Product: Mortgage

I applied for a Discover XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX due to needing home improvements.

My information couldn't be processed, so I was directed to call them, which I did XX/XX/XXXX, the next day. 
I spoke with the first of MANY individuals in what I was soon to learn an obscenely stressful, frustrating, and arduous process. 
This individual took all of my information for the application over the phone to see what I could get pre-approved. She asked me about a mortgage on the home, which I had to end up stating SEVERAL times over the course of the single phone call, that this home was PAID OFF, and had NEVER had a lien against it in the time since the co-owner and I had purchased it - this, surprisingly, became an issue throughout the ENTIRE process. I was pre-approved for {$50000.00} with an estimated home value over {$200000.00} - again, the home being PAID OFF. The primary usage for this XXXX  is for a new, higher quality, roof with various repairs as well, and the remainder for debt consolidation. The banker was even happy to report that, should everything proceed accordingly, funds would be fully dispersed to my account, as my debt-to-income ratio was more than adequate.

I was directed to start uploading various documents to their online portal, and that I would be assisted by a 2nd rep who specialized in document collection - Government Photo ID, authorization forms, copy of voided check with routing and account number, property tax statements, XXXX years worth of XXXX, paystubs, and the start of the problematic, my XXXX  Declaration pages and current mortgage billing statement. Again, home is paid off, and NEVER had a mortgage statement since my ownership. It took several calls back and forth, speaking to different reps every time, to FINALLY get it through to them that the home was paid off, or so I thought. I then received ANOTHER e-mail and update on the portal 'asking for clarification ' because it seems to them that 'the home is paid off '. Please make this breakdown in internal communication make sense. This all taking place over the course of about 3-4 days. 
I told the XXXX rep, that the co-owner was the XXXX policy holder, with myself listed as a co-owner and occupant of the home. I was told this would not be an issue, despite my being the sole applicant for the XXXX  at the advice and direction of the banker. It took several calls between Discover and my XXXX provider to get on the same page. My provider was NOT a fan of having to add Discover to the loan BEFORE the loan would even be CONSIDERED for underwriting. We were told that even a binder would not be sufficient, and that they REQUIRED to be added to the XXXX as a XXXX mortgagee or the loan would just be instantly denied- not incomplete, or offered to withdraw, but sent explicitly for denial. This started a run around because they would be the PRIMARY mortgagee, something that the FIRST rep established on XXXX. After finally getting my XXXX  updated and showing what was requested, I submitted documentation. I was then contacted a day or so later stating that they had not received anything from my provider. I called and spoke to a XXXX rep on XX/XX/XXXX, as the XXXX peer, was unavailable. She attached my documentation from the provider to my loan, without issue, and stated that that was the last bit of information that they needed, and that my XXXX XXXX XXXX would be in touch with me in XXXX hours, and that the process should move quickly from there. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received email communication from the XXXX stating that they needed ID scans and relationship information of the co-owner/policy holder for the XXXX. I complied. 
My XXXX then stated that they had not yet received information and confirmation from my provider for XXXX. I told her the individuals name that I spoke with, with a date and time, stating that I had already sent that all over after contacting my provider in order to assist in expediting the process. I then had to upload this XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I was contacted by the XXXX via e-mail asking me to contact my XXXX  provider to add Discover as a SECOND mortgagee on the policy, and to submit this information. 
I grew increasingly agitated and irate at this point. 
I called and spoke with yet ANOTHER employee, and my XXXX  was not available by phone. I explained to them this process, and the back and forth with the XXXX, and now being requested as a XXXX mortgagee. They looked into it and assured me that they had everything, and that I looked good to go on their end. I had had an offer for a new job shortly before this. I asked this representative how this would impact my XXXX  process that we, as every employee I spoke to agreed, were through some of the hardest parts of. I was told that a job change is not the end of the world in this case, as long as I met various conditions, the main one being that my career change were in the same field. I spend 12 YEARS with my previous company, and XXXX in my field. My new offer was not only in my field, but also a pay increase. The representative assured me that that should pose XXXX issues, but since they were not my XXXX, they would relay all of the information to my XXXX, and REQUEST THAT SHE CALL ME ON THE PHONE to go over all of these details. I had FULL control over the end and start dates from my companies as well, which I was told would just make this process painless. I also had statements and offer letters from my new companies VP and HR that had the company name, my new title, my salary, and start date. This was on Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX. 
I never received a call. 
Instead, I wake up to an e-mail on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, simply stating that 'since you'll be starting a new job and the current wages we have shown to qualify will not continue, it is our policy that we ask that you simply reapply once you've started your new job and have at least XXXX weeks wages. At this time, we are not able to proceed forward and once you've switched jobs and have your new XXXX weeks of wages available you can reapply and well move all of the documents to the new application '. The e-mail was then ended with a note that it was being sent to the underwriter for denial. Why was I not offered the chance to withdraw this application or have it rest until these new wages, but instead sent for denial. This was not what I was told to expect by multiple reps. So I received conflicting information. I attempted to call my XXXX  TWICE, seeing as I had requested she called me MULTIPLE times, which I still have not to this day, before finally speaking to a rep that wished to hear me out. 
This rep explained that since my job was in the same field, and everything I had attempted, they would forward everything to my XXXX  superior to contact me. 
I was contacted several hours later by an individual whose email signature also denotes him as an XXXX. He apologized for the length of time to contact, and that he was reading the information forwarded from the rep, and going through my logs and updates to get a better understanding of my situation. He sounded inconvenienced, and like he was just script reading. After going through everything AGAIN, I asked what could be done, seeing as this all could have been avoided if my XXXX had originally called me to discuss my job change, so that I could finalize and set concrete start and end dates. I was told nothing would come of it. I inquired about the hard credit inquiry that I sustained, and now that I was going to have to reapply after XXXX, but still wouldn't be able to process until XX/XX/XXXX at the earliest, which is when I would have a paystub from my new employer. I inquired about what would happen as I would likely sustain ANOTHER hard inquiry, and how that would impact my potential interest rate that I had locked down from the start. I was told they couldn't say. I was told that they could do nothing for this situation, and that the XXXX who failed to call me would be 'coached ' and this situation used as a learning opportunity. This is an XXXX whose XXXX ID goes back to XXXX, and another XXXX with this individual with another institution prior to Discover. So, a 'seasoned ' or 'tenured ' individual. This shouldn't have happened to start with. 
The individual who claimed to be the supervisor said that he would contact the underwriter and forward everything I had and that we spoke about to see if they would change their decision. They did not. He then forwarded it to upper management, citing the same. As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, I was told the declination would remain. The supervisor this go around sounded significantly more remorseful, and even stated he would feel exactly the same frustrations, and owned up to this ALL being avoidable had I been able to discuss everything with my XXXX  to begin with, and this whole situation would have been avoided.