Consumer complaint: In XXXX 2015, we contacted Bank of America ( BoA ) regarding pre-qualifying for a mortgage on a second home in California. On XXXX XXXX we received a letter of pre-approval indicating an interest rate of XXXX. We found a house we wanted to make an offer on. We soon learned that California is a very competitive seller 's market and our contract had no financing contingency and very short time frames for appraisal and inspection, and closing. Our offer, while not the highest, was accepted because we did not require immediate occupancy. The Owner had given tenant verbal, but not written notice and he was entitled to sixty days. This situation was explained to our loan officer and the final contract written " tenant to remain in possession ''. 
Throughout the loan process, BoA failed to follow their stated guidelines for prompt response. This was very frustrating to us due to the short deadlines imposed by our sales contract. On XXXX I advised my loan officer of my dissatisfaction and asked for assurance that the closing date promised was still good. During the week of XXXX the escrow company also tried unsuccessfully to reach our loan officer. I finally received an email on XXXX that our loan officer was " looking into '' what was taking so long in underwriting. On XXXX FOR THE FIRST TIME, BoA raised the issue of the tenant. I immediately responded that this had been explained from the onset, that the tenant would be given 60 day notice immediately, and asked why this was being raised just before closing when BoA had been in possession of the Final Counter Offer for almost 30 days. I also asked for an IMMEDIATE response on the interest rate as BoA intimated that this could affect the rate. 
I received no response until the Friday before closing was to occur, when a new " manager '' contacted us. We were asked to furnish additional documents, which we did ; I asked why these documents were being requested on the last business day before closing and why the tenant issue was raised for the first time just before closing. The manager acknowledged that these issues should have been handled earlier and implied the loan had been mishandled. When I again asked for a response to my question about the interest rate, I was told FOR THE FIRST TIME it would be XXXX based on a rental not XXXX as a second home. I then told him that the definition of XXXX home required intent to occupy as a residence and occupancy within sixty days. This is the legal definition of occupancy used by the Federal government/ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He then said that because of all the problems he would reduce the rate to XXXX. I told him that was UNACCEPTABLE ; and to go back to underwriting and determine if a copy of the 60 day vacancy notice to the tenant would satisfy them. We thought the issue was resolved when XXXX XXXX called back and said that an addendum to the sale contract stating that tenant would vacate in 60 days of closing would suffice. A short time later, XXXX XXXX called back and told us that underwriting had changed its mind and required immediate occupancy upon closing. This all occurred after business hours on the Friday before we were to close! At this point, we were convinced BoA was doing a last minute " bait and switch '' and had dragged this out intentionally in order to force us into a loan at a higher rate. 

Company response: Company chooses not to provide a public response