Product: Mortgage

This claim is pursuant to the following : COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/XXXX As of XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB issued a response to this complaint indicating that the individual was not an " authorized individual '' on the account. This information is false as the individual has been listed as an authorized user in-person, through loan servicing, and has been the primary point of contact for the duration of the account. XXXX 's reply is a false representation of the client relationship, and the reply is an attempt to ignore the claim. 

Furthermore, an agent of the bank called the aforementioned individual on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX to discuss the matter, stating they needed to verify identity, despite multiple calls and communications that did not require such clearance. Based on the timeline of events, we contend that XXXX received the initial CFPB complaint and decided to cease all efforts to resolve the dispute, in effect retaliating to the initial complaint. 
________ INITIAL COMPLAINT In Fall XXXX, we entered discussions with First National Bank of Pennsylvania ( XXXX ) to purchase and renovate a new home. ( Home B ) The mortgage loan officer we worked with advised us to purchase the home with a conventional mortgage ( Loan A ), and to finance the renovation of that home by taking out loans against our current residence at the time. ( Home A ) We were referred to a local branch here in Maryland, where the assistant branch manager, operating as our loan officer, recommended a HELOC ( Loan C ) as well as a consolidation loan ( Loan B ) in order to maximize our loan amount. During the application process, we reviewed our finances and XXXX ratio at length in order to land on the amount to consolidate into " Loan B '' and to confirm how these new payments for " Loans B and C '' would fit into our financial picture ; " XXXX XXXX '' had a fixed payment and " Loan C '' was quoted at a payment amount " NOT TO EXCEED $ XXXX '' making both payments against " Home A '' no more than {$1800.00} per month in total, which we deemed affordable. We entered into the loan agreements ( virtually ) in XXXX of XXXX. 

Our first payments were due in XX/XX/XXXX for Loans B and C ; however, by XXXX of XXXX with roughly XXXX of the total loan amount withdrawn, our payment amount for Loan C approached and then exceeded the original $ XXXX. And this time I notified the assistant branch XXXX and asked what happened to our original payment amount, and was told they would look into it, but nothing resulted from that. I continued to make payments but inquire about the ballooning loan amount, and was offered solutions ( Exercising the lock option on the HELOC ; refinancing ) in order to get the payments back to what we were expecting ; but ABSOLUTELY NO reference or resolution to what went wrong in the first place. 

Over the course of the next 6 months or so the following transpired : ( XXXX ) The lock option was never instituted ; ( XXXX ) we had an updated ( in-person ) appraisal of " Home A '' in an effort to adjust the loan ratio on the home, which came back lower than the original appraisal ; ( XXXX ) we were offered a refinance consolidation on " Loans B and C '' which would get the payments " around $ XXXX '' that was denied due to derogatory reporting from FNB. ( 4 ) During this lengthy process we were offered payment deferment that could only be applied for " Loan B ; for " Loan C '' the loan officer offered to intercede with loan servicing/loss mitigation on our behalf until the situation was resolved. By XX/XX/XXXX, we were left with ( 1 ) adverse credit reporting, ( 2 ) a denied refinance option by the banks own doing, and ( 3 ) the possibility of foreclosure on " Home A. '' Throughout this process, I had been requesting resolution of the original issue, " the payment exceeding what we were quoted, '' but was unable to speak with anyone in a management or oversight position across departments in the bank, and frequently stalled or redirected to another department. ( mortgage servicing, the branch officers, and loan servicing ) When I inquired if there was a supervisor over the in-branch operations that I could speak to on my behalf, I was told no, but to submit documentation that would be forwarded up the chain. ( correspondence attached ) I received no reply to the original complaint or the subsequent issues I laid out on the correspondence, but was advised to complete a hardship application as yet another solution to get the payments lowered. ( XXXX XXXX ) I continued to try to find a resolution while our hardship package was under review. I finally got a call from a Market Manager in October 2022 with whom I discussed this entire situation at length, where she acknowledged that this was a complex problem with several issues and points of ill-advice. ( She expressed concern regarding the fact that we signed out of office without full disclosure from our loan officer and no notary present ) I submitted the information that she requested, but did not hear back until XXXX XXXX when she shared that she had escalated our situation and was still awaiting reply. In the meanwhile, loan servicing replied with a hardship offer to make the HELOC ( Loan C ) payment XXXX based on our income, but nowhere near the $ XXXX quoted to us, plus resuming the payments for Loan B. We were given conflicting information by which to submit an appeal and payment. We even requested a payoff amount with the option of selling our home -- the loan payoff amounts include the entire principal loan amount, interest for all of XXXX, late fees and additional charges. We also learned that they never filed a lien on Home A ( mishandled by the back office ) Currently, we are still awaiting more information from the market managers escalation ; however, loan servicing is expecting a modification payment by XXXX XXXX. ( They concede that loss mitigation is not able to solve our problem and the solution lies with loan origination. ) Throughout this process, there have been multiple failings across various departments within this financial institution : poor customer service ; a delay in or lack of responsiveness ; incompetence and misleading advice so far as nefarious attempts to sell us additional banking products under the false pretense of remedying an issue. Instead, we ( my family and I ) as consumers have endured undue financial stress and penalty, as well as a loss of time, energy and emotional labor throughout the duration of our relationship with the First National Bank of Pennsylvania.