Consumer complaint received 2017-01-01
Company: PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
State: MS
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other mortgage
Issue: Credit decision / Underwriting

Complaint:
XX/XX/XXXX I closed on a home in which the loan was originated by Prime Lending. Prime Lending was negligent in performing due diligence in relation to this loan. Prime Lending were not thorough in the process of this loan and failed to inform me of major changes in a timely manner as well as explain to me the implications of certain matters. I was very naive in the process of this loan and had no one that had my best interest in mind. I have been affected financially by the lack of due diligence in obtaining a clear picture of the true condition of the property. 
Prime Lending approved and passed through underwriting a property that does not meet guidelines for FHA, Fannie Mae, nor USDA rural guidelines. 
The property was being sold as is and was built XX/XX/XXXX with no updates done in the past 20 years. 
Throughout the process I consistently inquired of the originator about money being rolled into the loan to cover needed repairs. He ensured me that it was possible as long as the house appraised for more than the contract price. The appraiser did not report any needed repairs. My home owner insurance was canceled due to repairs that the insurance company requested be taken care of. When I inquired about the fact that no needed repairs was reported, I was told that it only makes the loan look better in underwriting. ( copy of text messages enclosed ) I was informed the day before closing that the amount of insurance required on the home increased and that the current insurance company was unable to quote a price that could be approved. That insurance company came to look at the property and take pictures after the closing. That company sent a notice of cancellation pending repairs. They dropped the coverage, I went back to the initial company who also cancelled the new policy due to conditions of home. This change affected the escrow causing an increase in monthly payments. 
The appraisal reported a water treatment plant on the property, however the disclosure statement provided by seller indicates a septic tank. I was unaware of the difference between the XXXX until I received a notice from the State Health Department. 
Initially the property was XXXX acres and was divided to sell the house with XXXX acres apart. The pipe from the septic tank on my property ran over onto the other property and was bust by the people who bought the remaining XXXX acres a few months after the closing on my loan.Waste from the pipe from the septic tank was flowing out onto their property which initially was all XXXX property. 
I received a letter from the Mississippi State Health department that I was not in compliance with the waste water act. ( attached ) I was responsible for installing a water treatment plant, which could have been rolled into the loan had Prime Lending performed proper due diligence and requested the proper inspections and reports. 
The appraiser suggest that an environmental inspection, however, Prime Lending did not follow through with the suggestion. I found out that I was pregnant the day prior to closing. XXXX. There were fumes in the house due to the back up of the septic tank. The fact that the home was 47 yrs and being sold " as is '' and the discrepancy on the appraisal report of a water treatment plant verses the disclosure statement that there was a septic tank should have been reason enough for Prime Lending to ensure due diligence in the condition of the property. They simply added a hold harmless clause that was presented on the day of closing. I had a mold inspection done that revealed an elevated level of mold. ( attached ) The property was appraised at XXXX acres. I was informed on the day of closing that it was only XXXX acres. There was no adjustment for this change in acreage. 
The information that was provided to the USDA underwriting was not accurate and fraudulent

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation