Consumer complaint received 09/26/2016 about Mortgage (FHA mortgage) with M&T BANK CORPORATION (PA).
Issue: Settlement process and costs

Complaint: I am a first-time homebuyer who used the XXXX HUD ( United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ) loan program to purchase my dream home. 
To date, my former contractor has received approximately {$86000.00} in funds ( aided by my former HUD XXXX consultant ) while many of the areas where the money has been spent will not pass city inspection ( supporting documentation available ). After bringing this to the attention of XXXX HUD officials it has become apparent they do n't know what to do. They have been very slow with their " investigation '' and alluded to the offending parties ( i.e. lender, consultant, contractor ) simply not even responding to the complaint at all. 
A requirement of the XXXX HUD loan program is to enlist the services of a consultant whose job is to help navigate the process. However, it has come to light that the consultant and contractor in my case have possibly been colluding to defraud me. I would later discover the contractor whom I found through my former consultant was unlicensed to do work in XXXX ( when he signed on for my project ) where my home is located and has been since XX/XX/2015. 
This contractor would later hire an unlicensed roofer who put a horrible, poorly done roof that is a potential fire hazard on my home and will need to be re-done completely. The work done by the plumber, electrician, and other subcontractors is just as horrible and will all need to be re-done. 
My home is extremely unsafe and in no way, shape or form can I allow my family to stay there. I 've kept my bank abreast of these developments as I have discovered them. Once I terminated the contractor I was told that I am unable to move forward with any other renovations because the funds set aside for this are " frozen '' until the situation with the contractor is " worked out. '' However, the only resolution the bank proposes is '' binding arbitration. '' This contractor not only failed to perform the duties required he totally misrepresented himself. Binding arbitration may work for small disputes between a contractor and client. Being forced to arbitrate with someone who uses the loopholes in a faulty system to defraud me equates to being forced to negotiate with my extortionist. This contractor has used most of my budget on renovations I ca n't use, destroying my home in the process and after bringing this to the attention of all relevant parties ( i.e. HUD, and M & T Bank ) feel their lack of sound action shows a level of indifference to an extremely abysmal situation. This push towards binding arbitration by the bank is not a one size fits all approach and should not be handled as such. I believe my situation far exceeds the normal contractor/client dispute. I was supposed to move into my home in XX/XX/XXXX and due to this mess have been unable. I 've done everything asked of me by all parties ( i.e. HUD, XXXX XXXX and M & T Bank ) throughout this mess and have n't defaulted on my obligation to pay the mortgage on a home I have no idea when I will be able to move into. 
I believe throughout this process the contractor has enjoyed more protection than I have ( the consumer ) and being forced to arbitrate with this contractor affirms that. When in point of fact this contractor owes me money. 
The only recourse I seemingly have is to legally pursue this contractor outside of arbitration. This whole situation is wrong and there is no one advocating my rights and I have been grievously wronged. 
I need help and implore you sound the alarm on this situation bringing my story and others like it to the forefront. After speaking to others with similarly terrible experiences I believe the XXXX HUD program is a breeding ground for predators seeking to defraud consumers. I know buying a home can be a difficult and arduous process, however, I never expected to be taken advantage of by people who were supposed to help me.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation