Consumer complaint received 2021-08-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: Better Mortgage, Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I started the process to refinance a home mortgage with Better. Everything was going along smoothly until it was time to sign the Uniform Residential Loan Application, where my co-borrower 's annual income was listed as monthly income. ( In other words, overstating the annual income by a factor of 12. ) Since the URLA requires that I personally affirm that the information " is true, accurate, and complete as of the date I signed this application, '' The night of XX/XX/XXXX, I first asked Better to update the URLA information. 

At first the application processor sidestepped my question by confirming that the income Better had listed elsewhere in the application was correct. When I pressed the URLA issue, the processor referred the question to her supervisor. 

This was the supervisor 's response on XX/XX/XXXX : " Just wanted to chime in here! You can go ahead and sign the initial application as is. This is just a reflection of the initial inputs on your application, to get the loan process started. You will receive a final closing disclosure, which has the correct information on it. As our team collects documents you provide throughout the loan process, we verify and make updates in our system to reflect the correct information in the right places. If we were to update our system today with the correct income figures, it would not change your Initial XXXX  information ; however I want to ensure you that it will be corrected on your final disclosures! 

Please let me know if you have any further questions! '' I responded on XX/XX/XXXX : " Thanks for the clarification. Ethically, I can not sign something I know to be false, especially since the application stipulates that the information I provided 'is true, accurate, and complete as of the date I signed this application. ' '' This was his response on XX/XX/XXXX : " This is required at the beginning and end of the process. The initial XXXX is what you sent us and we will produce a final XXXX with all updates and corrections. 

'For compliance purposes, the form must be based on the initial information that the customer tells us at the time of application. Once the underwriting team reviews the supporting income, asset, and liability documents, the customer will see all of the updated information on the final XXXX that they will sign at closing. This becomes the binding version. By e-signing the initial XXXX - the customer is simply initiating the process. ' Unfortunately, if you will not sign the initial XXXX, the only work around would be to create a new application and ensure the correct information is included. '' Note the abuse of authority when the supervisor entered the conversation to encourage a false statement. The paragraph in single quotes above reflects a quotation in the email sent to me, apparently citing company policy. The statement that I initially provided incorrect information is false. XXXXetter always had the correct income information in their system on other forms, but not on the URLA.

I felt pressured to make a false statement, which gives me ethical concerns about Better. ( Does an inflated income reduce regulatory scrutiny? ) Perhaps there is legitimately a technological issue in updating the form. But how likely is this for a company whose website says, " Were using technology to make it faster and more efficient, and humans to help make it friendly and enjoyable ''? Surely the company 's inability to update a form doesn't require that I make a false statement.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation