Product: Mortgage

SYNOPSIS OF COMPLAINT : We believe that Suntrust Mortgage violated Regulation Z, section 226.36 by failing to credit the payment we made on XX/XX/XXXX via their website. Section 226.36 ( c ) requires loan servicers to credit a payment to a consumer 's loan account as of the date it is received. 

Our records indicate that Suntrust Bank received our payment on XX/XX/XXXX and is confirmed with the following confirmation message XXXX that we received via email on XX/XX/XXXX : " This is your confirmation notification that you have successfully submitted a Make a One-Time  Payment request in the amount of {$1400.00} effective XX/XX/XXXX. Please ensure that you have funds available on that date in your account. You must contact Client Services to cancel or stop this draft. '' When we made a second payment through the portal on their website on the same day, Suntrust Bank subsequently canceled our payment unbeknownst to us and reported us to the credit bureau with a 30-day late receipt of payment. 

We received a final denial letter from Suntrust citing a statement on their website about the acceptance of multiple payments being the reason for the denial. Suntrust is in violation of UDAAP as it relates to this statement. Under UDAAP, written disclosures may be insufficient to correct a misleading statement or representation. The confirmation of both payments is misleading. It represents that both payments have been accepted. Additionally, this statement is not in close enough proximity to the actual payment being made if it does not appear on the payment page itself. 

We made this payment on Suntrust 's old portal : https : //suntrustmortgage.customercarenet.com. 

The new site https : //www.suntrust.comXX/XX/payment-options outlines the three types of payment options available and the restrictions for each type of payment. The old site did not do that. The new site even adds a suggestion of how to avoid having payments canceled on their archaic system. The old site did not. Regardless, Suntrust 's practice of canceling payments made by consumers after sending confirmation to them that their payments have been made, is a deceptive practice that causes injury to consumers by way of increased interest rates due to unfair credit reporting. 

OVERVIEW On XX/XX/XXXX, I navigated to the SunTrust Mortgage website and made a payment on their website for {$1400.00}. After I made the payment, I realized that there was still a late fee pending on the account, so I made a second payment in the amount of {$56.00}. I also received a confirmation for that payment. Having received confirmations for both payments, I believed - like any reasonable person - that my obligation for my XXXX loan payment had been satisfied. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I went online to get an amortization schedule from the Suntrust website, and I saw a note that the payment for XXXX was still showing due. I called in and was told that SunTrust had canceled my payment for the mortgage and only accepted the late payment. The representative told me that their system was set up to only receive one payment per day, so the last payment made on the account for the late payment was the only payment accepted. I asked the representative why, and she stated that this was the way the system was set up. I immediately made the payment for XXXX and XXXX. The representative told me that our missed payment had already been reported to the credit bureau, which was particularly worrisome because we have contracted to purchase a new home in the XX/XX/2019. This 30-day late would adversely affect our credit and our ability to purchase our new home. I asked if I could file a dispute. I was put through to a representative who told me that this was a known problem, and that he could easily complete the dispute to have the credit report amended for us and " have this taken care of. '' I believed - like any reasonable person would - that my dispute had been accepted. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter that our request to have the 30-day late removed from our credit report had been denied. I called in and asked to speak with a supervisor. The supervisor stated that we had to put in another dispute request in writing, which we did promptly. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a letter stating that our dispute had been denied. At this time, the letter referenced the reason for our denial as a note on the website that states that the company only accepts one payment per day.