Product: Mortgage

This is in addition to Complaint XXXX - I would like to add this to that complaint data. 

This morning at XXXX XXXX  I was sent a letter of credit denial, with the reasons marked 1 ) income insufficient for the amount of credit requested and 2 ) excessive obligations in relation to income. 

This is shocking to me that I'd be receiving this with these two reasons marked on a letter of credit denial. From my first interaction with loan officer XXXX XXXX, we discussed income and obligations, which I was reassured over and over that we had no issues and were going to be able to move forward. XXXX sent over a list of obligations, including which obligations would be paid off with the loan application. I provided proof of income as directed early on. At this point of the application process, should the debt and income ratio not work, there would be no need to cause the consumer ( Me ) more financial strain by asking the consumer ( Me ) to pay for an appraisal of the property. Again this was in the previous complaint, the figure was {$220.00} for the appraisal, and yet XXXX advised me to add that debt to a credit card that we would pay off and the appraisal charge was actually {$550.00}. 

By leading me down the application path further, even though having the information that was used from a credit report for denial now was available up front - I wasted not only time, but money by trusting Carrington Mortgage. I was reassured multiple times, that everything looks good. I'd like to note, if Carrington Mortgage is using an XXXX, this would eliminate reassurances over and over that everything looks good ( which was stated in emails and phone calls ) and I would have been made aware that I would be denied before committing further. 

By representing the loan application the way XXXX XXXX and Carrington Mortgage did and omit the fact that my debt to income ratio was to high, I was misled over and over and the loan application process took well over 30 days which is a violation of ECOA. The information that was used for a letter of denial was information that was received up front, and if my denial is not a response to my initial complaint about this which was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, this information would have been disclosed in a letter of credit denial up front and within 30 days. 

This is not only an unfair ( as it did cause harm, was unavoidable to move forward with the loan application, and I did not receive any countervailing benefit ). This loan application and process contained multiple deceptive act when I was made reassurances over and over that everything was good, and we were just in processing, that I was essentially approved for the loan even when XXXX XXXX sent a list of debt obligations to me that would be paid, and how the loan would be broken down. There are also abusive acts knowing I was looking to pay off obligations and eliminate high APR debt, the loan officer advised I get into more debt by paying for an appraisal with a credit card ( which if they are truly denying me for income/debt, would have never been orders and not denying me as a result of a complaint against their company ). Additionally, should there be any information up front discovered on the application or through the use of an agency report about an applicant that would lead to a denial that is not dependent on the property, this would prevent potenital abusive acts. 

Carrington Mortgage may be one of the most dishonest companies I've dealt with, this is not a surprise that the CFPB has found them worthy of fines recently. I'd encourage the CFPB to review the lending practices of Carrington Mortgage, not just the servicing practices. There is clearly a lack of policies, procedures and training in place for employees of this organization. 

I emailed XXXX XXXX directly before filing this complaint and that email is below. 

Email sent to XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2022 XXXX XXXX  to XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am receiving this letter of denial this morning. The reasons stated a

re 1 ) income insufficient for the amount of credit requested and 2 ) excessive obligations in relation to income. I had filed a complaint with the CFPB last week and will be adding this information, as reference in follow up. This level of unprofessionalism is unacceptable. 

As you are aware, during the application phase, we discussed the 1 ) reason income and credit obligations in depth. There were no issues with income or obligations, thus we moved forward with an appraisal which I then paid for. If there were issues, these initial discussions are where you'd stop the application and not cost the consumer ( me ) more money ( harm in the eyes of the CFPB ). Additionally, if this income being insufficient was the true reason, that would never have pushed an application through especially if you're using a XXXX. As for the loan amount, as we had previously discussed, we would review the loan amount and see what options there were based on the value of the home, as the income was not an issue from the beginning. For the 2 ) reason - The point of a 2nd mortgage was to eliminate debt obligations and thus the second point wouldn't be relevant to a denial unless there were other reasons beyond income as there is nothing mentioned about the collateral being insufficient. Again, if the obligations were excessive, this information would have been used up front and not cost the consumer ( me ) financial harm ( in the eyes of the CFPB ). 

Also this denial letter is out of compliance as it does not select the box for using a credit agency to obtain information used in the denial. 

Multiple issues throughout this process, and of course to finish this process. Lack of communication, even when I made phone call attempts I was ignored. Not just by you, but others who I left messages with. This is a complete lack of integrity by you, and Carrington Mortgage which clearly is a pattern as the CFPB did just fine your company in XXXX. I will note for your records, your company has also violated UDAAP in multiple ways through this process in addition to a call in XXXX on my first mortgage with a harassing collection call when I was not past due. 

Clearly a pattern of deceptive, abusive acts and practices.