Consumer complaint received 2026-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding ongoing mortgage servicing errors that began after my mortgage was transferred between multiple servicers. 

I originated my mortgage with XXXX XXXX XXXX. Since origination, my loan has been serviced by multiple companies, including XXXX, and is now serviced by Lakeview LoanCare. Since the most recent transfer to Lakeview LoanCare, I have experienced repeated payment processing, system, and communication issues that did not occur previously. 

In XXXX, due to deficiencies in the servicers online payment system, a duplicate payment was processed. The system failed to detect or warn that an automatic payment was already pending, which resulted in two payments being made for the same billing period. At the time, the servicers online system did not clearly reflect how this payment would be handled, leading me to reasonably believe the extra XXXX payment would be applied to the following month. This later proved not to be the case. 

When I requested a refund of the duplicate XXXX payment, the servicer made the process unnecessarily difficult by requiring that I provide a bank statement showing the payment had cleared on my end before they would issue a refund. Because bank statements are not available until the end of the billing cycle, I was unable to immediately provide the requested documentation. As a result, a significant amount of my funds remained in the servicers possession for an extended period due solely to the servicers system limitations and documentation requirements. 

Prior to XXXX, the servicer conducted an escrow analysis and determined that I was behind on escrow. The servicer sent me written notice by mail advising that my XXXX mortgage payment would be higher as a result of this escrow analysis. I relied on this written notice. 

Despite the escrow notice, the servicers online system indicated that no payment would be due until XXXX. Based on this information, I believed the additional XXXX payment had been applied forward and that no separate XXXX payment was required. However, the servicer still automatically drafted the XXXX payment from my account. 

Rather than properly applying the automatically drafted XXXX payment, the servicer placed it into a suspense account. The placement of this payment into suspense was the stated reason the servicer contacted me on the evening of XX/XX/year>. 

During that call, the customer service representative appeared confused about my account and had to pause the call to verify payments after I advised her that the information she initially provided was incorrect. During the same call, I was informed for the first time that the servicer had already issued and overnighted a refund check related to the duplicate XXXX payment. 

This was the first notification I received that a refund check had been issued. I did not receive any prior email, letter, or account message informing me that a refund had been processed. I only became aware of this action by chance during the phone call. The lack of notice, combined with the representatives uncertainty regarding my account, raises concerns about the accuracy of the servicers records and internal communication. 

During the discussion regarding the XXXX payment, the servicer stated that the payment placed in suspense exceeded the amount they believed was due and that any extra payment would automatically be applied to principal. I informed the servicer that I did not want any extra payment applied to principal and that my intent was for the payment to be applied only as billed, with any extra payment refunded directly to my bank account. I was then told that in order to receive a refund of any extra payment, I would be required to cancel the original payment and resubmit a new payment for a different amount. 

I believe this requirement is unreasonable and improper. The XXXX payment was automatically drafted by the servicer, based on its own systems and billing notices, and the servicer already had possession of the funds. Requiring cancellation and resubmission of a valid or automatically drafted payment to correct internal servicing errors places an unnecessary administrative burden on the borrower and increases the risk of payment delays, misapplication, or credit reporting errors. These issues appear to stem from the servicers system and communication failures rather than any failure on my part. 

Taken together, the duplicate XXXX payment, misleading online account information, automatic drafting of a payment the system indicated was not due, escrow analysis issues, suspense placement of payments, forced payment cancellation requirements, customer service confusion, and lack of timely notice reflect a pattern of deficient servicing rather than isolated incidents. Given the multiple servicing transfers and the problems that arose following the most recent transfer, I am concerned about the servicers compliance with federal mortgage servicing requirements and its ability to accurately manage my account.

I respectfully request that the CFPB review this matter and require the servicer to : Properly apply all payments as of the dates received Promptly refund any duplicate or extra payments without requiring cancellation and resubmission of valid or automatically drafted payments Provide a written explanation for the XXXX duplicate payment, escrow analysis, automatic XXXX draft, suspense placement, and refund handling Confirm that no late fees, penalties, escrow issues, or negative credit reporting have occurred or will occur as a result of these servicing errors Review and correct payment processing, online account accuracy, automatic draft controls, refund notification, suspense handling, and customer service procedures following servicing transfers to prevent recurrence I have retained billing statements, escrow analysis notices, online account screenshots, payment confirmations, and communications with the servicer and can provide them upon request.

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