Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union has 4 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union

  11201 SE 8th St Ste 208 Bellevue, WA 98004-6420

  
• 

  Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union

  17620 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055-5703

  
• 

  Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union

  9928 SW Bank Rd Vashon, WA 98070

  
• 

  Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union

  1703 Dock St Ste A Tacoma, WA 98402-3235

  

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/29/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In November 2024, I financed a residential solar installation through a $25,000 loan from *****. The contractor, ****************** and Solar PNW, was underbonded, unlicensed, and failed to complete any solar work. Despite these glaring issueswhich were publicly available on the Washington L&I websitePSCCU disbursed $15,441.60 in loan funds directly to the contractor based solely on email authorization and a single invoice.Since then:No materials were delivered.The contractors license was suspended at the time of attempted installation.The project was formally canceled and the contractor has cut off communication.Multiple customers have filed complaints with *********** is aware of these complaints and still refuses to assist despite ceasing to work with ********************** for loans, which means they acknowledge the contractor's wrongdoing.***** is now offering predatory loan modification paperwork that reduces monthly payments but locks borrowers into a legal commitment to repay the loan in fulldespite fraud, misrepresentation, and no completed work.This is exploitative and reckless lending. If ***** had exercised due diligence, this situation would never have occurred. They are knowingly trying to profit off a failed and potentially criminal transaction.---Desired Resolution:Immediate discharge of remaining loan balance and lien release. No further collection attempts.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/06/2025

  June 6, 2025

  
  BBB Great West + Pacific
  PO Box 191279
  *****, ID *****

  
  RE: ***** ****

  
  BBB Complaint ID #:********

  
  To whom it may concern;
  This letter is in response to ***** ***** complaint ID #*******, filed with the Better Business Bureau on Thursday, May 29, 2025. In this complaint, ***** **** stated that ***** improperly disbursed funds to her solar contractor.
  

  On November 8th, 2024, ***** received an online loan application in the amount of $27,000 for the purchase of a solar energy system from ****************** PNW. The loan was approved on November 12th, 2024. Following approval, ***** **** executed the consumer loan agreement via ********. These documents may only be signed upon the successful completion of a series of knowledge-based authentication questions. The questions are derived from various sources, and the answers are known exclusively to the applicant. This process ensures that we are processing and funding loans solely for verified and authorized individuals. The executed documents constituted Ms. ***** express authorization for ***** to originate the loan.

  
  Upon receiving a copy of the solar contract and invoice for material deposit in the amount of $15,441.60 from her contractor **********************, a loan officer emailed her at ************************** on November 19th, 2024, asking for Ms. ***** authorization to release the initial payment to the contractor. We received her emailed permission to pay ********************** on Thursday November 21st, 2024.

  
  Additionally, Ms. **** recently reached out to us regarding the status of her installation. In response ***** contacted ********************** on her behalf to request an update on the project. The contractor informed us that the project had been canceled at her request and did not provide any further details. No subsequent advances have been paid out to the contractor. The owner of ****************** has contacted us to inform ***** that they anticipate a refund (exact amount not disclosed) within approximately the next week. Any funds received will be applied directly to the outstanding balance owed to *****. Once the loan is paid in full, ***** will release the *** lien associated with the loan.

  Regarding Ms. ***** concern that the contractors bond was insufficient at the time of the loan disbursement, it is our understanding that RCW 18.27.040 (2) states: Any contractor registered as of June 30, 2024, who maintains that registration in accordance with this chapter is in compliance with this chapter until the next renewal of the contractors certificate of registration. *********************** license was effective June 28, 2024, which would not require any changes to their bond until their next renewal. Furthermore, ****************** **** Electrical Contractors License no. ************* has an effective and expiration date of 03/28/2023 04/10/2027. The license authorizes the company to install solar systems in compliance with the *** 2156 and RCW 19.28.041.

  
  PSCCU disbursed the loan proceeds in accordance with her direct authorization and per Ms. ***** request. **********************, the solar installer that she had selected, was paid directly based on the written payment authorization Ms. **** provided.

  
  ***** does not recommend, endorse or advise its members to purchase solar energy systems or any other product from any specific contractor. The selection of a contractor is entirely at the discretion of the member and is their sole responsibility.

  
  ***** does not disburse funds to contractors without the borrower's written authorization.

  
  On May 29, 2025, Ms. **** contacted us and made a request to have her payment lowered. A re-amortization of the outstanding balance, based on the current interest rate and remaining term to maturity was proposed. Ms. **** acknowledged the reduced payment amount, and a Subsequent Action Agreement was provided to her upon her request.

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/07/2025

   
  Complaint: 23394601
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

   

  PSCCUs response attempts to deflect from the core issue:
  Loan funds were disbursed for contractor services that were never delivered.
  
  While PSCCU emphasizes that ***** **** signed documents and replied to emails, this does not change the fact that:
  
  The contractors general contracting licenserequired for roof-mounted solar systemswas suspended at the time of attempted performance.
  
  No solar materials were ever delivered.
  
  No system was installed.
  
  PSCCU disbursed $15,441.60 without verifying contractor licensure status, performance readiness, or physical delivery of goods.
  
  
  Despite ****** claim that disbursement was authorized via email, this was based solely on a contractor invoice and did not include proof of materials delivery, installation scheduling, or bonded performance. ***** released substantial loan funds without even a photo of delivered panels or a confirmed crew datea stunning lapse in due diligence.
  
  PSCCU further justifies the disbursement by referencing knowledge-based authentication questions and the borrowers selection of the contractor. These are procedural distractions that do not negate ****** responsibility to supervise third-party contractor activity in a purpose-bound solar loan.
  
  PSCCUs response also fails to explain why it filed a *** fixture lien on a home that received no goods, no installation, and no system. This lien is unenforceable, as there is no fixture, asset, or tangible benefit to secure. It exists solely to recover funds for a system that was never delivered, which defies the intent of both the Uniform Commercial Code and consumer lending ethics.
  
  The responses attempt to cite RCW 18.27.040(2) is misleading. The statute allows registered contractors to operate during a renewal windownot unlicensed or suspended ones. Additionally, ***** conflates electrical licensing with general contracting requirements. Solar projects involving roof-mounting require both, as confirmed by Washington L&I guidelines. The installers electrical license does not substitute for the suspended general contracting license.
  
  Moreover, the *** Holder Rule (16 CFR *****) was omitted from the loan contract. This clause is federally required when credit is extended through a seller-arranged financing agreement.
  
  > Any holder of this consumer credit contract is subject to all claims and defenses which the debtor could assert against the seller of goods or services obtained pursuant hereto
  
  
  
  PSCCUs failure to include this clause does not remove its relevance. The *** Holder Rule exists to prevent precisely this outcomewhere a borrower is forced to repay a loan despite receiving no product or service.
  
  I have filed formal complaints with the *********************************, Department of Financial Institutions, Department of Labor & Industries, and the contractors bond provider. Every one of these entities has confirmed receipt.
  
  PSCCUs narrative attempts to downplay the situation by emphasizing process over outcome. The process may have been followed. But the outcome is fraudulent:
  
  No panels.
  
  No system.
  
  No delivered product.
  
  
  Just debt, a lien, and silence.
  
  PSCCUs current offer to re-amortize the debt is not a solutionit is a demand that the borrower continue paying for nothing.
  
  If ***** maintains that this loan was properly executed and remains enforceable, I invite them to defend that position under RCW 31.04.027, the Washington Consumer Loan Act, and in front of DFI.
  
  This case is no longer about policy. It is about accountability.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ****

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/09/2025

  Hello, 
  
  I previously submitted a complaint against Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union (Complaint ID #********* using this email address. I'd like to add the following to my public rebuttal, as I forgot to include it in my response along with the relevant document.
  
  Attached is a copy of the original solar contract between ****************** PNW and ***** ****. This document clearly shows that the contractor listed Electrical License #************ while stating that the project was backed by a $12,000 bond. However, **************** requires that a $12,000 bond only be held by a General Contractor, and UNIVEEP774D8 is an electrical license, not a general contracting license. This discrepancy further supports my position that ***** did not adequately verify the legitimacy of the contractor prior to loan disbursement. I have highlighted the relevant details for ease of view.
  
  Please attach this document to my rebuttal and confirm that it has been added to the public-facing complaint profile.
  
  ---
  
  Follow-Up Statement (Please Add Publicly to the Complaint Record):
  
  > I would like to clarify a key point I missed in my original rebuttal:
  The solar contract from ********************** listed their electrical contractor license number alongside a $12,000 bond amounta bond size that only applies to general contractors in ***********
  
  This is factually incorrect and misleading, especially because their general contractor license was already suspended at the time. The electrical license only carries a $4,000 bond, which is insufficient for solar installations requiring structural or roof work. This misrepresentation likely influenced the lenders decision to disburse funds.
  
  Additionally, under the *** Holder Rule (16 CFR *****), when a consumer loan is tied to a purchase contract, the lender assumes all claims and defenses the borrower could assert against the sellerincluding failure to deliver services. Because ***** issued a purpose-bound loan for a solar installation that was never delivered, and the contractor was improperly bonded and licensed, I maintain that the *** lien is unenforceable and the loan should be discharged or refunded accordingly.
  
  
  
  
  ---
  
  Please confirm that this message has been added, and let me know once the complaint is linked to my account.
  
  Thank you,
  ***** ****