Consumer complaint received 2018-05-22
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: DC
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
I was offered mortgage financing by Quicken Loans and was assured that I had been fully approved to move forward with my home purchase with a 15 % down payment. I went under contract with a property on this basis. Upon receiving my full approval letter on or around XX/XX/XXXX, it included the requirement that I pay off an old disputed debt before being able to proceed. The disputed debt had been discussed from early in my approval process and I was repeatedly assured by Quicken that it would not affect my financing. I had scheduled various inspections for my contracted property, but after receiving the approval letter with this payoff requirement, I contacted my Quicken mortgage origination agent XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX to confirm yet again that the debt would not need to be paid off, before undertaking the costly inspections ( home inspection, structural engineer tests, radon, lead paint, chimney, and termite inspections, as well as airfare for my father to attend the inspections as he is a XXXX and was to estimate various repair costs ). XXXX confirmed ( based on feedback from his underwriters ) that my financing was still on track and said that the payoff requirement would be removed from my letter. Until that point I had been prepared to cancel the inspections, but moved forward based on his assurances. On XX/XX/XXXX after I had incurred {$2600.00} in inspection-related expenses and decided to move forward with the purchase, I was told that the debt payoff would in fact be required to enable my financing, or that I would need to provide a 20 % down payment, a {$16000.00} increase which was not feasible for me. Therefore I lost the property. I was assured by XXXX 's manager XXXX XXXX that I would be reimbursed for the inspection expenses should I lose the property, due to his team 's mistakes and internal lapses in communication. However Quicken 's  corporate leadership via XXXX XXXX has limited the compensation to {$950.00} as a 'goodwill gesture ' ( provided that I sign a liability release letter ) arguing that the inspections were at my discretion, but acknowledging that I was provided with inaccurate information by their employee and 'put in a bad position '. XXXX stated that the corporate rationale for denying my reimbursement is that Quicken does not typically pay for inspections. However this situation is atypical, as I assume Quicken does not typically mislead clients to their detriment either. A goodwill gesture is insufficient and suggests that it's acceptable for me to pay for Quicken 's mistakes. I have therefore declined to sign the liability release letter and accept the {$950.00} payment. I was proactive in engaging with Quicken, and asked the right questions. I relied on their incorrect answers to make my decisions and have lost {$2600.00}, my desired property, and countless hours in the home-buying process when I was ultimately ineligible, as well as time spent in my efforts to make recoveries from Quicken. As a consumer and first time home-buyer, I relied upon information provided by a well-regarded and sophisticated company to my detriment. I was informed today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that the {$950.00} goodwill gesture is Quicken 's final offer. This is a clear lapse in service which they have acknowledged, I therefore believe that I am entitled to full restitution.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation