Product: Mortgage

I am purchasing home with an existing VA at 2.25 % subject to the assumption. When I began the initial paperwork process, I was told that the loan servicer XXXX XXXX was the servicer and XXXX XXXX was the banker who would be completing the application for the VA assumption. When I spoke with XXXX, he stated that the only 2 criteria for the VA assumption was the XXXX XXXX of XXXX or higher, and funds for the balance of the loan. After completing his questionnaire with him on the phone, I said that I would review the file once more to see what he had filled in prior to signing. After reviewing, I noticed several discrepancies including the rental income I receive, property value of the home, and a few other items. I contacted XXXX on the phone ( he was on speaker and my mom also overheard the conversation ) and brought up my concerns and requested the loan application to be updated. He said he would make the changes but that it would not show up on the portal, just on the final closing docs ( email exchange included ). Again, XXXX said it did not matter the information as there was no Debt to Income qualification, only the XXXX XXXX requirement and just that I had the funds to close, but technically, did not need to provide proof of the and that I was approved for the assumption. I showed a majority portion of the down payment of funds and said the remainder would be coming prior to the close date, and he said an email explaining that was sufficient and the loan was approved. After several days and not receiving a formal approval letter from our phone conversation stating that I met the assumption criteria, I received an email from XXXX asking if my current primary residence was leased. I stated that no, I would not market my current residence for lease or enter into a lease without the loan approval notice in writing so that I had paper documentation and would be comfortable proceeding with the purchase of the home. XXXX came back a few days after that in an email saying that my loan assumption was denied because of the number of occupants in my current residence as well as not making the required debt to income ratios. I was never asked nor told that the current number of occupants in my household currently residing with me determines my loan eligibility. My brother is not applying for this loan with me. My dependent senior mom is also not applying for this loan with me, nor is a XXXX XXXX XXXX daughter ( both who are legally claimed dependents on my tax returns ). I was shocked to say the least that this was completely different from the original loan assumption criteria that I was told both verbally and in writing via email. I provided additional information for additional rental income and told XXXX that there was inaccuracies in the application and requested follow up for their underwriting changes and criteria as well as review of my additional supporting documentation.As if today, NO ONE has bothered to contact me, request any clarifying documents or called me. I requested, in writing, several times a copy of the phone recording from the verbal approval as well as documentation from his supervisor illustrating when the loan assumption criteria had changed. I also requested follow up regarding the debt to income ratio as well as a formal denial letter, which just arrived today that specifically states I do not make the debt to income requirements as well as having too many credit inquiries in the past 12 months. I have only had XXXX XXXX for a business credit card and the one that XXXX XXXX XXXX for the VA XXXX XXXX assumption criteria in order to assume this loan and confirm the credit assumption criteria. As a single mother with a senior mom and XXXX yr old daughter, this is not only a familial status but a gender and age discrimination. This is clearly evident as the lender has refused to provide any additional correspondence, provide the recording our of conversation after several written requests, and the criteria for the assumption changing AFTER being told I was approved for the assumption as well as refusing to follow up for updated underwriting criteria. This is a blatant discrimination case that is absolutely outrageous to be occurring in 2023.