Consumer complaint received 2019-09-13
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: SC
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
In XXXX of XXXX we refinanced our mortgage with XXXX. Said mortgage is serviced by US Bank, including the escrow account associated with many traditional mortgages. Until this year, we have had no issue with payments being made from the escrow account. 

We received a statement from our insurer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX which referenced a premium due of {$4300.00}. This differed from the estimate used for our escrow payments of {$4000.00}. With our monthly payments of XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, we made additional payments of {$150.00} and {$150.00} respectively to make up for the escrow shortage. We have never been late on a monthly payment, and review our escrow statements annually for accuracy and make up any shortages. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, we received a Final Payment Reminder - Impending Cancellation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, we called XXXX to verify if payment had crossed in the mail, which it had not. To ensure that our policy was not cancelled, XXXX XXXX made the minimum payment by phone in the amount of {$730.00} at XXXX. 

Also dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, we received a letter from US Bank requesting we provide insurance information for the property, the tone of which we did not appreciate considering that : 1 ) we had never made a late payment ; and 2 ) we escrow funds for US Bank to pay insurance and property taxes. Also on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX called US Bank to find out why we were receiving letters of cancellation, both from our insurer and US Bank, for funds that were escrowed to pay for the insurance. The final representative we spoke with on that day was XXXX at XXXX. He claimed that they never received the insurance statement, that US Bank had called XXXX once to request one and did not receive a response, and that was the only action taken. No follow-up was done by US Bank, other than to send the aforementioned unappreciated letter. During this call, XXXX conferenced XXXX XXXX in with XXXX at XXXX. We verified the policy, that the amount due was the full {$4300.00} and our partial payment of {$730.00} should not be taken into account, and XXXX promised XXXX with XXXX, with XXXX XXXX on the line, that payment would be sent out the following day which would have been XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX was then transferred to the escrow department when she spoke with XXXX regarding the process for requesting an escrow waiver, to include the escrow waiver fee, as this series of events was wholly unacceptable. The instructions were followed, and the escrow waiver was granted, to include the escrow waiver fee, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX called the US Bank escrow department to inquire as to how long after a waiver is granted will the account be reconciled, closed, and the balance of funds returned to us. XXXX XXXX spoke with XXXX at XXXX and was informed that the escrow account balance of {$2000.00} was emptied on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, that the check had not yet been sent, and that the checks are typically mailed within one week of account closure. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX called the automated insurance line for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to learn that the payment of {$4300.00}, which was supposed to have been made on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, was not posted to the account. XXXX XXXX immediately called US Bank and spoke with XXXX at XXXX in their escrow department to inform them the payment had not been received by XXXX. She checked the record to find that the payment on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX was made to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Iowa. Additionally, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payment in the amount of {$4300.00} was sent to XXXX and XXXX XXXX - the insurance agent for the XXXX. Both of these payments were returned, naturally, as they were issued to the incorrect payee even after XXXX XXXX heard XXXX speak with XXXX at XXXX, promising to make full and appropriate payment. 

XXXX XXXX then spoke with XXXX at XXXX in the US Bank insurance department who informed her that a third check was sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at their address in XXXX PA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX countered that the number of checks sent do not matter if the checks do not clear. XXXX then informed XXXX XXXX that the payments could not be sent because US Bank requires evidence of insurance from XXXX, which they did not received until XXXX XXXX. This was not mentioned - at all - in any previous conversation, especially in the conference with XXXX of US Bank and XXXX of XXXX in which XXXX promised to send payment on XXXX XXXX, nor by XXXX in the escrow department who referenced two prior checks being sent. XXXX XXXX informed XXXX that she believed that US Bank had proven their gross incompetence, and that anything short of a check in the amount of {$4300.00} sent to the XXXX   via XXXX was unacceptable, and that she considered the fact that they had collected escrow funds that were not paid out in a timely and appropriate fashion to be theft in light of the phone calls made by XXXX XXXX to rectify the situation. XXXX responded that he would like to do that, but could not until an appropriate amount of time had passed for the check to arrive at XXXX and clear the bank. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX again called the XXXX automated insurance line to learn that the payment still had not been applied to the account. This is ten business days after the third check was supposedly sent, but in light of the history and misinformation provided by US Bank the XXXX harbor doubt that the third check was even sent. 

As millions of mortgagees entrust their money to mortgage servicing companies, per said companies ' and mortgagors ' requirements, to fulfill obligations of insurance requirements and property taxes, these accounts are regulated. This series of events cause concern that US Bank is not taking their responsibilities to their account holders seriously. The XXXX live in XXXX South Carolina - a hurricane-prone area - and this lapse occurred during hurricane season. Knowing how difficult it was to bind insurance in the first place, the XXXX have serious concerns about what their ability to rebind would have been if they had not been proactive in addressing the notices received. Many are not, and while they do have the ultimate burden of responsibility, it does not diminish that US Bank broke their trust by not properly addressing their responsibilities. More, many mortgagees can not afford to pay their insurance outside of the escrows they have already paid, putting them at further risk. 

We thank you for your assistance to ensure that US Bank fulfills their obligation to other account holders. If I could refinance with no fees to remove all my business from US Bank, I would. 

Also on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, at

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