Consumer complaint received 2015-10-22 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Settlement process and costs — 
Company: CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is related to the origination, processing and closing of a 30-year fixed rate conventional loan through RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. Buyers were subjected to numerous inaccurate, incomplete and misleading statements and documents provided by Loan Officer XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ; phone XXXX ; email XXXXXXXXXXXX ). Additionally, the processing of buyers loan was not started until the day of closing, due to the fact that Processor XXXX XXXX ( phone XXXX ; email XXXXXXXXXXXX ) had not processed any components of the loan while the loan was assigned to her. General areas of concern are below : Mortgage Interest Rate : XXXX XXXX provided buyers a pre-approval with a rate of 4 % on XXXX XXXX. That same day, XXXX XXXX verbally stated to buyers that with the .125 % rate discount provided through the Citizens Bank Circle Gold Mortgage Advantage program, the final interest rate would be 3.875 %. XXXX XXXX informed buyers on XXXX XXXX that he " misspoke '' about the .125 % rate discount and that the final rate would be 4 %. 

Mortgage Loan Commitment Letter : Buyers received the Mortgage Loan Commitment Letter on XXXX XXXX, which included conditions previously satisfied by buyers. Buyers contacted XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX to inquire about the need to provide documents a second time to XXXX XXXX, who had been assigned as the loan processor on XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated that the document did n't reflect the progress being made and that no further action was needed, which was false. Buyers completed and returned the signed Mortgage Commitment Letter to both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, and called XXXX XXXX the same day to ensure receipt of documents. At this time, buyers found out through XXXX XXXX 's voicemail that she was on vacation through XXXX XXXX. Buyers learned on XXXX XXXX from Senior Loan Officer XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ; phone XXXX ; email XXXXXXXXXXXX ), XXXX XXXX 's supervisor, that no processing of the loan had been completed by XXXX XXXX prior to reassignment to a new processor. 

Good Faith Estimate : Buyers received Good Faith Estimate the week of XXXX XXXX. The GFE provided buyers with estimated closing costs of {$10000.00}. Final costs provided to buyers on XXXX XXXX totaled {$12000.00}, an increase of {$1900.00}, or 17.65 %. Buyers contacted XXXX XXXX twice on XXXX XXXX to determine the discrepancies in closing costs. XXXX XXXX claimed that he did not complete the GFE, and stated that the costs included on the HUD-1 form were lower than the initial cost estimates provided to the buyers. Buyers stated that their understanding was that the GFE superseded any initial cost estimates provided during the pre-approval process, to which XXXX XXXX provided no response. 

Disregard of Closing Date : Buyers were informed by their closing coordinator on XXXX XXXX that lender 's instructions had not yet been received. XXXX XXXX was the final business day prior to the specified closing date of XXXX XXXX. Closing coordinator encouraged buyers to contact both XXXX XXXX regarding the status of the loan and if the loan would be clear to close by the closing date of XXXX XXXX. Buyers spoke with XXXX XXXX, who stated that the loan would not close by XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated that technical issues were primarily the reason for the missing the closing date, but that the transferring of loan processors was also a factor. XXXX XXXX stated to buyers that the closing date was the date that the bank " works toward '' but is not a specific contract date by which the loan must be cleared to close. Buyers were informed by new Processor XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX that XXXX XXXX incorrectly identified buyers as XXXX, which further contributed to delays.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation