Consumer complaint received 2015-10-13 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Credit decision / Underwriting — 
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
My wife and I went to Huntington Bank, applied for an FHA Loan and received a pre-approval letter on XXXX XXXX, 2015 to purchase a house. We made a contract to purchase a home and close on XXXX XXXX. Two days before closing ( XXXX XXXX, 2015 XXXX, we were notified by XXXX XXXX that she had overlooked my wife 's current FHA Loan and that the loan was denied due to the inability to have XXXX FHA Loans. We viewed the FHA Handbook XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX ) and found that we could indeed have XXXX FHA Loans. We emailed XXXX XXXX the information pertaining the FHA stipulations for having XXXX FHA mortgages on XXXX XXXX, 2015. At this point we stated once again that we wanted to move forward with the FHA Loan. XXXX XXXX stated that the credit score requirements changes for a second FHA Loan from XXXX to XXXX. This eliminated me from qualifying for the second FHA Loan ; however, my wife did qualify pertaining to the credit score but the debt to income disqualified her financially. We were told that we would have to get a co-borrower, in which my father volunteered. Huntington ran my fathers information and it qualified. We were once again told by XXXX XXXX that an FHA Loan was not going to work because XXXX parties on the loan had to live in the property and that " she could not put him on the loan because she did not feel comfortable knowing that he was not going to live in the property ''. XXXX XXXX made it seem as if we were asking her to do something illegal. Once again, on XXXX XXXX, 2015, we forwarded XXXX XXXX FHA documentation ( Handbook XXXX : XXXX ) stating the FHA guidelines specifically stating that only XXXX party was required to live in property. At this time, we were set on a Conventional Loan track unbeknownst to us until we received the processing papers with inflated interest and more down payment requirements. We called Huntington Bank and asked why the loan had switched to Conventional when we still wanted an FHA Loan that we qualified for. Since that clarification, Huntington has been making numerous requests for the same documentation regarding my wife and father ( emails show documentation being sent multiple times to the loan officer and processor ) and using other " stalling '' procedures. From these " stalling tactics '' we were forced to request another extension from the sellers. An appraisal for the first FHA Loan house was scheduled well past the time frame. FHA states that in order to have a second FHA Loan, the first FHA Loan had to have an 75 % LTV. XXXX XXXX stated that the department responsible for scheduling the appraisal was not going to conduct XXXX due to the low valuation of the property. I spoke to the processor who stated that the value of the first FHA property was {$60000.00} in accordance to the XXXX XXXX XXXX Website, XXXX and XXXX. We researched and found that this too was a falsity, and that each sight valued the property at no less than {$100000.00}. Ongoing deception provoked us to research other aspects of this process, so we called other local offices and found that Huntington has the same score requirement for second FHA Loans as they do for the first-time FHA Loans, XXXX and not XXXX as quoted by our loan officer. The overdue appraisal returned and XXXX XXXX informed us that it did not meet the requirement and that the only way to get an FHA Loan was to pay down the first loan balance XXXX {$20000.00} XXXX. We believe that the XXXX was coerced due to XXXX valuation. We requested a second appraisal but received no response. We then requested to move forward with a Conventional Loan expeditiously to secure the purchase of the property ; however, XXXX XXXX stated that we had to start an entirely new application and that her manager XXXX XXXX would be contacting us. To date, we have not heard back from Huntington or received any letters of denial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2015 ) and the property is now off the market.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation