Consumer complaint received 2017-05-17
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
In  XXXX     2017 I went to t  he Wells Fargo ( WF ) office i n  XXXX  California to apply for a mortgage to buy a second home and met with  loan officer   XXXX   XXXX . In later correspondence with the loan  officer o ver phone and email the attached pre-approval letter was issued on  XXXX   XXXX     2017. I  recently learned from a licensed mortgage professional that the pre-approval letter that  WF gav e me was not even close to conforming to   XXXX   XXXX   or  XXXX   XXXX  guidelines. Apparentl y WF mi scalculated my debt-to-income ratio and the 10 % down written on the approval was n't even possible and this kind of loan would require a 15-20 % down payment. I searched for a vacation home and when I found  one I ca lled th e WF loan officer on th e phone to run the scenario, I was told by  XXXX  that it was feasible, and I submitted an offer with  XXXX  in earnest money ( contract attached ). After the contract was accepted I immediately contacted m y WF lo an officer  XXXX  on  XXXX   XXXX  and attached the contract to my email.   On  XXXX   XXXX  ( email correspondence attached ) I was contacted b y WF and I   was requested to submit documents and pay a {$570.00} appraisal fee. I promptly submitted the documents within  24-72  hours as with each request thereafter. On  XXXX   XXXX  I received the attached disclosures and received the attached rate lock agreement on  XXXX   XXXX . *Please note that the interest rate incrementally increased between with each occurrence of the pre-approval letter, the disclosures, and the rate lock agreement and without known explanation. No one ever discussed the rate increases with me and I cant recall ever receiving any docs clearly explaining why. Soon after I was contacted b y WF Loan  Processor  XXXX   XXXX  via email and I was requested to submit documents for underwriting.   On Thursday  XXXX   XXXX  ( emails attached ) I was contacted by  XXXX  regarding a request from the underwrite r. WF st aff questioned the funds that were in my  XXXX  retirement account. I initially had a balance of roughly  22k wit h  XXXX  out in a loan to myself. I withdrew an additional {$8500.00} to garner the 10 % down payment for the home. At this point my fidelity account had an outstanding balance of {$12000.00}.  XXXX  informed me that the underwriter read the statement as saying that I initially had a {$12000.00} balance with a  XXXX  loan leading to a balance of less than  2k.  This was clearly not the case. I still had a  XXXX  balance that was more than enough for the  XXXX  of requested reserves ( see attached  XXXX  statement ). Despite the underwriters misinterpretation, the statement clearly says under the balance of {$12000.00}  (  Loans are an asset of your account but are not included in your ending balance or reflected in your asset allocation ). The statement clearly shows that I had the funds that they disputed but it appears that they didnt read it. I assumed that this was simply an oversight and that my prompt explanation would clarify the confusion. The underwriter was also concerned about an extra  XXXX  in additional summer income from my employer. I provided documentation for this issue as well.  <P/> On  XXXX   XXXX  or  XXXX   XXXX  I had not heard back fro m Wells Fargo and I s ent them an email requested a status update. They informed me that the underwriter was still not accepting my interpretation of the  XXXX  statement. I sent  XXXX  an email on  XXXX   XXXX  which further explained the correct interpretation of this statement. She contested my explanation but agreed to accept more documentation after a brief phone conversation ( please note that the contested statement as well as follow up statements clearly shows the correct income that any reasonable person should conclude this after viewing and reading the statements ). At this point I became frustrated because it appeared th at WF  was summarily rejecting the fact that I truly have the necessary funds for this loan. I later interpreted this as a tact to make it appear that the loan requirements could not possibly be fulfilled by asserting that I did not have the necessary funds.  <P/> On  XXXX   XXXX  I contacted  XXXX  to request another status update. She replied by email on  XXXX   XXXX  stating that the underwriter was still concerned about my residual summer income from my employer. I submitted an additional letter explaining this source of income and resent the memo from my employer stating that I was slated to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   for  XXXX  in income and I re-submitted the enrollment forms from my employer showing that my   XXXX   XXXX    assignment still has sufficient enrolment to receive the specified income. On  XXXX   XXXX  I was told nothing about the issue with the assets in my  XXXX  account.  <P/> On  XXXX   XXXX  I con tacted the Wells Fargo staff to requ est an additional status update and I was to ld that the loan process was awaiting a second level review by the underwriters (  see attached emails ). At this point I was concerned that the loan had apparently not moved in weeks and my contract terms were due to expire ( see attached contract ). I was additionally concerned because the appraisal was conducted 10 days prior an d WF was unre sponsive to my and my realtors requests for a copy. I requested a copy on  XXXX   XXXX  and  my Realtor  requested a copy on  XXXX   XXXX . A copy of the appraisal was needed to determine if there were any conditions and whether we needed to fix them. I finally received a copy of the appraisal by mail on  XXXX   XXXX  roughl y two  weeks after it was conducted. I dont understand why they were unwilling to email me a copy much earlier in the process, which is a common courtesy granted to loan applicants in the industry. I later interpreted this as an unwillingness to proceed with the loan.  <P/> At this point in the process I was frustrated that the loan application, which apparently had not moved in weeks and I sent complaint emails on  XXXX   XXXX  and  XXXX   XXXX . I also left a voicemail w ith Branch Manager   XXXX   XXXX . The next morning I noticed an email from  Wells Fargos lo an tracker system that was received the night before at  XXXX  on  XXXX   XXXX , which was the same day that I sent the first complaint email. When I logged into loan tracker I noticed requests for a number of documents. The requests were for up-to-date statements from each of my creditors for unsecured debts. The due dates for the documents were for  XXXX   XXXX , but I just received the requests in the system at  XXXX  on  XXXX   XXXX  the same day that I initiated the complaints. I checked loan tracker every day and these document requests were not there until after  XXXX  on  XXXX   XXXX . I sent  Wells Fargo staff an email voicing my concerns about this ( a ttached ). They did not respond but I did notice that later the same day the due dates for the documents were changed to be  XXXX   XXXX , thus due the next day. This was simply an unreasonable deadline.  <P/> Friday afternoon,  XXXX   XXXX  the branch  manager   XXXX   XXXX  responded to my voicemail and called me on the phone to discuss the situation. He told me that both the issue of my residual summer income and the initial misinterpretation of the funds in my  XXXX  account were still the issues of concern that were delaying my loan process. He mentioned that even without the contested summer income I was possibly close to qualifying for the loans debt-to-income ratio requirement and that there was a possibility of paying off the unsecured credit card debts to meet the requirement. He requested many of the same documents again and he sent me an email so that I could reply with the docs ( attached ). To date I have not heard back from him. Both issues holding this loan up seemed to be unreasonable because based on the information that they had given me, it appeared that these issues could had easily been resolved if WF staff would had proposed the option of paying off debts and if they would had been more willing to cooperate with the issue on the  XXXX  statement, which they continued to misinterpret. I was under the impression that these issues were not the real problem and that t here may be so me other explanation for the misinterpretations and arbitrary rejections of the facts and explanations that I had presented. This pattern coupled with a failure to keep me updated on the loan status, an apparent lack of will to assist me in meeting the underwriters alleged requirements, and unfair document requests and deadlines alerted me that something was seriously wrong. Until this time I naively assumed that everything was working out due to past replies that they were working on my loan and due to the fact that they never gave me any clear indication that it was not going to work out ( see emails  ).   <P/> Upon suspecting that something was wrong with this process I contacted a licensed mortgage professional who informed me that given my financial situation that there was no way that I can possibly be approved for a second home loan either currently or at the time of being given pre-approval b y WF,   according to   XXXX   XXXX   and  XXXX   XXXX  guidelines. This inability to qualify is mostly due to the down payment requirement but is also due to high debt-to-income ratio. It appears that under new guidelines student loan debt must be calculated differently and counted more heavily against many applicants, thus making it extremely difficult for me to qualify.  WF staff never once mentioned this to me. This was a serious red flag because the WF branch manager  told me that the process was being held up in underwriting because they need to write these loans stringently so that they can meet guidelines and be sold to an investor. If my loan application was to conform to such guidelines than the criteria that I was told that they were supposedly processing my loan by at the time of pre-approval and throughout the process was apparently erroneous. I suspect  that WF staf f must have become aware of this early in the process.  <P/> In this pr ocess WF staff h ad unfairly delayed the loan by repeatedly contesting my bank statements when the facts were clear. I provided some doc s 3 an d even 4 times and in several occasions they didnt update me or request documents until I contacted them, which also delayed the process. They contested my income from my employer an d WF  kept wearing me down with impossible document requests, which I believe was intended to make it appear that the delays were due to my failure to meet their burden and not their failure to process the loan. All along it appears that I was never even close to meeting standard guidelines for such a loan. More than 30 days have passed since the loan application docs were submitted and I have not received a decision. Furthermore, the interest rates incrementally increased with each document ( pre-approval, disclosures, and rate lock ) without any known explanation as to why.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation