Consumer complaint received 12-11-2016 about Mortgage (Conventional fixed mortgage) with CITIBANK, N.A. (NJ).
Issue: Credit decision / Underwriting

Complaint: I applied at Citibank to refinance a mortgage held by XXXX XXXX, on a condo unit we used to live in, but which is now an investment property. I 've banked with Citibank for 18 years ( now CitiGold ) and the broker said they hold XXXX other mortgages in the building, so he believed that there should be no issue as far as the building goes. I have outstanding credit and sufficient collateral, and the LTV is 42 %, so it 's a great credit risk. I was rate-locked at 3.875 ( current loan is at 4.75 ), with a lock expiration of XXXX/XXXX/16. 
I was told by my loan coordinator on XXXX XXXX, after providing the last requested document ( an audited budget for the building ), that she forwarded that document to the condo review team, and they 'd be able to review it " pretty fast ''. I followed up on XXXX XXXX and again on XXXX XXXX without receiving any response. With the lock expiration getting closer and rates going up, I began to wonder if I was going to have to pay to extend the lock, and I was also getting frustrated by the lack of response from both the broker and the coordinator. Since I work in the ecommerce industry, the weeks leading into XXXX are my busiest of the year, thus I had limited time to XXXX Citibank about my loan. But I was able to get a third email out on XXXX and, after having to add a number of other people to the discussion due to numerous out of office notifications, I finally received word back that the loan had been declined on XXXX, due to insufficient building reserves. 
This was obviously frustrating since Citi holds other loans in the building, and in the budget I provided, revenue was in excess of expenses by over 20 % of the total building revenue. After pressing for further explanation a week later, I learned that the guideline is 10 %, which again shocked me that Citi 's condo review team would simply decline the loan due to insufficient reserves, with such a large % of revenue over expenses. It 's still unclear to me why the condo review team did n't ask the coordinator for further clarification about the potential use of the excess revenue for reserves replenishment purposes, and instead simply declined the loan, especially when the building was fine for their other loans. I believe this was a failure on Citi 's part to ask for clarification, instead of taking unilateral action to deny the building. 
I finally found out that the reason was because there was n't a line item in the budget explicitly specifying the reserves contribution amount. I was able to obtain an updated budget from the building 's auditor and provide it to Citi the day my rate lock was due to expire, however it turned out that underwriting had already closed the file after the condo review team rejected the building, so I had no opportunity to even pay to extend the lock and still close at the locked rate. The representative I 've been speaking with said that they can resubmit my application and waive fees, but that the loan would be at current rates, which are so much higher now that it would be uneconomical for me to pursue the refinance. I stood to save close to {$500.00} per month, and am also out the up-front out-of-pocket application and appraisal costs, with nothing to show for it, all simply because Citi did n't bother to confirm how the excess revenue was being used toward the building reserves. As extensive of a document review process as they have ( I provided about 2 dozen documents ), I 'm astonished that they did n't perform proper due diligence in this aspect of the building 's budget. I 'm also shocked that there 's no grace period during which I can appeal the condo review team 's decision, before underwriting simply closes the file, thereby denying any opportunity for corrective action when misunderstandings like this happen. I do n't exactly know what I expect to happen here, but am looking forward to the bank 's response.

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 monetary relief