Consumer complaint received 2016-07-05
Company: BB&T CORPORATION
State: MD
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint:
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, we received our annual Escrow analysis from our lender BB & T Bank. We noticed that there was an escrow shortfall of approximately {$670.00} noted in the analysis. Our analysis projects a shortfall but in an amount less than {$100.00}. We had a similar situation last year but paid the {$190.00} shortfall in order to keep our payment uniform. In this instance and because of what appeared to be a large PROJECTED shortfall to escrow, we chose to carefully study the Escrow Analysis presented. What we could quickly see on page XXXX of the analysis where actual payments are listed ( as the basis of the new analysis ) was that for both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, only interest was posted and no escrow payment. Further, we noticed that for XX/XX/XXXX, a double escrow payment is posted accounting for XX/XX/XXXX but XX/XX/XXXX, there is no similar double payment entry accounting for the lack of payment posted in XXXX XXXX. Our review of the figures presented concluded that only 11 payments were posted in the 12 month Escrow statement which translates to a shortfall in the projected starting balance for the XX/XX/XXXX / XX/XX/XXXX years analysis and ultimately, creates an artificial shortfall below the projected low point ( PLP ). 
We contacted our lender by phone, explained what we were seeing and spoke with XXXX-different representatives since XXXX XXXX XXXX. None of the representatives displayed a true willingness to try and understand what we were saying and walk through the Escrow Analysis. We have been told things by the various representatives that just are not true almost to the point of trying to confuse or mislead us in our own interpretation of the analysis presented. 

Finally, in frustration, we submitted a written complaint to the BB & T CEO hotline. 
Included in our attachments is the written response from BB & T dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX which does not address the inconsistency in the Annual Escrow Analysis of reporting only interest and no escrow payment for the month of XXXX XXXX and no double escrow payment posted in XX/XX/XXXX to account for the XX/XX/XXXX ( similar to what BB & T did for XX/XX/XXXX, accounting for XX/XX/XXXX ). They do not explain why the analysis only contains 11 payments instead of 12 as we are required to make in a calendar year. Also included from BB & T is our " Consumer Account Activity Statement '' which shows all payments made and interest posted to the account with the corresponding dates payments were processed. Upon review of this statement, we are able to quickly see that there were two ( 2 ) actual escrow payments made in the amount of {$580.00} ( totaling {$1100.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX ( along with interest in the amount of {$2.00} ). When you go to the Annual Escrow Analysis and look at the posting for XXXX XXXX, the amount noted reflects only one ( 1 ) escrow payment for {$580.00}. This amount of {$580.00} is the missing escrow payment. This is the basis for the escrow shortfall, because both of the XXXX XXXX payments are not posted in the Annual Escrow Analysis. We have prepared and enclosed an excel spreadsheet which compares the actual payments made vs. payments as noted in the annual escrow analysis. You will see that there is an inconsistency in the month of XXXX XXXX ( which we have marked in red ) when compared to the Annual escrow analysis. 

We are asking for your assistance as it seems that our lender has made an error ( unless we are mistaken ) on our analysis but will not admit it. Further, if this analysis practice was used with all of the BB & T Escrow analysis mailed out, there would be a significant revenue advantage for the lender AND a practice that is completely unacceptable. We are hoping that our complaint will not come with retaliation from our lender, but will generate a true business like response with an explanation ( that can be proven by simple math ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation