Consumer complaint received 2016-02-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
We believe we were the victims of bait-and-switch tactics on the part of Wells Fargo Bank ( WF ), and in particular its home mortgage consultant, XXXX XXXX. 
Initially, XXXX XXXX asserted that we could obtain a XXXX ARM at 2.625 percent if we put down XXXX percent of the purchase price. After competitive bidding, the purchase price was {$820000.00}, which would make the down payment {$240000.00}. The loan should have been {$570000.00}. 
We requested a 45-day escrow in lieu of what had become a customary 30-day escrow in the area. That request was agreed upon by the seller. 
As the requests for various documents flooded in from the bank, we became exasperated because the requests often duplicated themselves. At times, documents we sent them digitally would arrive and we would have to resend them because of confusion, the source of which we did not understand at the time and which we do not understand until this day. 
During the escrow period we had a terrible time dealing with WF because we were constantly shifted between XXXX parties, including XXXX XXXX. It often seemed that one person did not know what the other was up to. 
We were notified about XXXX weeks into escrow that we needed to show proof of funding. In other words we needed to show that we had liquid cash ready to pay the down payment. The WF staffer, XXXX, told us the amount was {$290000.00}. I asked how that was calculated, considering that XXXX percent of XXXX is XXXX. XXXX told me she would have XXXX XXXX call me. 
When XXXX XXXX called me he gave me this unbelievable explanation : WF calculated the amount of the loan it would provide based on the first bid we made on the home when we were competing with other buyers. That amount was {$770000.00}. And although the final bid was {$820000.00}, XXXX never raised the offered amount of the loan to XXXX percent of the higher amount. He pointed out that the loan offer of {$530000.00} is XXXX percent of the initial {$770000.00} bid we had made and {$530000.00} is the amount shown in our paperwork. 
Perhaps naively, when I went through the paperwork, I never thought to doubt XXXX XXXX 's word that WF would be providing us with a XXXX percent loan, which would have amounted to {$570000.00}. So while the eventual amount of the loan was {$530000.00}, we were being short-shrifted by {$46000.00}. 
It was our mistake to trust XXXX in this transaction and not check its numbers. Nevertheless, WF had no business basing the loan amount on an intermediary bid that had no substance in fact. 
As a result we were forced to sell {$46000.00} worth of investments just when the stock markets had taken a tumble. Most of these investments were dividend-paying equities on which we depend for income. So not only did we further deplete our resources but we were forced to reduce our income stream. Add to that that we will probably have to pay additional capital gains taxes on our sold investments. 
We believe that Wells Fargo 's - and especially XXXX XXXX 's - conduct was reprehensible and that they should be censored at the very least.

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