Product: Mortgage

The following information details predatory loan servicing and ignored verbal and written request submitted via email and telephone contact with Midland Mortgage-Midfirst Bank , to correct erroneous escrow account charges assessed by Midland Mortgage and correct over-charged insurance coverage requirements : 1. Request made for Escrow Analysis ( previously done XX/XX/XXXX prior to insurance rate increases and erroneous charges to escrow account ). 
Numerous requests made for an escrow analysis to reflect funds credited to escrow to reduce monthly mortgage payment amount ( previously increased from {$1000.00} to currently {$1400.00}- Principle and interest = XXXX, Escrow Payment required = XXXX. Principal balance = {$91000.00} ) due to unnecessary charges to escrow account by Midland Mortgage and excessive insurance coverage requirements. 
Multiple calls were made via recorded line to Midland Mortgage-Midfirst Bank , requesting an Escrow analysis to reflect monies we credited to the escrow account to lower monthly mortgage payment to pre-increased amounts due to " insurance cost '' and incorrect debits. 

XX/XX/XXXX - Midland Mortgage debited escrow for {$680.00} for a previously paid in full homeowner 's policy. No escrow payment was requested or required, as the policy was submitted as paid in full by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX - first request for escrow analysis after paying {$2000.00} to mortgage escrow account. No response. 

XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX funds returned to escrow - ( Midland Mortgage debited in error ) called to follow up on request for escrow analysis request. Nothing was processed, made second request for escrow analysis. 

XX/XX/XXXX - sent Midland Mortgage new Windstorm policy - self paid- Provided mortgage company with paid in full receipt $ XXXX no additional payment from escrow needed. Received confirmation that lender-placed windstorm policy by the mortgage company was cancelled ( initial cost to escrow {$220000.00}, refunded to escrow {$1700.00} ). 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX - called Midland Mortgage on recorded line to follow up on windstorm insurance proof sent in and to follow up on third request for escrow analysis - told by the representative that no other records existed showing prior request. Submitted a third request to have mortgage escrow reanalyzed. Also told by loan representative that the loan was not yet updated to reflect new windstorm policy as of XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX Called Midland Mortgage ( XXXX, Teller XXXX ) insurance and escrow division to follow up on escrow analysis request and insurance documents. Told by Insurance department and escrow representative no escrow analysis has been conducted and an additional {$2000.00} was charged to my escrow account for the windstorm policy sent in on XX/XX/XXXX. Copies of the paid in full policy was provided previously ( first page of insurance documents, very difficult to miss ). Told payment was sent on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

The problem here is I called on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX and was told on a recorded line that the new windstorm policy had yet to be reflected on the loan. I requested the payment sent on XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXXXXXX be canceled, due to the fact that I provided proof that the policy was paid in full. Additionally, the windstorm policy documents submitted did not reflect or request a payment from escrow. The Midland Mortgage insurance department male representative told me that the escrow was debited for the amount of {$2000.00} because XXXX XXXXXXXX requested payment for the policy. 

At XXXX on XXXX XXXX, I contacted XXXX at XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX advised that XXXX XXXXXXXX did not request any payment from Midland Mortgage in regard to this windstorm policy. XXXX stated, " payment would not be requested or required because the policy was previously verified as paid in full ''. 

This is the second time Midland Mortgage debited my escrow account erroneously. 
The first debit was for {$660.00} XX/XX/XXXX, the second was for {$2000.00} XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Request to lower required flood level coverage per the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 Per the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, flood insurance must be equal to the lesser of : - The outstanding principal balance of the designated loan ; or -The maximum limit of insurance available for a particular type of property ( building ) under the National Flood Insurance Program , which is currently at {$250000.00} for residential buildings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received confirmation that Midland Mortgage- MidFirst Bank received our request to lower the flood insurance level requirement from {$250000.00} to reflect the outstanding principal balance of the mortgage loan as of XX/XX/XXXX {$92000.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX and the outstanding principal balance as of {$91000.00} as of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ; and credit the {$250.00} Special Insurance Cost Midland Mortgage charged the escrow account on XX/XX/XXXX. 

As of today, XX/XX/XXXX : Midland Mortgage-Midfirst Bank currently reports my escrow as negative - {$2000.00}. 
Midland Mortgage refuses to conduct an escrow analysis despite Midland Mortgage errors, numerous escrow transactions, and 4 previous requests. 

The corporation was expedient in debiting my escrow account and immediately raising my monthly mortgage payment to reflect escrow charges, but refuses to reflect escrow payments/adjustments in a timely manner or to correct their mistakes. 

Midland Mortgage has not adjusted the flood coverage requirement or responded to correspondence, per the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. 

I am requesting CFPB and FHA to fully review the mortgage servicing practices of Midland Mortgage-MIdfirst Bank . The inept and unregulated escrow and mortgage insurance practices of Midland Mortgage has cost my household more than {$4000.00} between the months of XX/XX/XXXX to current. Additionally, the company failed to act on reports of fraud conducted by insurance agents against my mortgage escrow. Midland Mortgage-Midfirst Bank unregulated practiced allowed for unauthorized transactions to be easily conducted, as the insurance agent 's submitted a fraudulent application for wind insurance policy payments.