Consumer complaint received 2021-03-21
Company: CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
State: GA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I connected with XXXX XXXX ; Loan Originator for XXXX XXXX a subsidiary of Cardinal Financial, to look at refinance options for a conventional 30 year mortgage. 
XXXX came back with a quote that I thought was an exceptionally good and I informed him that if my wife agreed, we would move forward and complete the application process that evening. 
The offer was for a 2.615 % rate with {$4400.00} credit towards closing costs for a conventional 30 year mortgage. 
XXXX said if we complete the application by that evening, he would lock-in the rate and offer. 
That evening my wife and I completed the application process which included running a check of our credit reports. This meant that the 14-day period to shop for a mortgage would begin. We were not too concerned about this as the offer was acceptable and were not expecting to have to shop for other offers. 
At no point during my conversation and email exchange with XXXX did he mention any concern about using business income to qualify for the mortgage. The online application process asked about business income, however it also did not state any concern or issue about using business income to qualify. 

The next day on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent an email stating that because we were using business income to qualify ; XXXX would require a XXXX lock for the mortgage. As a result, the rate would remain the same at 2.615 %, however, the closing cost credit would reduce to {$2600.00}. This would mean we would have to pay towards some of the closing expenses. 

Unfortunately, the next day the market for mortgage rates experienced an increase in the rates and continued to increase beyond the 14-day window we had to shop for another mortgage provider. Therefore I was unable to find another lender to even match the offer from XXXX. 

When I first spoke with XXXX, I had mentioned that we had completed a refinanced in XXXX of XXXX there by indicating that we had no problem qualifying for a refinance. I also provided XXXX with financial information showing that we have more than enough home equity to cover the full mortgage. Had XXXX done his full due diligence then I would have been able to contact other lenders the same day I initially spoke with XXXX and possibly obtain a competitive offer to match XXXX. 

It appears that XXXX have a blanket process that if any business income is used for qualification, then they apply a XXXX lock and reduce the credit offered to customers. 
Unfortunately, Sebonic processes and training do not reflect the importance they place on this aspect of income qualification. As neither XXXX, nor the online process indicated any concern or warning that the offer would change due to the use of small business income. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I followed up with XXXX to confirm why our offer changed and he mentioned the item about business income. I asked XXXX why the XXXX process did not have any type of warning about the use of small business income prior to running our credit reports? On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX & I further engaged in email communication where he ignored my concern about their process and stated they couldn't do anything about it. Unfortunately, by this time, the intertest rates had changed and I was unable to find another lender offering anything close to what I had originally been offered by XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I wrote to XXXX Customer Service department and I have yet to receive a reply. 

Please note, on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX I received a follow up sales call from XXXX about if I would still be interested in their service. I spoke with XXXX XXXX ; a mortgage advisor and explained my situation. He stated he could not understand why I would have been told that there would be a 90 day closing period. He said he would follow up with their customer advisory team. However, I have not received any follow up communication. 

Given the feedback from another employee of XXXX ; I am concerned as to why my original mortgage offer was changed : The offer changed after I had provided all the necessary information including my XXXX XXXX background. I would hope this was not an influencing factor. However, it does not change the fact that the actions of XXXX 's employee denied my wife and I the opportunity to refinance at a lower interest rate and we may never have this opportunity again given that the prevailing market for conventional 30 year mortgage rates has significantly increased since I initially spoke with XXXX. 

My grievance with XXXX is with their processes and employee training, both of which fails to conduct the necessary due diligence to prevent unnecessary credit application and an outcome that appears to be a bait and switch that results in customers missing the opportunity to refinance at a lower rate of interest. Furthermore, there is no accountability by XXXX customer service process to provide assistance for their failures and shortcomings in what is a stressful process for their consumers. 

I would be most grateful if the CFPB would follow up on my complaint with XXXX. 
Please let me know if I need to provide clarification on the information provided.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation