Consumer complaint received 2020-10-06
Company: JAN (LendUSA) Holdings, Inc.
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( LendUs LLC ) wrote a pre-approval letter to us for a mortgage for a second home ( 56.7 % LTV XXXX. We signed a purchase agreement with the sellers on XX/XX/XXXX to purchase a condominium townhome. Closing was set for XX/XX/XXXX with a mortgage contingency deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  told us that the income reported on our XXXX Federal tax return does not qualify for the pre-approved mortgage. Instead, they recommended that we switch to an investment home loan at the same interest rate but with {$9400.00} in points. XXXX XXXX  told us that if the appraised rental income were to exceed a minimum calculated requirement, then personal income would not matter and rental income would support the mortgage. We felt we were negotiating under duress and in a " bait and switch '' situation, but believed we had no other choice but to agree to the points. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  told us that our revised loan was again ( pre- ) approved, pending the appraisal report. 

Due to appraiser delays, we had to extend the mortgage contingency deadline to XX/XX/XXXX. To get the sellers to agree, we had to forgo a negotiated seller closing credit of {$5000.00}. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  received the final appraisal report with appraised monthly rental income exceeding the required amount by {$220.00} per month. With three days to underwrite the pre-approved loan and a qualifying appraisal in hand, we felt that we were in good shape for closing on the transaction. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX mortgage contingency deadline ), XXXX XXXX  failed to complete the underwriting process and could not promise completion. We were forced to sign a purchase cancellation to protect our substantial escrow deposit. The sellers refused to grant any extension because they preferred to put the house back on the market at a {$30000.00} higher asking price. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, one day AFTER the mortgage contingency deadline, XXXX XXXX  gave us a list of ALL NEW requirement requests related to business income and business checking accounts. It was clear to us that XXXX XXXX   was no longer underwriting our loan as an investment loan, but as the original second home loan -- and keeping the {$9400.00} in points for themselves. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, three days AFTER the mortgage contingency deadline and three days AFTER the purchase cancellation, XXXX XXXX  officially approved our mortgage. However, the sellers still preferred to put the house back on the market. 

We missed out on the house and incurred substantial losses ( actual out-of-pocket costs as well as lost income opportunity ) due to missing the closing. 

XXXX  XXXX  GUARANTEES " Home on time '' on their website but did nothing to help us, We did not even receive an apology or a " too bad. '' Their guarantee apparently has no value and is all marketing hype. 

We believe the transaction failed because XXXX XXXX  shenanigans in sales/underwriting choose to try to keep the points for themselves and qualifying us for better mortgages while recklessly missing the clear and important deadlines. We now believe that such bait-and-switch shenanigans are the standard practice at XXXX XXXX  ( LendUS LLC ). 

We wrote a XXXX letter to XXXX XXXX ( LendUS LLC ) CEO, senior counsel, and compliance director complaining and requesting compensation. Our letters and follow-up phone calls were ignored. 

In our opinion, XXXX XXXX  is guilty of false advertising ( on-time guarantee ) and unethical, bait-and switch business practices. They should not have a license to sell or process mortgages anywhere in the US. Anyone needing a mortgage should AVOID XXXX XXXX ( LendUS ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation