Product: Mortgage

At the time I obtained the mortgage prompting this complaint, I was not a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as I am now, nor had I been for a couple of years. I have since renewed my license, here in UT ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). This complaint is derived from what I understand to be several compliance issues. I have tried my best to resolve this with the company and have offered them ample opportunity to remedy. I feel as though, not only is this what I should do as a consumer, but more importantly as a XXXX XXXX XXXX. On or near the first of XX/XX/XXXX, I sought out Veritas Funding , LLC ( Veritas, company ), with the specific intent to obtain a XXXX XXXX Homestyle XXXX ( Homestyle  ) loan. Several years prior, I had worked for the company and knew then President, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). He told me Veritas did originate the homestyle loan and that he would connect me with a loan officer who is experienced with that product. The next day I received a phone call from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). I talked with him about why I wanted to switch from a construction loan to a homestyle loan, which would cancel my application with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and put it with Veritas. He asked if I would send him the lending scenario I was looking for and asked that I copy XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). I did just that, with the email ( s )  subject line of, Homestyle Renovation No Cash Out Quote Request. I applied for the mortgage on the afternoon of Friday, XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX Veritas locked my loan, for 45 days. I received the first loan estimate ( LE ) on XX/XX/XXXX. We were not ready to close by the XX/XX/XXXX expiration date and an extension was needed. I was charged for this first extension. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a closing disclosure ( XXXX XXXX and was told that the increased amount in Loan Costs Origination line A was because it was locked on the wrong program and when it was switched to the homestyle loan there was a negative adjustment to price. ( Mind you, I did not understand, at the time, that this was not a bona-fide change of circumstance. ) The explained benefit was that rather than an extension it was a new lock, which did not have a cost associated as it was new rather than being extended. But the lock, overall, had a cost due to the program type. I had been told that the last extension was at no cost to me, via text message with XXXX and email from XXXX. The change of circumstance did show a change to the homestyle loan, but it wasnt until I went through the classes, when renewing my license, that I learned more about TRID and understood Veritas shouldnt have charged me for their mistake. Further, the Disclosure Tracking documents in the loan file they sent me, show a consumer requested program change, which is not the case. Additionally, I paid {$400.00} to the HUD Consultant for a service that I could not shop for, upon his first visit to my home on XX/XX/XXXX. This fee has not been accounted for properly on any of the disclosures. Veritas had told the contractor how much money could be requested as an advance, {$110000.00}, extending one half of all funds including the contingency reserves. When I looked up and sent the homestyle  guidelines to XXXX and XXXX, I was told that they would check with their investor and would stay within guidelines. I expressed that I felt the amount they suggested was too much, that I wanted guidelines to be followed, and that my contractor was willing to receive a smaller advance. Rather than one half of the [ building ] material funds, Veritas cut a a single party check to the contractor, for the full {$180000.00}. By this time, I thought my right of recission was over and there was nothing I could do. In XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a QWR to Veritas, and to their investor ( my servicer ) XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, both answered that they investigated and found no error ( s ). Veritas wrote they were not bound by the XXXX XXXX Homestyle guidelines, but were bound to the Loan Agreement ( the construction contract ). They did not send a copy of the contract but wrote that I could request it. XXXX did send the document, with their answer and a copy of Veritas answer. The loan agreement was a blank at closing, except for my signature in two places and the notary. Had I not signed it, the closing would have been delayed. The document was completely blank, without parties, without property, without terms, void any information aside from my signature. Veritas filled it in, and did not offer me a copy to acknowledge nor agree to the terms. Veritas also had the rider updated without allowing me to acknowledge the change before it was recorded. I have emails from title verifying that my contract was blank at closing and they do not have a completed copy. I have emails from title verifying the update to the rider without my acknowledgment. On or around the XXXX of XXXX, XXXX, I requested a copy of all my LE and CD documents. I received them on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX Veritas attempted to cure the differences between section B on the Loan E and section B on the CD. I did not cash the check because there were still material errors on the disclosures. I tried many times via phone and email to reconcile these errors with Veritas. They have refused to talk to me about the remaining issues. I decided to  rescind my mortgage because of the continued errors in the disclosure of the finance charges associated with my mortgage. I stopped making payments in XX/XX/XXXX, while I put together an airtight notice, in hopes that they would finally investigate and comply with regulations. I sent the Notice of Rescission to Veritas on the XX/XX/XXXX. Rather than unwinding the transaction, Veritas responded on XX/XX/XXXX via their attorney. I have not retained legal council and am sending my response back to them as soon as this complaint is done.