Consumer complaint received 2021-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
LOAN APPLICANTS INFO : Married couple, age XXXX ( XXXX XXXX for the previous four years ) and age XXXX ( XXXX XXXX for the previous one year Covid related severance ). 
Seeking to purchase a new primary home and accompanying mortgage. 
Jointly own their home without mortgage. 
No debt, with the exception of credit cards. Credit rating > 700. 
At the time of the loan request, the Loan Applicants were subsiding on two pensions, one annuity, XXXX  income, Health Savings Account reimbursements, investment income and savings. 
Other outstanding income streams not yet started include : one pension, one annuity, two social security benefits, and collective IRA XXXX which would alone eclipse the debt service for the potential loan. 


RESOLUTION BASIS & BACKGROUND : 1. Citibank provided a congratulations letter to the Loan Applicants with conditional approval on XXXX XXXX. 
2. Loan Applicants ( joint ) paid {$850.00} to Citibank for the loan creation fee on XX/XX/XXXX. 
3. Subsequently, the Loan Applicants jointly submitted copious documents to substantiate financial status as related when obtaining the conditional approval. 
4. On XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank Loan Processor requested five additional documents which were provided by the Applicants. 
5. On XX/XX/XXXX Citibank provided a Statement of Credit Denial stating that the loan was denied due to insufficient income for total obligations ; and, unable to verify income. 
6. After multiple appeals for re-consideration, On XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank Mortgage Representative reported that Citibank would no longer evaluate our Loan Request and at which time the Loan Request process was terminated. 


PRIMARY CLAIM BASIS : Loan Applicants paid for a service ( creation of a loan ) but the provider ( Citibank ) did not create a loan. The loan was rejected because of Citibanks inability to properly structure the loan. The failure by the Underwriter, caused additional XXXX XXXX  and added expense by the Loan Applicants. Requesting Citibank to refund Loan Applicants {$850.00} for services not performed seems to be reasonable. 

Citibank ( service provider ) did not treat the Loan Applicants ( consumers ) fairly by lacking the necessary training, knowledge, and corporate governance to properly evaluate the Loan Applicants financial attributes and structure an Asset Dissipation Underwriting ( XXXX ) mortgage. XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX | XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Additional Considerations : Loan Applicants would put 39 % down on the purchase of the home. 
The final loan application was 11 % less than the original loan request amount referenced in the conditional approval. 
By XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank ceased to consider the loan application, after several appeals by the Loan Applicants. 
o One appeal reviewing overall ( current and future ) income streams. 
o Second appeal outlined Applicants wealth. 
As part of creating the loan, Citibank offered an inducement to lower the APR % based upon the amount of wealth transferred to Citibank products. In seeking to lower the APR %, the Loan Applicants transferred liquid assets from XXXX and XXXX XXXX accounts into Citibank savings, checking and Wealth Management accounts amounting to 6X the TOTAL loan amount. The amount of funds residing in Citibank savings and checking accounts amounted to over two years of mortgage payments. Note - the Loan Applicants have other wealth that was not transferred. Additional cash ( > 1X the loan amount ) was created from the sale of their primary home on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Complied with all requests for information, including many financial documents that were not originally invoked as part of the original loan applicants disclosure of wealth supplied at the time Citibank offered the conditional approval. 
Loan Applicants obtained a correctly underwritten mortgage without issues via an independent lender and purchased the planned home on XX/XX/XXXX. Subsequently, this mortgage was sold to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX.

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