I went to the Rookwood office with my toddler and I have never EVER been treated so well anywhere…read more I don't know anything about finance and I was a bit stressed that day. I didn't even have an appointment but these guys immediately opened the door for me, offered me a beverage, offered my son snacks, entertained and drew pictures for my child while another guy fixed an issue with my account in record time. Who does that!? They also answered my financial questions in a way that I could understand since I'm not a finance guru. I'm blown away by their empathy, professionalism and their ability to execute what I needed quickly before my child had a meltdown. The Four Seasons didn't treat me as well as these guys did lol. Highly recommend!

Part 2 Discrimination and abuse of power of a mildly disable…read morecustomer on 9/11 by Fidelity Work Place Services LLC employees, violation of my disability rights and abuse of power by a system that is ignorant of disability diversity. Disable discrimination by Fidelity Work Place Services LLC is , rooted in ableism, and masqueraded as "risk management" or "protection" through several key generalizations. Disability discrimination by banks in California is strictly prohibited under both state and federal laws, which in covers the customer access practices. Public entities cannot discriminate against individuals who are fully capable of managing their day-to-day activities and financial responsibilities based on simplistic generalizations that are illegal, inappropriate, unlawful and an abuse of power based on stereotypes, biases, or false assumptions about their capabilities. Additionally, this type of discrimination is systemic, rooted in ableism, and masqueraded as "risk management" or "protection" through several key generalizations. Disability discrimination by banks in California is strictly prohibited under both state and federal laws, which covers the customer access practices. Fidelity is still functioning in the stone age, doesn't understand diversity in disabilities and it places all patients with dementia in a box in spite of their ability to function competently. California's Unruh Civil Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination by "places of public accommodation," which includes financial institutions. One does not have to actually have dementia to be protected; if they perceived one as disabled one is penalized for it, and one's rights are violated and it's considered legal by Fidelity. Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, financial institutions are strictly prohibited from restricting access, locking accounts, or denying services based on generalized assumptions or perceived cognitive impairments without objective, verifiable evidence. Restricting my account access based on false assumptions without due process has directly impacted my financial independence. Fidelity discriminated against me under the false impression or "regarded-as" assumption that I have a severe dementia impairment. This is a false accusation and a violation of my rights.While I understand that employees must adhere to regulations designed to protect vulnerable adults, the staff members overstepped by declining to listen to my concerns and making unsupported assumptions regarding the extent of my capacity. Federal and state laws, financial institutions are strictly prohibited from denying services, locking accounts, or treating consumers unfairly based on a suspected cognitive impairment like dementia, unless they have verifiable, objective evidence of a lack of mental capacity or a court-ordered conservatorship. Their illegal and unfounded disability discrimination violated my rights under civil rights laws." As my Right to Dispute and Defend indicates I have the right to challenge any internal "incapacity" holds Fidelity placed on my accounts by providing documentation from my licensed UCLA Neurologist, a copy of the Presently Effective Durable Power of Attorney which I did on10/9. Between 9/11 and 10/15 I called to speak with supervisors multiple times and was told it was legal.Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California civil rights laws states that financial institutions are prohibited from restricting access based on generalized assumptions or perceived cognitive impairments. SEE LAST PART #3 AND A FEW EXAMPLES OF HOW FIDELITY OPERATES ILLEGALY

She's now in Pleasant Ridge and is an excellent CPA. I drive by her office every day and decided to…read moregive her a call after my trip to H&R Block was less than stellar. Clare was really great and answered all my questions and has been more than helpful. I'd highly recommend her!

I am a lawyer and refer clients to Clare because she is extremely knowledgeable and respects the…read morediversity of the people I send to her. Clients routinely call to thank me for wonderful referral!

No greets when u walk in nd they all just stare at you like u not the customer i wouldn't consider…read morethis location

$256 in overdraft fees in 3 days!…read more I am sharing this so others understand exactly how overdraft practices function at General Electric Credit Union. Within three days, a series of small transactions resulted in $256 in overdraft fees at $32 per item. There was no real-time warning that fees were stacking, and transactions were paid rather than declined. What many customers assume is a protective "insufficient funds" stop can instead become a rapid fee cycle before there is time to intervene. By the time notification was visible, the financial damage had already occurred. Although the account was later opted out of Courtesy Overdraft, that change happened after the fees posted. An executive-level review was conducted, but the outcome was largely inflexible, with only limited reversals approved despite the compressed timeframe and modest transaction amounts. Equally concerning was the difficulty of reaching a live representative with meaningful authority to evaluate the situation. Much of the customer interaction appears routed through automated systems, and when escalation was finally reached, there was little discretion shown to assess the broader context. When fees accumulate this quickly, customers need empowered human decision-making -- not scripted limitations. Consumers should be aware: * Fees can accumulate very quickly. * Transactions may be approved instead of declined. * Real-time alerts may not prevent stacking charges. * Escalation does not necessarily result in flexible review. Policies like this can create significant financial strain in a matter of days. I strongly encourage anyone banking here to understand exactly how overdraft coverage works before assuming it functions as a safeguard.