Consumer complaint received 2020-08-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I first communicated with my Lender that I wanted to remove my PMI. I followed all of the instructions provided on the Lender 's website and sent the request in writing. I received several automatic generated messages via email that same day acknowledging receipt of my communication. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another auto-generated email, but this message contained significantly more detail in general about the PMI removal process, including information about meeting my investor 's guidelines if I was not eligible for a XXXX removal and specifically noting, " The appraisal will cost at least {$400.00} and will be ordered at your expense. '' Upon receipt of that information, there were several telephone conversations with the Lender 's customer service department, more letters from me, some communications from the Lender, including three ( 3  ) different, but essentially the same, denial letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. 

I have attached each of the above referenced denial letters to this complaint. Please note, the XX/XX/XXXX letter also includes the document " XXXX XXXX Borrower-Initiated MI Termination Valuation Results ''. It is also important to note that earlier in the month of XX/XX/XXXX, I paid {$150.00} for a Broker Price Opinion via check made payable to the Lender. The check was cashed and the Broker scheduled a visit to my home on XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX letter includes the BPO. 

One reason I maintain that the Lender does not have proper protocols in place to ensure compliance with XXXX is the fact that each of the denial letters fail to acknowledge the basic information that I would mention in my correspondence to the Lender. Chiefly, beginning with my original letter of XX/XX/XXXX which noted the value of my home had appreciated due to a major bathroom renovation project. This was verified in the BPO and listed under a section entitled " Itemized Updates ''. I repeated that information in my XX/XX/XXXX letter, but it was completely ignored in the Lender 's response of XX/XX/XXXX. This is clear because despite my very implicit statement that " substantial improvements '' were made to the property, I was informed that my " additional correspondence did not provide any new or additional information for us to form the basis for a new investigation ''. 

I maintain that I was always qualified for removal of the PMI at least as early as XX/XX/XXXX, but I was always given the " runaround '' by the Lender 's system that was intentionally designed to cause borrowers to continue to pay for PMI beyond the actual legal date it could rightfully be removed. This last statement is not mere conjecture since the Lender as recently as last year XXXX XXXX XXXX agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for questionable practices involving lender-placed insurance. 

Due to the size limit on the files I could upload, all correspondence is not included, but can be provided upon request. Thank you for your consideration. XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation