Consumer complaint received 2026-05-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX the mortgage servicer sent a written letter confirming that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX valued the property at {$640000.00} and that the value had not declined from the original value of {$550000.00}. With an outstanding principal balance of {$470000.00}, this produced a loan-to-value ratio of approximately XXXX percent below the XXXX percent threshold required for borrower-requested PMI cancellation under investor guidelines for XXXX loan between XXXX and XXXX years old. The property qualified for PMI removal based on the servicer 's own valuation system. Rather than proceeding with cancellation, the servicer ordered a XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, assigned to a licensed real estate broker, dated XX/XX/XXXX, File Number XXXX. The XXXX returned a value of {$620000.00}. This figure is {$24000.00} below the servicer 's own Fannie Mae XXXX result produced XXXX month earlier on the same property. It is also {$16000.00} below the {$630000.00} threshold required for PMI cancellation at XXXX percent XXXX. The PMI cancellation request was denied by written letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. The {$24000.00} gap between the servicer 's own automated valuation and the BPO produced by its chosen vendor is the central process failure in this complaint. Nothing material changed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. No market event occurred. No damage to the property occurred. The only variable that changed was the source of the valuation. The servicer 's own system said the property was worth {$640000.00}. The vendor the servicer selected said {$620000.00}. The servicer accepted the lower figure without question and without adequate quality control review despite the fact that accepting it meant denying a borrower whose qualification had already been confirmed by the servicer 's own system. The process failure is further documented by the following deficiencies in the XXXX itself, all visible on the face of the report : XXXX All XXXX comparable properties selected are XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX than the XXXX new construction subject property. No explanatory commentary was provided for any age difference in any comment field. XXXX XXXX comparable is located in XXXX, NC XXXX a different city, zip code, XXXX XXXX from the subject property in XXXX, NC XXXX with no market justification provided. XXXX The primary comparable XXXX XXXX tax records as the primary data source despite the preparer holding an active MLS license with access to current market data. XXXX All XXXX comment fields contain only the words OVERFLOW SEE ADDITIONAL FIELD TEXT ADDENDA. The addenda contain XXXX marketing descriptions, not analytical commentary. XXXX XXXX active listing comparables within the same XXXX report are priced at {$620000.00} and {$650000.00} both older than the subject yet the XXXX concludes the newer XXXX subject property is worth {$620000.00}. This internal contradiction exists within the same document. XXXX The subject received a lower price per square foot than comparables built XXXX and 13 years earlier inconsistent with standard market behavior where newer construction commands a premium. XXXX The XXXX 's own neighborhood data records XXXX comparable properties available in the subject 's price range. Despite this, XXXX new construction comparables were used. XXXX The preparer recorded that no prior XXXX data existed for the subject within the last 12 months meaning no independent market anchor existed and comparable selection was the entire basis of the valuation. XXXX XXXX comparable lot ranges from XXXX percent to XXXX percent larger than the subject 's lot of XXXX square feet, with XXXX downward adjustments applied to any comparable. XXXX The XXXX states condition was assessed by exterior inspection. The same document 's XXXX XXXX states the XXXX XXXX was XXXX. These statements directly contradict each other within the same document. A formal complaint was submitted to the servicer. In a written response dated XX/XX/XXXX, Case Number XXXX, the servicer 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed in writing that XXXX XXXX XXXXdentified a concern with the XXXX vendor and contacted the vendor directly. The response further stated in the servicer 's own words that the adjustment calculations and the out-of-market comparable used in the BPO were not addressed by XXXX XXXX before the XXXX XXXX closed. The servicer accepted the vendor 's self-confirmation that the report was correct as sufficient quality control and stated no error occurred. Following the submission of complaints the servicer ordered a new independent property valuation. That valuation returned a value of {$640000.00} identical to the servicer 's owXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. XXXX entirely independent valuations conducted XXXX years apart both confirm the property was worth {$640000.00}. The XXXX at {$620000.00} is confirmed to be {$24000.00} below the correct value a material error that was used to deny PMI cancellation for 22 months after the XXXX was completed, and for approximately 35 months from the date of the original cancellation request in XX/XX/XXXX. PMI was cancelled effective XX/XX/XXXX. PMI was charged at {$87.00} per month from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX approximately 35 months totaling {$3000.00} in premiums collected during the period the property value supported cancellation as confirmed by the servicer 's own XXXX. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ), the servicer is legally required to return all unearned PMI premiums not later than 45 days after cancellation by XX/XX/XXXX. The servicer has refused to issue any refund. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX, the servicer is additionally liable for actual damages sustained from the date the violation commenced, statutory damages not to exceed {$2000.00}, and reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.

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