Consumer complaint received 01-04-2017 about Mortgage (Conventional fixed mortgage) with FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA (MD).
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint: First National Bank assumed our mortgage from XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/2016, I received a request for proof of hazard coverage for the property. I shared with the First National Bank representative XX/XX/XXXX that condominium associations were required to have hazard coverage in Maryland, but they required detailed proof of coverage. I am attaching the email that I sent on XX/XX/XXXX to our association 's management to request this document to First National Bank 's specifications. I have another email documenting that I received this proof on XX/XX/XXXX and forwarded the info to the fnbmort-online @ verifymycoverage email on XX/XX/XXXX as outlined in the letter requesting proof. I 'm also attaching the email response saying the document had been received and that I would be contacted if there were any questions. I received an additional letter requesting documentation and so I forwarded the email that I previously sent to the XXXXXXXXXXXX email again on XX/XX/XXXX. After I received the letter dated XX/XX/2016 which is attached, I called to report that I had sent the documentation. I spoke with XXXX at extension XXXX as I also documented on the letter attached. She stated that First National Bank was concerned that the document did not fully cover replacement of the property " all in '' as I also documented in my handwriting on the letter. I then wrote an email to our property management company dated XX/XX/XXXX indicating that First National Bank considered the issue still outstanding and that more info was requested. Please see the attached documentation. I then spoke with XXXX and she requested that I fax the email with the additional clarification from our condo association to her which I did. You can see that I printed out this email on XX/XX/XXXX so that I could fax it along with the cover sheet. At this time, XXXX assured me that the situation was resolved and that I would not be charged for additional hazard insurance since I had provided proof to their satisfaction. I considered the matter resolved since she promised to contact me if there were additional questions. I also received a request from First National Bank XX/XX/2016 alerting me that the condo association coverage expired in XX/XX/XXXX and that they needed the updated policy. I have also attached that email request to our property management firm and the proof that I sent the proof of hazard coverage. On XXXX XXXX I received an escrow account notification of an increased monthly payment due to insufficient funds which included a " MISC '' charge of {$1200.00} XX/XX/2016. When I called First National Bank to inquire as to the charge, they stated that it was hazard insurance coverage. I then spoke to XXXX and XXXX in the insurance division who variously said that First National Bank had not received any proof of coverage, had no documentation on my account at all, and had only received recent proof of coverage XX/XX/XXXX. When I stated that I wished to speak to XXXX, I was told that she was unavailable. I also requested the opportunity to submit this documentation and speak to a supervisor to resolve the situation. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a voice message from XXXX saying that they had received an email but that no policy was attached. I find this hard to believe given that they were clearly aware of the expiration date of the original policy that I sent based on their timely request for the renewal and the attachments that were clearly present in the emails. Based on the various answers that representatives at First National Bank have provided and their unwillingness to review my documentation, I no longer have confidence that they have any intention to refund the money that they have taken without cause. I am concerned that this is to generate funds for the bank which has an insurance division

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