Consumer complaint received 2022-06-22
Company: BSI Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
The complaint will be described in the attached documents, but here is an excerpt : BSI Acct : # XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX Tax Parcel : # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX To summarize the ongoing complaint : Below is an image of BSIs escrow history for my property account indicating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXXt ( for a net total three debits ) of {$2500.00} when there should be a total of only two debits for this amount. I was overcharged by {$2500.00} and need to be reimbursed for this amount. As outlined in the text below, the likely cause for this accounting error was an extra check BSI sent to the tax office which was not needed, and for which the tax office did not make BSI aware that it was uncashed ( photocopied and destroyed ). BSI needs to confirm this with the tax office ( a direct point of contact is provided, so no need to wait on hold ), and then reimburse me for the {$2500.00} overcharge. Attached copies of property tax bills confirm that only two debits/payments of {$2500.00} were needed to satisfy the tax bill. 
BSIs prior response to CFPB complaint # XXXX is not accurate. It was impossible for the {$2500.00} payment in question to have been applied to the XX/XX/XXXX tax bill. 
To help resolve this ongoing issue, I physically went to the tax assessors office to gather more information. The office was extremely helpful and provided a point of contact ( POC ) phone number and email for me and BSI to reach out to directly for additional clarifications ( see XXXX XXXX XXXX info below ) no longer having to wait in the hold queue. 
A follow up phone call and email with the POC ( please see the email included as an attachment to this complaint. It contains a clear representation of the tax payment history for this property ) revealed the following : The XX/XX/XXXX payment was made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, not BSI. 
Only 2 payments of {$2500.00} were needed to satisfy the tax bill, but 4 payments were sent by BSI for this amount. 
For the tax period in question ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX fiscal tax year ) BSI sent 4 payments of {$2500.00} to the tax office between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Two of those payments ( highlighted in green rows ) were applied to satisfy the tax bill. The other two payments were not applied ( were not needed, since bill was satisfied with two payments ) Of the two unnecessary {$2500.00} payments, one was canceled by BSI ( BSI canceled the check ) The other remaining {$2500.00} payment was not cashed by the tax assessor it was photocopied for record keeping purposes and destroyed by the assessors office. No notification was sent from the tax office to BSI to make them aware of this destroyed, unnecessary check. 
This is most likely the cause of confusion for BSI, since BSI was not made aware of the destroyed check by the tax office. 
To bring this matter to a successful resolution, I ask BSI to : Speak directly with the tax office POC, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at the phone number below ( note that she is out of the office on Fridays ) to confirm that check # XXXX and # XXXX were not cashed. XXXX XXXX is also available by email XXXX XXXX XXXX Senior Treasurer-Tax Collector Specialist, Financial Division XXXX XXXX County Treasurer-Tax Collector 's Office XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX | XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Phone : XXXX | Fax : XXXX | XXXX NOTE : DAY OFF-FRIDAY After BSI confirms with the tax office that the extra {$2500.00} payment was not needed, and never cashed, then BSI needs to reimburse me for the {$2500.00} associated with the erroneous check/payment that was debited from my impound account. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Below are property tax bills for the XXXX tax period in question as well as the years prior and subsequent to this period. All consistent with the information provided in the tax offices email ( attached to this complaint as a separate document ) showing that exactly two payments of {$2500.00} were needed NOT THREE!!

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation