Consumer complaint received 2024-03-15
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Delays in the application process
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (DC)

During the process of applying for a home loan mortgage assumption through Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ), I encountered the following issues with NFCU and its representatives ( namely, XXXX XXXX, a Collateral Risk Examiner II within the XXXX XXXX Operation Support office XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ) : XXXX lied about the expected length of time from application to closing at multiple points throughout the process ; XXXX and her colleagues within her office misrepresented what was required to close and where in the approval process I was ; XXXX did not communicate in a timely manner especially when it was clear that she was missing deadlines required in order for myself and my partner to close on the house that we were purchasing. She also ignored requests to confirm receipt of emails. 
On numerous occasions across multiple days, XXXX lied about requesting for my application to be expedited and when pushed would consistently claim to have put the request in that day. 
At multiple stages in the assumption process, XXXX would misrepresent what the NFCU requirements were. For example, she would insist only one type of document was required ( such as an email confirming my rental status from my landlord ) only to then retract her guidance to request a different version of the document. 
Between XXXX and the NFCU Underwriting Department, they requested documents that my bank ( XXXX XXXX ) does not provide ( such as day-to-day end-of-day statements for my brokerage account ). 
Additionally, they ( XXXX and the Underwriting Department ) required documents from my partner ( such as her banking statements ) only to then refuse her direct participation in the home purchase per internal NFCU rules ( not in accordance with Veteran Administration requirements ), meaning that NFCU received sensitive documents that they did not require. 
In the week leading up to our closing and the required clear to close window, XXXX told us every day that our application would be fully reviewed and approved the next day. 
Due to lengthy delays in the closing process, XXXX would request expedited documents via email, meaning sensitive documents were sent via a non-secured method instead of the dedicated NFCU secure portal. 

Ultimately, NFCU caused us to miss our initial financial contingency deadline in the sales contract despite assuring us that the deadline would be met. We then had to delay the date of the closing from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX through multiple amended sales contracts as NFCU could not clearly communicate where I was in the process. This caused my partner to miss multiple workdays. Additionally, my partner had already given notice at her apartment because for a month, NFCU had indicated our original sales contract date was fine. This forced us to absorb hundreds of dollars in additional costs as we had to pay for storage for her belongings as well as renting moving equipment and paying movers. 

For the detailed explanation see below : On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a mortgage assumption through NFCU. The immediate response on XX/XX/XXXX said that an examiner would be assigned within seven business days and would schedule a phone application appointment. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was connected with XXXX XXXX, a Collateral Risk Examiner II within the XXXXXXXX XXXX Operation Support office ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and we had our initial phone application appointment. 

During this appointment, XXXX confirmed that I had submitted all of the required paperwork to begin processing the assumption. I also specifically asked her if the purchase contracts closing date of XX/XX/XXXX, was doable given that previously, a NFCU representative had told my realtor on the phone that it could take up to 45 days. XXXX assured me that the 45-day timeframe was inaccurate, and that the process began the day that my submitted application was acknowledged, and that XX/XX/XXXX was doable and there was no need to amend the sales contract. Finally, she also said that meeting the financing contingency date of XX/XX/XXXX would be no issue for NFCU. 

Over the course of the next few weeks, XXXX assured me that everything was running smoothly via near bi-weekly check-ins, including on XX/XX/XXXX. However, there were miscommunications about how the down payment for the house could be provided as XXXX stated on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX that my partner could provide the funds directly despite not being on the assumption application as would be joint tenants on the houses deed. 

However, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX said that NFCU would not be able to clear the financing contingency as their policies actually required that my partner deposit her share of the down payment in my bank account and not send it directly to the title company ( despite my partner having previously paid the earnest money deposit from her account ). XXXX then confirmed though on XX/XX/XXXX in writing to both myself and my realtor that we would still be able to close on XX/XX/XXXX. 

However, on XX/XX/XXXX, for the first time, XXXX indicated that we may not be able to close by XX/XX/XXXX. I then requested to be connected to XXXX supervisor as it was in the afternoon on the XXXX that she for the first time said we would not be able to close on XX/XX/XXXX. This request was initially ignored and then denied. When I insisted, I was told a supervisor would contact me within 24 hours. Instead, I was contacted by another non-supervisory employee who gave me further incorrect information on XX/XX/XXXX. Eventually, XXXX supervisor, XXXX XXXX became available on XX/XX/XXXX, but only after our initial closing date had been missed as the Clear to Close would have had to be issued by XX/XX/XXXX. It was only on XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX admitted that we would not close on XX/XX/XXXX and it was then for the first time that I was told directly that NFCUs timelines for an assumption application is 45 days and that XXXX had been in the wrong the entire time for telling us anything short of that timeframe would work. 

During the final week preceding the new target closing date XXXX and the Underwriting department made serial errors in requesting documents that either could not be provided, were out of the scope of the underwriting process, or were not in fact suitable. Of particular concern was the request for landlord verification letters. Initially, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX told me these would not be required after I specifically asked. Later, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that an email from both my current and previous landlord was required and that emails could be sent to me and forward to XXXX. These were sent to me and forwarded directly to XXXX that day. On XX/XX/XXXX she then told me that these were no longer acceptable and Navy Fed required the landlords directly email filled PDFs to XXXX, further delaying this process and inconveniencing my current and former landlord during their workdays with a last minute, redundant, request. 

In addition, during and after the occasion of the above issues, XXXX repeatedly blamed other departments and claimed there is no cooperation and minimal communication available to manage the loan application process. In particular, she highlighted the Underwriting Department as a problem and accused the underwriter assigned to my application of going on a powertrip. XXXX also said that the underwriter was requesting excessive documents as a form of retaliation for her attempts to expedite the process following our missed closing date. Furthermore, according to the loan officer, this underwriter refused to approve the loan despite all the requested documentation until multiple supervisors had contacted the underwriting supervisor, who then directly intervened and personally inspected and approved the provided documentation the morning of our rescheduled closing ( XX/XX/XXXX ), one week after I had been conditionally approved ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Per our loan officer the typical delay between conditional approval and final approval was 2.5 days, again supported by her insistence on Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, that we would be cleared to close on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX. 

For the duration of our contact with NFCU through this assumption process, there was no sense of professionalism and XXXX recognition of the burdens ( both financial and emotional ) that NFCU 's mistakes caused myself and my partner as well as the sellers and both sets of realtors to endure. After the many delays and significant efforts expended to meet my initial closing, and then following that failure the effort to meet the updated closing, my eventual closing occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, one business day before the 45 day mark from our XX/XX/XXXX initial approval, and 50 days from our initial application on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Finally, during this application we were also misled by a separate loan officer, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX, as to the process for applying to secure a mortgage assumption through Navy Fed, leading to a redundant credit check that dropped my credit rating, and delayed the start of the actual assumption process unnecessarily. Although this was not the fault of the assumptions department, it highlights Navy Feds lack of professionalism, dearth of basic institutional knowledge, and absence of policies focused on security, preventing redundancy, and providing actual services for clients, as well as a culture that is either unwilling or unable to communicate. 

This is further evidenced by the delay in creating an accessible mortgage account available through the Navy Fed banking portal, which is still inaccessible as of XX/XX/XXXX, despite closing on the assumption on XX/XX/XXXX. Upon calling NFCU customer service on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that they had no way of knowing when it would be created, and was told to call back on XX/XX/XXXX when the assumptions department is open. I did so and once the customer service representative reached out directly to the assumptions department, I was told not to expect access to my mortgage account until XX/XX/XXXX, delaying any attempts to set up payments for the mortgage, and again highlighting the lack of transparency, accountability, and communication that seem to define the mortgage assumption process at NFCU.