{"took":233,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":4,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7159606","_score":19.548637,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I need to be able to place a credit freeze on my credit accounts to prevent unauthorized loans from being opened in my name, in no small part due to Equifax 's incompetence in allowing a breach of substantially all of their consumer data in XXXX. \n\nEquifax has been required by law to provide a free credit freeze service since XXXX. \n\nSince XXXX, I have attempted multiple times to open an account on the 'myEquifax ' website to be able to place a credit freeze. Every time I have logged into this account, I have received an HTTP 500 error from their web application, indicating an unexpected error in the software running on their web server. Competent software development operations consider a server returning an HTTP 500 to be an issue to be resolved quickly and task engineers with preventing them from recurring, as unexpected errors may lead to security problems and prevent them from fulfilling their legal obligations to customers, but Equifax appears not to run a competent software development organization or to care about customer experience. \n\nI have attempted at least three times to report this error so that I might gain access to an account to be able to freeze my credit, and have spent hours on the phone with Equifax customer service attempting to report this bug in their web application and seek a way to work around it. Equifax has never resolved this issue. I have never been able to freeze my credit with them. \n\nTheir customer service personnel at one time insulted me as lacking initiative and thus being unable to get anywhere in life because I was unwilling to locate a fax machine to work around their continued incompetence in building and maintaining a web application.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-23T19:04:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11238","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7159606","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-06-23T18:48:20.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Every time I have logged into this account, I have received an HTTP 500 <em>error</em> from their web application, <em>indicating</em> an <em>unexpected</em> <em>error</em> in the software <em>running</em> on their web server."]},"sort":[19.548637,"7159606"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3489820","_score":9.052498,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Between XXXX and XXXX of 2019 my loan was transferred from XXXX to LoanCare LLC. Since I have been dealing with loan companies for over 45 years this was nothing new. I began making payments to LoanCare starting with the XX/XX/XXXX payment due date ( check # XXXX written on XXXX and cashed by LoanCare on XX/XX/2019 ). \n\nI received a notice dated XXXX XXXX that no payment had been received. I immediately wrote to LoanCare through their web site. Finally Ms. XXXX XXXX contacted me through e-mail on XX/XX/2019 asking for copies of checks related to my loan payments. Prior to this e-mail I had sent a letter containing copy of checks, then a packet of check copies ( traceable through USPS since LoanCare has made it quite obvious that they do not seem to know what they are doing ). I sent a second traceable ( via USPS ) packet of checks since this problem was spiraling out of control. In early XXXX I received a statement ( statement date XX/XX/2019 ) indicating that I owed LoanCare {$1800.00}. I have bank copies of check # XXXX written on XX/XX/2019 and cashed on XX/XX/2019, check # XXXX written on XX/XX/2019 and cashed by LoanCare on XX/XX/2019, check # XXXX written on XX/XX/2019 and cashed by LoanCare on XX/XX/2019. Thus indicating all payments were paid in a timely manner. \n\nIn a \" Payment Reminder Notice '' dated XX/XX/2019 I again was notified of payment not being received. I have copies of an e-mail on this same date between Ms. XXXX XXXX of LoanCare and myself. Ms. XXXX was requesting copies of payment checks. I informed Ms. XXXX that this would be the FOURTH time I provided proof of payment to LoanCare. I attached copies of the payment checks to the e-mail. I also advised Ms. XXXX, and attached documatation, that my credit rating had taken a dive of over 100 points due to their inability to rectify the payment issue. I also noted the cost to me so far. It was, {$0.00} for letter with check copy, {$7.00} for a traceable packet sent through USPS, and a second traceable packet sent through USPS for a second charge of {$7.00}. I feel I should not have to pay to rectify their screw-up. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019 I received a statement indicating I owe a fee of {$38.00} for having a late charge added to my mortgage payment amount owed. I paid my usual amount NOT including a completely unwarranted late payment fee. Realizing this situation is completely out of control and after checking online regarding people having issues with LoanCare LLC, I found hundreds if not thousands of complains. XXXX alone had hundreds. Many were similar, if not identical, to the situation involving myself. Some even indicate that the process even went to filing a foreclosure on people. Also I found indications of class action suits etc. Since my credit rating had been destroyed, and now I'm facing the potential of foreclosure, I had to make a terrifying decision. I needed to get away from this company before my entire life was destroyed. I felt my only recourse was to pay off the loan to get clear of this catastrophe. I'm XXXX years old and have worked for the last 25 years running XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This involved working 24/7/365. I had managed to save a little money to retire on. Paying off the mortgage would destroy my savings and take all security away from life. The credit rating affected my Insurance quotes, ability to borrow money if I had an unexpected catastrophe, and basically completely negatively affected my whole world. On XX/XX/2019 I went on LoanCares web site to determine what amount I needed to pay off the loan. There is a section with a loan payoff calculator to determine payoff amount. I tried this several times yet it would not work. I contacted LoanCares customer service by phone and requested a payoff amount. The rep. told me it would be sent within a few days. Never received it!! \n\nOn XX/XX/2019 I received two letters from XXXX XXXX of LoanCare LLC. The first letter indicated that the XXXX payment was applied to my account as I stipulated by supplying copies of the payment check. Thus I was completely exonerated. The late fees were removed from my account. The second letter indicated that my credit would be updated in 30 to 90 days. IT WASN'T!!!!! Also in the second letter I was advised that my past payment history up to XXXX was \" current with no delinquencies ''. \n Finally things seem to be fixed. \n\nI calculated the payoff amount on my own. I sent a cashiers check to LoanCare and it was received on XX/XX/2019. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019 I received a notice that I was 2 payments behind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was just 5 days past being told everything was fixed. On XX/XX/2019 I received another notice that I missed a payment, 8 days after being told all was taken care of. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019 My payoff check was returned. I was informed that it was an incorrect amount. FINALLY I was provided with a payoff statement with this rejection letter. The payoff statement included a {$28.00} processing/recording fee AND {$36.00} LATE CHARGE FEE. The very same fee that LoanCares representative XXXX XXXX said was removed in her letter of XX/XX/2019. Reluctantly I made the payoff just to get clear of this clown circus before my entire world was destroyed. As will be stated later in this complaint I also dispute the {$28.00} processing fee since my loan was never processed or recorded. \n\nA LoanCare letter received on XX/XX/2019 acknowledged the loan payoff. Also noted in the letter was the statement \" We will forward the satisfaction/release of mortgage to the courthouse for proper removal of lien ''. As of this writing I have not received any paperwork such as notice of payoff on lien, Deed of Trust etc.. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019 I sent an e-mail through the LoanCare web site requesting paperwork substantiating that my loan was paid and the proper paperwork would be provided to me. On XX/XX/2019 I received an e-mail stating that I needed to allow up to 120 days for the release of those documents. It has exceeded that time frame as of this writing. Upon doing research for this letter I discovered that the Colorado Revised Statute 38-35-124, ( Requirements upon satisfaction of indebtedness ), requires satisfaction of an indebtedness needs to be completed within 90 days. I now contest the processing fee charged since LoneCare neglected to actually process the release of loan. \n\nThe final boondoggle was the receipt of their standard \" beg off '' ( or as I prefer to call it a \" lets give the customer a XXXX  letter '' ) saying they received a notice of error ( never stating what the original notice was about ) on XX/XX/2019. Note : this was over 2 months past the time the loan was paid off. These XXXX  letters seem to be LoanCare 's standard response to any issue. It does not indicate the initial issue and are sent out well beyond the initial complaint. Thus creating a completely foggy idea as to what they are referring to. When I researched this company online this standard form or XXXX  letter seemed to be the response to any and all complaints and issues. The intriguing part of the XXXX  response was that I received it on XX/XX/2019 TWO MONTHS past paying the loan off. I have no idea what prompted this XXXX  letter. These folks seem to send this XXXX  letter out like candy. Obviously they have no notion about what they are doing. \n\nCONSEQUENCES : 1 ) LoanCare LLC has unjustifiably and completely destroyed my credit rating. Their idea of a fix was to wait months to see if it recovers. To me that is completely unacceptable. \n\n2 ) LoanCare LLC has stolen money from me in the amount of {$36.00}. By their own admission, in the letter of XX/XX/2019, \" NO DELINQUENCIES '' exist. Yet, they decided to add that amount as a delinquency erroneously into the final payoff statement. \n\n3 ) LoanCare LLC has forced me to send numerous copies of checks to them to prove I made payments. The check copies indicate all payments were on time. Thus LoanCare should have to reimburse me for the expense they incurred on me without justification. They were in possession of their records indicating that the payments were made. Even their web site showing the accounting for the loan indicated the payments were made. Forcing me to justify them was ludicrous. The accounting is as follows. Initial letter with copies of checks {$0.00}, 2 traceable mailings of check copies at {$7.00} each totaling {$14.00},,,,,,,,,, for a grand total of {$15.00}. \n\n4 ) LoanCare LLC charged me {$28.00} fee for processing the paperwork to close the loan. I have not received my deed so obviously a fee for processing it is absurd.\n\n5 ) I have recently tried to buy auto insurance. I was repeated asked by numerous Insurance Companies about my credit rating. Since LoanCare LLC has destroyed my credit rating I'm sure there is a detriment that I will suffer because of LoanCare LLC. Not to mention all the other life experiences that are affected by ones credit rating.\n\n6 ) The damage to me is incalculable. LoanCare LLC has destroyed my retirement. I spent the last 25 years running XXXX XXXX XXXX 24/7/365. Over that time I was able to squirrel away a frugal amount of money so that I could retire and be able to survive. Since I'm now on a very fixed income my little savings was the only security knowing I could endure/survive an economic issue. Since I had to almost completely drain my meager savings to pay off this loan to avoid the results of a rogue loan processor I no longer can endure even the most mundane of economic issues. If, for example, I need to replace the engine in my 20+ year old pickup truck, that has XXXX miles on it, I now have to worry about eating, or fixing my truck. LoanCare LLC has completely destroyed my future security. I'm XXXX years old with a XXXX XXXX XXXX who now has to try to find work or a way to regain what little security I had. Since LoanCare LLC destroyed my credit rating, and having a fixed limited income, trying to refinance my house would be economic suicide. Why should I have to suffer the consequences of a rogue loan processor?????????????????","date_sent_to_company":"2020-01-08T20:17:59.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"811XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3489820","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LoanCare, LLC","date_received":"2020-01-08T20:06:47.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I'm XXXX years old and have worked for the last 25 years <em>running</em> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This involved working 24/7/365. I had managed to save a little money to retire on. Paying off the mortgage would destroy my savings and take all security away from life. The credit rating affected my Insurance quotes, ability to borrow money if I had an <em>unexpected</em> catastrophe, and basically completely negatively affected my whole world."]},"sort":[9.052498,"3489820"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14993589","_score":6.036713,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This is responding back to complaint XXXX with additional issues I'm addressing that was reveal in the complaint above. \n\nResponding to Fays Servicing Complaint ID : XXXX Account Number : XXXX XX/XX/year>XXXX  XXXX XXXX has received and reviewed the complaint that you submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/year>, regarding the above-referenced mortgage loan. \n\nIn your response, you stated that I expressed concerns in regard to the most recent loan modification application. You also stated that I raised issues regarding communication, how your documents were handled, and whether the submitted information was properly received and evaluated. Then you stated that a fair review of your application and clarity about the status of the loss mitigation requested. \n\nOn page 2, you stated XX/XX/year>XXXX  - A partial application was received. On XX/XX/year>, an acknowledgment letter was sent listing required income documentation due by XX/XX/year>. You submitted some documents on XX/XX/year> ; however, the requested paystubs for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were not included. \n\nResponse : According to : Acknowledgment of Additional Documentation : Loss Mitigation Application Remains Incomplete. \n\nIt states that All Borrowers most recent pay stub for wage income reflecting year-to-date earnings, or all Borrowers most recent bank statement reflecting deposits of income amounts from applicable sources : XXXX and for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Documents were already provided. ) My Response : I submitted several paystubs from XXXX since Im an employee and submitted a bank statement of XX/XX/year> showing what was deposited for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, since Im a 1099 XXXX. XXXX not given a paystub since XXXX an XXXX  XXXX, unlike traditional employees, I do not receive a paystub or a W-2 with taxes withheld by this employer. \n\nSo, to support and supplement proof of income, according to State of Maryland law and IRS requirements Im supposed to show you bank statements that show consistent deposits from clients. Prior to this Second Loss Mitigation Application, I also provided an email indicating the offering of the job from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX email dated back from XX/XX/year>. \n\nOn the application itself, I stated I was a XXXX. So, the bank statement should have been efficient enough. ( Documents were already provided ). The Loss Mitigation application was signed on XX/XX/year>, and was sent to your attorney XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nMy Response : On the complaint, Question 2 : I had XX/XX/year>, but it was XX/XX/year>, and Priority Mail to your attorney : I do apologize for the error that I made in reference to the dates. \n\nYou stated also : Despite multiple contact attempts by Fay in XXXX and XX/XX/year>, we did not receive the outstanding documents. As a result, the file was closed due to incompleteness on XX/XX/year>. \n\nMy Response : How do you make multiple attempts? By phone calls, by emails or mailing. Because I did not receive any information stating otherwise. Nor did your attorney submit any documentation to the court stating the obvious as you claimed. Nor did your attorney mail me any documentation in regard to your claim. Nor did you attach a copy of that letter to this formal complaint. I responded too. Do you have proof of such? Can you provide me with a copy of that? \n\nMy Response : You stated that for Question 4 : Fay will continue to communicate with you in accordance with applicable law and in court-ordered medication requirements. Legal communications are coordinated through our counsel, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who act on our behalf in the foreclosure proceedings. \n\nAccording to the communication issue, I have with Fay Servicing it was discussed during the medication by XXXX XXXX XXXX, Administrative Law Judge, XXXX that all correspondence in reference to this Foreclosure Proceeding or any information pertaining must go through your attorney and they were supposed to reach out to me in a regards since it was an opening Loss Mitigation Application opening at that particular time. \n\nAccording to State of Maryland Loss Mitigation Determination, if approved, the letter will detail the specific loss mitigation options available to you, such as loan modification, forbearance or a repayment plan. If your application is denied, the letter will state the reasons, which may include insufficient documentation, not meet eligibility criteria, or not demonstrate a qualifying hardship.\n\nThe letter should also outline necessary actions required from your end, such as providing additional information or signing and returning documents. It should specify a deadline for you to respond to the offer or provide further documentation. \n\nIt should explain the reasons for denial, allowing you to understand what steps are needed if you want to pursue other options. The letter is a crucial part of the loss mitigation process and ensures transparency and fair treatment by the servicer. \n\nBased on this alone, I was not given any documentation stating the conclusion of why you stated what you are projecting. CFPB code 1024.41 Loss Mitigation Procedures. ( a ) Enforcement and limitations. A borrower may enforce the provisions of the section pursuant to section 6 ( f ) of RESPA ( 12-U.S.C. 2605 ) ( f ). Nothing in 1024.41 imposes a duty on a servicer to provide any borrower with any specific loss mitigation option. Nothing in 1024.41 should be construed to create a right for a borrower to enforce the terms of any agreement between a servicer and the owner or assignee of a mortgage loan, including with respect to the evaluation for, or offer of, any loss mitigation option or to eliminate any such right that may exist pursuant to applicable law.\n\nYour Response : You may submit a new loss mitigation application any time. Please ensure all requested income documentation is included to avoid delays. If you have any questions, please contact Account Manager XXXX XXXX, at ( XXXX ) XXXX. But in the response dated XX/XX/year>, you stated to contact Account Manager XXXX XXXX at ( XXXX ) XXXX. So, who is the correct Account Manager on this account of mine, as of today. \n\nI do not believe that I need to submit a new loss mitigation application this time. Because I believe I was given proper fair treatment on the Second Mitigation Application based on the finding that you particularly enclosed.\n\nIt did not include the required paystubs for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in which you stated specifically required in the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, letter. \n\nWhat you failed to take into consideration was the fact that I provided a current bank statement showing proof of income for XXXX XXXX and according to State of Maryland, Internal Revenue Services and according to your letter dated on XX/XX/year>, a Pay Stub OR Recent Bank Statement from the applicable sources. \n\nIn addition, if you go back on the application itself, dated XX/XX/year>, under XXXX : its states XXXX XXXX XXXX. So, I clearly let you know back then that I was a XXXX for this company. ( Documentation was already provided ). For the reasons you are providing in this complaint, I disagree with what you are trying to state here. It carries no weight, meaning it lacks importance or credibility. I would like my Second Loan Mitigation Application be reviewed and taken into reconsideration based on the lack of finding that was reviewed in the complaint. ( Proof of income was provided in a timely manner ). \n\nThis has been an ongoing issue with this company, and I deserve at least the bare minimum of fairness in this situation. We are talking about : * Deceptive Services * Unfair Business Practices * Lack of Transparency I just want to be treated fairly on a consumer level and not just a quota or investment tag. And if you thought placing my personal loan paperwork on my porch at night was good business practices in which it says a lot about the company. Its understandable for me to be worried about that situation, especially considering the sensitivity of important documents and the security risks associated with leaving them unattended in the middle of the night. \n\nAs a debt collector, you can not leave personal information about a person 's debt lying on my porch or in a location where others could easily see or access it. FDCPA is a federal law designed to protect individuals from abusive and harassing practices by debt collectors.\n\nThis law includes provision safeguarding consumer privacy and prohibits debt collectors from publicly disclosing information about a debt. Leaving messages or materials that visibly indicate they are collecting a debt. This could include leaving notes or documents with sensitive personal or financial information where others might see it.\n\nLeaving personal information about your debt on your porch would be considered a violation of your privacy under the FDCPA. Opening admitting to the violation is not a good look when we are in the middle of litigation. ( You stated documents may be posted or delivered in compliance with Maryland foreclosure law ). What law is that? According to the State of Maryland, unless you are being served or a sheriff comes to that door, that will be the only time documentation of the sort can be handled to you, not placed on the porch at night.\n\nThis whole process in itself including dealing with this company and their attorney has left me unsure who to trust. Dealing with Fay Servicing and their attorneys with unexpected surprises and the unbearable running around. According to the CFPB, the rules is ensured everyone gets a fair treatment that includes all borrowers and establish strong protections for those struggling to save their homes.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-31T20:17:02.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"20747","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14993589","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fay Servicing, LLC","date_received":"2025-07-31T19:15:07.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Dealing with Fay Servicing and their attorneys with <em>unexpected</em> surprises and the unbearable <em>running</em> around. According to the CFPB, the rules is ensured everyone gets a fair treatment that includes all borrowers and establish strong protections for those struggling to save their homes."]},"sort":[6.036713,"14993589"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5750076","_score":3.259836,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, we filled complaint number XXXX ( see XXXX XXXX  '' attached ) against AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation ( `` AmeriSave '' ). AmeriSave closed the complaint on XX/XX/XXXX and we were not able to view the company 's response or reply to it online. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( \" CFPB '' ) mailed us a printed copy of AmeriSave 's response ( see \" XXXX '' ) and recommended that we submit a new complaint. \n\nWe do not accept AmeriSave 's response as their explanations are inaccurate, misleading, or ignore the critical points of our complaint. We will provide evidence that AmeriSaves response contradicts previous company statements and does not align with the facts and timeline supported by that evidence. We will also provide evidence supporting our claims that AmeriSave did not meet its fiduciary duty, and failed to comply with current federal laws and regulations.\n\nWe do not accept the \" monetary relief '' of {$500.00} as it is insignificant compared to the substantial monetary injury resulting from doing business with AmeriSave. \n\nFirst, we will lay out the facts and the timeline of events supported with attached evidence. Then, we will summarize current laws and regulations relevant to our complaint. Finally, we will use evidence to highlight the issues with AmeriSave 's response.\n\nPart I Facts and Timeline of Events. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : we received an offer from AmeriSave to refinance our investment property. \n\nXXXX. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, we provided the Loan Officer with all the information required to price the loan. That includes personal financial details, property type, and the fact that we had a Home Equity Line of Credit ( HELOC ) that required subordination. The Loan Officer confirmed multiple times that AmeriSave was aware of the HELOC subordination requirement ( See \" XXXX '' attachment as an example ). The Loan Officer guaranteed that, given our excellent credit and finances, we would close in before the end of the year. We declined similar offers from other lenders and accepted AmeriSave 's offer in good faith. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : the XXXX visited the property and completed the appraisal XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : we received the Loan Estimate ( see XXXX XXXX XXXX' attached ) and signed the Loan Terms Agreement ( see \" XXXX '' attached ), locking the loan terms with an interest rate of 3.75 % and {$9200.00} in lender credits. We agreed on a mortgage rate significantly higher than the average rates at the time in exchange for the lender credits needed to cover all closing costs, XXXX cash-to-close, and no increase in the loan amount. That same day we indicated to the company our intent to proceed with the transaction. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : AmeriSave sent us a Closing Disclosure with lender credits that were $ XXXX lower than the Loan Terms Agreement. AmeriSave did not disclose a changed circumstance. The document also included incorrect 'Loan Estimate ' amounts in the 'Total Closing costs ( XXXX  ) ' section in violation of section XXXX ( e ) ( 3 ) of TRID rules. During the next XXXX days, our multiple requests for an explanation were unsuccessful. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : AmeriSave 's Loan Officer finally reached out to explain that the Closing Disclosure document from XX/XX/XXXX was incorrect and that AmeriSave was working to resolve the issue ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). AmeriSave continued to convey the same message every time we requested an update for the next ten days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : we reached out to AmeriSave 's Loan Officer and Loan Processor multiple times, concerned that despite having excellent credit, high net worth, being top percentile earners, and providing all requested documentation within 24-hrs, our loan had not been approved to proceed ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). At this point, we were running out of time to close before the Loan Terms Agreement and locked rate expired on XX/XX/XXXX. That day and up to XX/XX/XXXX, we were guaranteed multiple times by the Loan Officer and Loan Processor on a recorded line that AmeriSave would extend the original loan terms as they were solely responsible for the delays. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TWO WEEKS after we had asked for an explanation around the reduced lender credits, we received a call from XXXX XXXX explaining that the change was because AmeriSave classified the property as a multi-family. We had owned the property for 12 years and had gone through the loan approval process four times ( the original mortgage, two Home Equity Lines of Credit, and a previous refinance ). The property was never considered a multi-family. That day we reached out to the DC Government, the Title Company, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. They all confirmed that our property was a Single Family with an Accessory Dwelling Unit ( ADU ), NOT a multi-family. Even AmeriSave 's appraisers later confirmed the same. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : less than 24 HOURS after our conversation with XXXX XXXX, we sent him all the evidence needed to resolve the property misclassification issue. XXXX XXXX replied to our email, saying he would send the documents to the underwriter and 'see what he could do for us ' ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). XXXX XXXX explained that for AmeriSave to honor the original loan offer and terms agreement, the property type 'issue ' had to be resolved. AmeriSave ignored the evidence for two weeks despite multiple follow-up emails and calls. At this point, we started to worry that this could be a tactic to let the locked rate expire and reprice the loan at a higher interest rate. But AmeriSave assured us that the rate and lender credits would be extended. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : we spoke with the original appraiser and uncovered that ( in the appraiser 's words ) \" the 'lender ' had asked him to classify the property as a multi-family. '' He told us that to fix the issue, \" the lender had to agree. '' That same day we contacted XXXX XXXX to inform him about our conversation with the appraiser. Coincidentally, XXXX XXXX called the next day to inform us that AmeriSave finally decided to schedule a second appraisal. AmeriSave later denied what the appraiser told us over the phone. But the same appraiser later completed the third and final appraisal and classified the property as a \" Single Family Home with an Accessory Unit. '' To this day, the appraiser claims that he always agreed with that classification. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The appraiser visited the property, completed the appraisal, and confirmed that the property was a Single Family with an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The appraisal was canceled without any explanation after it was completed. It took AmeriSave and the third parties they hired TWO MORE WEEKS to complete a third appraisal on XX/XX/XXXX ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : throughout XXXX and up to the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the wrong property type was the reason for the reduced lender credits and that fixing that issue would result in a Closing Disclosure showing the original loan terms ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX ( afternoon ) : XXXX XXXX called us to let us know FOR THE FIRST TIME that AmeriSave was not planning to honor their offer because of an 'error ' in pricing related to the subordination of the HELOC. XXXX XXXX gave us one business day to accept the new loan terms with lender credits reduced by {$5400.00} and $ XXXX in additional closing costs. Later that day, we received an email from XXXX XXXX suggesting to increase our loan amount to cover the cash-to-close resulting from lower lender credits and increased total costs ( See \" XXXX '' attached ). In that same email, XXXX XXXX states that AmeriSave \" applied the subordination pricing on XX/XX/XXXX '', clearly stating that AmeriSave had waited FIVE WEEKS to disclose the subordination error. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The next business day, we replied to XXXX XXXX 's email, attaching evidence proving that AmeriSave was aware of the subordination before the company issued the Loan Estimate and both parties signed the Loan Terms Agreement on XX/XX/XXXX ( See \" XXXX '' attached ). XXXX XXXX reiterated over the phone that we had until the end of the day to accept the new pricing or AmeriSave would cancel the loan. \n\nXXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX, mortgage rates had increased significantly and now were as high as the rate we were already paying. Similar offers from other lenders ( that we had declined in XXXX ) were no longer available. Our only option at that point was to close with AmeriSave or not refinance at all. Ultimately, and per XXXX XXXX 's suggestion, we had to increase our outstanding mortgage obligation by {$8300.00} to cover the reduced lender credits and increased closing costs. See XXXX XXXX ' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX attached ( see \" XXXX  '' attached ). \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : as we received the final closing documents, we questioned why the Loan Estimate amounts shown in the final Closing Disclosure differed from the actual Loan Estimate we signed. AmeriSave 's only response was that if we didn't take the offer 'as is, ' they would cancel the loan. The changes made to the Closing Document significantly reduced the amount AmeriSave was legally required to credit us due to the increase in 'Total Closing costs ( J ) ' above the legal limit. Please see attached the original loan estimate showing the 'Total Closing Costs ( J ) '' to be + {$87.00} ( see bottom right of page XXXX in \" XXXX  '' ) versus the - {$3800.00} in the \" XXXX XXXX '' column of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( see bottom of page XXXX in \" XXXX  '' attached ). \n\nXXXX. At the end of this process, we had lost the rental income and cash flow needed to make the improvements required to rent the property as originally planned. We had to sell the investment property to the first buyer in sub-optimal condition. The resulting ongoing annual losses include {$61000.00} in rental income and $ XXXX in asset appreciation, among others. A significant portion of our capital, revenue, and life savings were tied to this investment property. \n\n\nPart II Definitions. \n\n2.1. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026 ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( \" CFPB '' ) clearly states that \" Lender credits are interest rate dependent changes regulated by Part 1026, Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( \" 12 CFR 1026 '' or \" Regulation Z '' ) and TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures ( TRID ) rules. These rules are explicit on that lender credits may decrease only if there is an accompanying changed circumstance or other triggering event under Regulation Z section 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ), and the creditor provides the consumer with a revised estimate within three business days of receiving information sufficient to establish that the changed circumstance or other triggering event has occurred. '' * * https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resources/mortgage-resources/tila-respa-integrated-disclosures/tila-respa-integrated-disclosure-faqs/ 2.2. Changed Circumstance A 'changed circumstance ' is defined by Regulation Z under section 12 CFR 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ** as : ( 1 ) An extraordinary event beyond the control of any interested party or other unexpected event specific to the consumer or transaction. [ 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ( A ) ( 1 ) ] ( 2 ) Information specific to the consumer or transaction that the creditor relied upon when providing the disclosures required under paragraph ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i ) of this section and that was inaccurate or changed after the disclosures were provided. [ 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ( A ) ( 2 ) ] ( 3 ) New information specific to the consumer or transaction that the creditor did not rely on when providing the original disclosures required under paragraph ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i ) of this section. [ 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ( A ) ( 3 ) ]. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) The standard for unfairness in the Dodd-Frank Act has the same three-part test as the FTC Act. This standard was first stated in the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness. According to these standards an act or practice is unfair when : ( 1 ) It causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers : \" Substantial injury usually involves monetary harm. Monetary harm includes for example, costs or fees paid by consumers as a result of an unfair practice. '' ( 2 ) The injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers : \" Consumers can not reasonably avoid injury if the act or practice interferes with their ability to effectively make decisions or to take action to avoid injury. '' \" If material information about a product, such as pricing, is modified after, or withheld until after, the consumer has committed to purchasing the product ; however, the consumer can not reasonably avoid the injury. '' \" A key question is not whether a consumer could have made a better choice. Rather, the question is whether an act or practice hinders a consumer 's decision-making. For example, not having access to important information could prevent consumers from comparing available alternatives, choosing those that are most desirable to them, and avoiding those that are inadequate or unsatisfactory. '' ( 3 ) The injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition : \" To be unfair, the act or practice must be injurious in its net effects that is, the injury must not be outweighed by any offsetting consumer or competitive benefits that also are produced by the act or practice. Offsetting consumer or competitive benefits of an act or practice may include lower prices to the consumer or a wider availability of products and services resulting from competition. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n3.1. AmeriSave states in its response : \" The initial pricing disclosed to the consumer reflected no subordinate financing and a single-family. '' There are multiple issues with this statement : a ) AmeriSave was aware of the HELOC subordination requirement before disclosing the initial pricing in XX/XX/XXXX. See \" XXXX '' attached, where the Loan Officer confirms our agreement to subordinate the HELOC to the Loan Processor. In addition, AmeriSave had access to our credit records that clearly showed the second lien. The HELOC subordination is not a valid changed circumstance as per federal regulations ( See section 2.2 ).\n\nb ) AmeriSave 's statement doesn't align with the fact that in XXXX XXXX, we received multiple offers from other lenders with similar rates and lender credits that included the HELOC subordination.\n\nc ) AmeriSave did NOT disclose that the subordinate financing was not included in the initial pricing until XX/XX/XXXX. AmeriSave waited almost TWO MONTHS until interest rates had skyrocketed to disclose this adverse material information. See section 1.13 for evidence that AmeriSave had been aware of the subordination issue since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nd ) AmeriSave 's failure to promptly disclose that they could not provide competitive pricing due to the subordination, hindered our decision-making, and impacted our ability to reasonably avoid substantial monetary injury by selecting another lender when rates were still low. AmeriSave 's actions fail all three parts of the test for unfair and deceptive practices as defined by the FTC and Dodd-Frank Acts ( See section 2.3 ) e ) AmeriSave acknowledges that the loan was originally priced using the correct property type. In addition, AmeriSave had access to the public information needed to classify our property correctly. The property type 3.2. AmeriSave states in its response : \" The consumer disputed the 2-unit description, citing it was typical for homes in the area to have basement apartments and it should be labeled as an accessory unit. The matter was escalated to AmeriSave 's management and supporting information was considered. A new appraisal was requested, and the property was labeled as a 1-unit property with an accessory unit on the appraisal dated XX/XX/XXXX which resulted in final updated pricing which was disclosed to the consumer ''. This statement is misleading as it ignores crucial facts and key points from our complaint : a ) AmeriSave disclosed for the first time that the property had been misclassified on XX/XX/XXXX. Within 24 HOURS, we provided AmeriSave with all the evidence needed to correct the issue ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). It took AmeriSave FOUR WEEKS ( Until XX/XX/XXXX ) to resolve it, causing the locked rate to expire. \n\nb ) The property type issue was not a \" dispute '' as AmeriSave is trying to present it. A dispute requires disagreement around an opinion. The type or classification of our property is a fact that anyone can easily research in public records, not an opinion open for disagreement or dispute. The truth is that when presented with evidence to correct the issue on XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave ignored it for TWO WEEKSthen delayed the process TWO MORE WEEKS by canceling a second appraisal that was already completed. Throughout the process, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the property type was the reason for the reduced lender credits ( see section 3.5 ( b ) ). The company also failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not performing the due diligence needed to resolve the issue in time to avoid the expiration of the locked rate. \n\nc ) The company failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not making its associates and business partners accountable for the delay and errors related to the property type. Instead, AmeriSave made us pay for those 'errors ' by using them as an excuse to reprice the loan after interest rates had significantly increased.\n\nd ) AmeriSave acknowledges that the loan was originally priced using the correct property type making the property type NOT a valid changed circumstance to reprice the loan as per federal regulations ( see section 2.2 ) 3.3. AmeriSave states in its response : \" Upon completion and review of the initial appraisal report, the property was identified as a 2-unit property instead of a single-family home and updated pricing was disclosed to the consumer reflecting this change ''. This statement ignores critical facts relevant to our complaint : a ) The company has acknowledged in previous communications that : \" On XX/XX/XXXX, the appraisal management company notified Amerisave that the property was a multi-unit dwelling '' ( see \" XXXXXXXX XXXX ). That means AmeriSave waited FOUR WEEKS ( from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX ) to disclose that the property had been misclassified. \n\nb ) By XX/XX/XXXX, there was no time to correct the mistake and close the loan before the expiration of the Loan Terms Agreement. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the original loan terms were still valid. Among others, AmeriSave 's misleading actions include : - Providing a Loan Estimate on XX/XX/XXXX ( See \" XXXX '' attached ). \n- Signing a Loan Terms Agreement on XX/XX/XXXX ( See \" XXXX  '' attached ). \n- Telling us that the Closing Disclosures from XX/XX/XXXX were incorrect and would be corrected ( See \" XXXX '' ). \n\nXXXX. AmeriSave states in its response : \" The consumer spoke with a Sales Manager, XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX regarding pricing concerns. '' We have provided evidence showing that this statement is not true. \n\na ) On XX/XX/XXXX, we spoke with XXXX XXXX about the property type misclassification. We did not speak with XXXX XXXX for the first time until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nb ) During our conversation on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX DID NOT mention the \" inadvertent error in pricing '' due to the subordinate financing. Instead, he explained that the reason for the reduced lender credits was the property type ( See \" XXXX '' ). \n\n3.5. AmeriSave 's response states : \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX explained there was an inadvertent error and the pricing on the initial Loan Estimate ( \" LE '' ) did not properly reflect there was subordinate financing on the property ''. We have provided evidence showing that this statement is not true. \n\na ) We first spoke with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, when he disclosed for the FIRST TIME that an 'error ' in the subordination pricing was the reason for the reduced lender credits. On that call XXXX XXXX also disclosed for the first time that AmeriSave was not planning to honor its offer. \n\nb ) In his email from XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX states that AmeriSave \" applied the subordination pricing on XX/XX/XXXX '' ( See \" XXXX '' attached ). That means AmeriSave waited at least FIVE WEEKS ( from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ) until mortgage rates had increased dramatically to disclose this adverse material information. \n\nc ) The email from XXXX XXXX also confirms that AmeriSave was aware of the subordination error BEFORE we spoke with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of disclosing the subordination 'error ' that day, for OVER A MONTH and until XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the property type was the reason for the lower lender credits and that fixing it would resolve the loan pricing ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). \n\nd ) AmeriSave 's failure to disclose the reason for pricing changes in the period required by law hindered our decision-making, preventing us from knowing AmeriSave 's actual pricing and comparing it with the competition when mortgage rates were still low. AmeriSave first told us that the pricing changes in the Closing Disclosure dated XX/XX/XXXX were a mistake ( XXXX XXXX ). Then, on XX/XX/XXXX told us that the pricing change was due to a change in the property type ( XXXX XXXX ). The subordination never came up until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n3.6. AmeriSave states in their response : \" On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX explained that there would be no cash to close due because he had applied a lender credit of {$3700.00} XXXX to offset the closing costs. The lender credit covered one appraisal fee, an appraisal trip fee, and lock extension costs due to the delays getting the loan final approved. '' This statement is inaccurate : a ) The loan terms XXXX XXXX proposed on XX/XX/XXXX, required almost $ XXXX in cash to close. See the email from XXXX XXXX attached ( \" XXXX '' ), where he clearly states that our only option to avoid cash-to-close was to increase the loan amount. XXXX XXXX gave us one business day to accept the terms or AmeriSave would cancel our loan. Ultimately, we had to increase our outstanding mortgage obligation by {$8300.00} to pay for the reduced lender and increased closing costs ( see section XXXX ). \n\nb ) We accepted the initial offer from AmeriSave in good faith because they promised us no cash-to-close or increase in the loan amount. We agreed to pay an interest rate significantly higher than the average rates at the time in exchange for the lender credits to cover those TOTAL costs. AmeriSave still charged us the higher rate without honoring the lender credits. \n\nc ) By XX/XX/XXXX, interest rates had risen significantly, and shopping for alternative offers from other lenders was no longer financially feasible. That, combined with the losses accumulated through the 2-month painful refinancing process, left us with no choice but to accept XXXX XXXX XXXX ultimatum. \n\n3.7. America 's response states : \" lender credits can not be applied in the excess of loan costs, as it would result in cash back to the consumer. '' This statement is inaccurate and intentionally misleading as we are sure that AmeriSave is aware that : a ) The CFPB is clear that \" lender credits are rate dependent charges that may decrease only if there is an accompanying changed circumstance. We have provided evidence that AmeriSave had all the correct information required by federal regulations to price the loan correctly and that there never was a valid 'changed circumstance ''. \n\nb ) There are no legal limits on how high lender credits can be. We have refinanced many properties and multiple times received cash back from the lender. See attached the Closing Disclosure for another property we refinanced earlier that same year showing {$800.00} in 'cash to the borrower ( \" XXXX '' ). But if AmeriSave 's internal policy is that \" lender credits can not be applied in excess of loan costs, '' it means the company offered us lender credits for {$9200.00}, knowing they could not honor the offer in the first place. Based on this statement, the original offer we received from AmeriSave represents a violation of fair trade laws, including deception and unfair competition. \n\nc ) Honoring the original offer would NOT have resulted in cash back to us. The {$5400.00} in lender credits that AmeriSave refused to honor would have gone to cover the cash-to-close and other closing costs as originally agreed ( See \" XXXX  '' ). \n\n3.8 AmeriSave 's response states : \" Unfortunately there was also a change in the loan amount before closing. The subordination lender had to be contacted and the subordination updated. '' This statement is misleading : a ) The loan amount changed because AmeriSave suggested the increase as the only way to avoid cash-to-close due to the higher closing costs and reduced lender credits ( see \" XXXX '' attached ). \n\nPart IV Summary of Facts. \n\nBefore signing the Loan Terms Agreement that we accepted in good faith on XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave had all the information needed to provide a fair offer and a Loan Estimate compliant with TIRD rules and federal regulations. That includes the correct property type and written acknowledgment of the HELOC subordination requirement. We have provided evidence that the property type and the HELOC subordination are not valid 'changed circumstances ' as defined by federal regulations ( see section 2.2 ).\n\nAmeriSave waited until XX/XX/XXXX, when mortgage rates had increased significantly to disclose for the FIRST TIME that they were not honoring their offer and Loan Terms Agreement because of an 'error ' in the subordination pricing. AmeriSave has acknowledged the company had been aware of the 'error ' in the subordination pricing for at least FIVE WEEKS since XX/XX/XXXX ( see sections 1.13, 3.1 ( c ), and 3.5 ( b ) ).\n\nAmeriSave consistently failed to disclose adverse material information within the period required by federal regulations ( See sections 3.1 ( c ), 3.2 ( a ), 3.3 ( a ), and 3.5 ( b ) ), which resulted in substantial monetary harm to us ( see sections 1.15 and 1.17 ). At the same time, AmeriSave repeatedly misled us into believing that the original loan terms were still valid and would be extended ( see sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.12 ). \n\nFor two months, AmeriSave systematically kept us in the dark by withholding material facts and consistently providing incorrect or misleading information about pricing changes that had a significant financial impact on us ( see sections 3.1 ( d ), 3.4 ( b ), and 3.5 ( c ) ). AmeriSave acts and practices : 1- Caused substantial monetary injury to us as customers. \n2- Hindered our decision-making by preventing us from understanding and being able to compare the company 's actual pricing against the competition.\n\n3- Prevented us from avoiding substantial monetary injury by choosing alternatives available from the competition when interest rates were still low. \n\nRegulation Z clearly states that locked rate and fees can be reset \" If that date expires before an intent to proceed is received from the consumer. '' We have provided evidence that AmeriSave received our intent to proceed and all the documentation required by federal regulations to move forward with the loan ONE MONTH before the expiration of the locked rate. We have provided evidence that AmeriSave is solely responsible for all the actions, practices and 'errors ' that delayed the closing beyond the expiry of the locked rate and the Loan Terms Agreement ( see sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 ). \n\nAmeriSave did not meet its fiduciary duty by failing to perform the due diligence to timely resolve issues resulting from its actions, letting the locked rate expire while misleading us to believe the original loan terms were being extended ( see sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.12 ).\n\nAmeriSave failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not making its associates and business partners accountable for their errors and delays. Instead, the company asked us to increase our outstanding mortgage obligation by {$8300.00} to pay for the reduced lender credits and increased closing costs that resulted from repricing the loan ( without a valid changed circumstance ) when interest rates had risen significantly ( see sections 1.13 and 1.15 ).\n\nAmeriSave provided Closing Disclosures with changed Loan Estimate amounts, failing to comply with TIRD rules and federal regulations ( see sections 1.16 for details ). As a result, AmeriSave avoided crediting the significant increase in 'Total Closing costs ( J ) ' above the legal limit as required by TIRD rules. Without a valid 'Changed Circumstance ', this constitutes a violation of the good faith disclosure standard under 12 CFR 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( tolerance violation ).\n\nThe substantial monetary injury and financial damages to our family resulting from doing business with AmeriSave go well beyond the {$8300.00} we had to pay for the companys delays and mistakes. At the end of the refinancing process, we had lost the rental income and cash flow needed to make the improvements required to rent the property as originally planned. We had to sell the investment property to the first buyer in sub-optimal condition, which resulted in ongoing annual losses that include {$61000.00} in rental income and $ XXXX in asset appreciation, among others. \n\nBased on all the incorrect, misleading, and conflicting information provided by AmeriSave in its response, it is clear that the company is not interested in performing the due diligence to properly investigate and address the unfair and deceptive practices we have highlighted with evidence.\n\nBased on the number of similar complaints filed by other customers, we are certainly not the only one injured by AmeriSaves practices. We believe that at this point, the only way to prevent AmeriSave from inflicting the same monetary injury to other customers is for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate AmeriSaves actions. We are mostly concerned that vulnerable groups may be recurring victims of similar unfair and deceptive practices.\n\nAdditional evidence in the form of emails and documents is available upon request.\n\nThank you in advance for your time and attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or need additional information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-08T21:02:14.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"208XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5750076","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-07-08T20:46:25.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["c ) The company failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not making its associates and business partners accountable for the delay and <em>errors</em> related to the property type. Instead, AmeriSave made us pay for those '<em>errors</em> ' by using them as an excuse to reprice the loan after interest rates had significantly increased."]},"sort":[3.259836,"5750076"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":4,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":4}]}},"product":{"doc_count":4,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":4,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":4,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":4}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":4,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":4}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":4,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":4}]}},"company":{"doc_count":4,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LoanCare, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":4,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":4,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","doc_count":1},{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":4,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}