residents, and that's that unfortunately.I know. Its the principle of the thing now.
What principle? This whole thing started out of a discussion as to whether someone had found a loophole to get in. It's hard to say that it's clear cut that you should be able to get in this way when everyone was skeptical from the beginning. Did anyone call PSECU and ask whether they'd be able to get in before spending the $75 for the application fee? It would be one thing if a rep said yes, and you went and signed up for the organization that would give you eligibility and then were also out the $75 for the application. But to know that membership has generally been closed to out of state residents and then to comb through their website to see if you can find a loophole, not ask them about it before submitting an app, and then get indignant about being denied, what principle is at play? This seems like a big waste of time to me.
Yes, on 9/26 around roughly 6:00 pm central time I called PSECU and spoke with Emilie, a lovely PSECU CSR. I told her exactly what I was doing and why and she put me on hold and confirmed with manager that me being out of state wasnt an issue. I did this prior to spending the $75 on 6/27 around roughly 10:00 am central time.I can back Duncanrr up 100% on this. BEFORE I ever paid the $75, I called PSECU and I also spoke to Emily, who claimed that me being out-of-state would not cause me to be rejected. I also called twice more and spoke with Jen and Sandy who said the same as Emily. All they said is that they would be asking for proof upfront of my membership with the qualifying organization and if I could provide that, all would be good. I made it a point to call 3 times and spoke to 3 different reps who all claimed the same thing. When I very first applied my app status said "approved pending" and then went to "Referred". I called in again and all they wanted was ID verifying who I was. I sent that and then 4 days went by and today I get a notification that my app had been cancelled. I never would have just up and paid $75 for a blind shot in the dark without verifying the information first. It just seems now they don't want to honor what they had originally stated, which bothers me. When I called them this last time the rep said they had "reviewed" their contract with PASEO and made "recent" changes to stipulate that you had to be in-state. She would NOT elaborate on how recent "Recent" meant and Absolutely refused to provide me with such proof, other than her mere words. Im honestly not the type to cause problems, IM very polite and respectful, but I think they are being very unethical here.
It sounds like they just closed another loophole -- but without letting anyone in this time. Last time, I apped the night they changed their criteria for Parks members and they denied my app. I do wish I had a relative in PA!
