Consumer complaint received 2016-09-14
Company: PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES
State: CO
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker

Complaint:
Due to talk of increasing rates I decided to check out pricing of a XXXX fixed on Provident Fundings ( PF ) website on XXXX. PF offers a pricing tool on website that shows current pricing they offer with certain assumed criteria. If criteria were not met I knew adjustments may change but base pricing would be same. On XXXX pricing shown on website at 2.875 % for 15 year fixed would have covered all closing costs with any remaining credit applied to prepaid items. Those were my desired terms & why I chose to submit app with PF on XXXX, refi from existing ARM to fixed keeping rate at XXXX & pricing would cover all closing costs. I completed app online with my borrower information, disclosing income assets etc. PF did not inform until after completing all fields of app that a XXXX would not contact me until 24 hours after submission to complete app process ( pull credit & run AU engine ) which delays ability to lock. PF provides contact information of MCs on website along with general inquiry number. After submitting app & being concerned with market volatility I called general inquiry number & requested to speak to available XXXX to complete app process. The rep I spoke to denied my request to speak to a XXXX & informed I had to now wait 48 hours to speak to a MC to complete app. I further addressed concern of market volatility & stated that if when contacted after 48 hours if pricing was not same or PF would not honor desired pricing from XXXX I would not proceed further at that time. The decision to delay app on XXXX was not made by me it was made by PF. PF decided to delay the remaining app process, by denying request to speak to MC PF made me subject to market volatility. When finally contacted by XXXX on XXXX my concerns were confirmed. In those XXXX hours between XXXX & XXXX the credit offered for rate of XXXX decreased by .375 % which based on requested loan amount the difference was {$720.00}. I addressed my concern with XXXX & requested PF to honor pricing from XXXX based on fact that I completed app on my end & requested to speak to MC to complete app process on XXXX which was denied. I stated to XXXX this was unfair & that it was my decision on XXXX to not proceed further at this time unless they honored pricing from XXXX or until pricing was back to where it was on XXXX which is no guarantee it ever would. It was unfair based on delay caused by PF they cost me {$720.00}. I received an email from XXXX after our call further confirming my concern, he stated in email that based on current pricing on XXXX PF could offer me a 15 year fixed at XXXX with {$650.00} in closing costs. Based on quote if you take into account the difference in pricing from XXXX of XXXX {$720.00} if PF granted my request to complete app with XXXX & allowed me to lock I would have paid no closing costs & remaining credit of {$74.00} applied to prepaid items. This is an unfair practice by PF to make pricing available online which encourages consumers to submit an app but make them wait 48 hours to speak to a XXXX to complete app due to PF 's delay & not allow a consumer to speak to a MC upon request to complete app & lock loan on same day. It is unfair to make a consumer subject to market volatility due to PF 's delays & pass those costs in delay to consumer. During a conversation with another rep he agreed an app could be completed in a matter of minutes if request was granted. He stated PF 's current business model in place requires consumers to wait 48 hours to be contacted by a MC to complete app & a consumer could not request to speak to a XXXX prior. Consumers like me are submitting an app to refinance based on pricing PF is showing on website only finding out later they will not be contacted until after 48 hours & in meantime are subject to market volatility & can not speak to XXXX prior to complete process upon request to get approval & lock at desired available pricing.

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