Consumer complaint received 2026-05-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: United Shore Financial Services, LLC
State: KS

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal complaint against United Wholesale Mortgage , LLC ( UWM ) for ongoing violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and Regulation X. As detailed below, UWM has actively pursued foreclosure against me while simultaneously failing to evaluate me for a federally-mandated loss mitigation option, has caused the very delinquency it now seeks to foreclose upon, and has refused to consider the new Veterans Affairs Partial Claim Program established by Public Law 119-23. I am a United States veteran receiving VA treatment for service-connected XXXX ; my wife and I welcomed our XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ; and we are facing the loss of our family home as a direct result of UWM 's conduct. 01 BACKGROUND In XX/XX/XXXX, I completed a VA Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loan through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) at 5.625 % fixed for 30 years. Prior to closing, a XXXX employee identified as " XXXX '' promised me in writing via XXXX that after six monthly payments, my rate would be reduced to approximately 4 % as a " courtesy refinance. '' That written promise preserved in full was the sole reason I agreed to refinance. I made all six required payments. XXXX cancelled its Kansas Secretary of State registration on XX/XX/XXXX just 73 days after closing my loan. The Connecticut Department of Banking subsequently issued two consent orders against XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX {$75000.00} penalty for 7 unlicensed loan originators ; XX/XX/XXXX {$50000.00} penalty, license revocation, and finding that XXXX made false statements to regulators ). UWM became my servicer on XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, when the promised rate reduction did not occur, I contacted UWM. A UWM customer service representative opened a ticket, escalated the matter internally, and explicitly instructed me NOT to make further payments until the rate corrected, citing UWM 's no-refund policy for overpayments. I followed that instruction. I called UWM every ten days for months as I was directed. UWM never resolved the issue. The 262 days of delinquency now reflected on my account are a direct consequence of UWM 's own representative 's instruction. 02 SPECIFIC REGULATORY VIOLATIONS Violation 1 Dual Tracking Prohibition ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) ) : UWM filed foreclosure ( Case No. XXXX ) in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , Kansas , while loss mitigation review was active. I submitted a complete loss mitigation application and a formal appeal. UWM denied my appeal on XX/XX/XXXX. UWM has not evaluated me for the VA Partial Claim Program authorized by Public Law 119-23, signed XX/XX/XXXX a loss mitigation option that would advance up to 25 % of unpaid principal ( approximately {$97000.00} on my {$380000.00} balance ) as a no-interest VA subordinate lien, vastly exceeding my {$32000.00} delinquency. Section 1024.41 ( g ) prohibits UWM from moving for judgment or order of sale while loss mitigation evaluation remains incomplete. UWM is actively prosecuting foreclosure in violation of this rule. Violation 2 Qualified Written Request Failure ( 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ) ) : I sent a Qualified Written Request to UWM 's Research Department on XX/XX/XXXX requesting documentation regarding the promised rate reduction and the disputed delinquency. UWM did not provide a substantive response within the 30 business day window required by 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ) ( 2 ). The only response received was a generic letter from " XXXX XXXX '' stating no rate adjustment provisions existed which did not address my dispute regarding the XXXX agent 's written promise. Violation 3 Failure to Evaluate for All Available Loss Mitigation Options ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) : UWM offered only a single modification at 6.625 % / XXXX / {$3300.00} per month terms substantially worse than my original 5.625 % loan. UWM has not evaluated me for : ( a ) the VA Partial Claim Program under Public Law 119-23 ; ( b ) a special forbearance under 38 C.F.R. 36.4318 ; ( c ) a repayment plan under 38 C.F.R. 36.4319 ; or ( d ) any rate-preserving modification structure. This violates UWM 's obligation to evaluate for all loss mitigation options available. Violation 4 Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : UWM has reported my loan as delinquent to credit reporting agencies during a period when ( a ) UWM 's own representative instructed me not to make payments, and ( b ) a formal written dispute was open in UWM 's ticketing system. Reporting a disputed account without proper notation violates FCRA furnisher obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Violation 5 Improper Charges Inconsistent with UWM 's Own Communications : UWM 's XX/XX/XXXX modification offer capitalizes {$18000.00} in accrued interest from the period of UWM-directed non-payment, plus {$1000.00} in attorney fees. UWM 's own loss mitigation summary letter explicitly states there are no fees or other charges for this modification. The capitalization of these amounts directly contradicts UWM 's own representations to the borrower. 03 WHAT I AM ASKING THE CFPB TO DO Open a formal investigation into UWM 's loss mitigation practices on this loan and across its VA portfolio. Direct UWM to evaluate me for the VA Partial Claim Program ( Public Law 119-23 ) before any further foreclosure activity. Direct UWM to cease all foreclosure prosecution activity pending complete loss mitigation evaluation, consistent with 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ). Refer this matter to the Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Service ( VA Loan Technician XXXX XXXX, XXXX ext. XXXX, XXXX, has an open file ). Require UWM to issue corrected credit reporting for all months in which the delinquency was caused by UWM 's own non-payment instruction. Provide me with a written response from UWM within 15 days as your standard process requires, and a copy of UWM 's response. 04 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The following documents are available for transmission to the CFPB upon request : Original XXXX screenshots from XXXX employee " XXXX '' promising rate reduction ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Closing Disclosure dated XX/XX/XXXX confirming 5.625 % fixed rate with no adjustment provisions. UWM loss mitigation evaluation letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. UWM modification offer dated XX/XX/XXXX ( 6.625 % / XXXX / {$3300.00} ). UWM appeal denial letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Connecticut Department of Banking Consent Order against XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX ( {$75000.00} ). Connecticut Department of Banking Consent Order against XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX ( {$50000.00}, license revocation, false statement findings ). Kansas Secretary of State Certificate of Cancellation for XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Filed Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). UWM mortgage statement dated XX/XX/XXXX showing 262 days delinquency. I am asking for the CFPB 's intervention not as a complaint of last resort but as an exercise of the regulatory authority Congress created to protect borrowers from precisely this kind of conduct. UWM is one of the largest VA loan servicers in the country. The treatment I have received as a veteran borrower with a newborn child and an active XXXX diagnosis should not be the standard for veteran homeowners in this nation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to UWM 's required written response and to any further investigation the Bureau elects to undertake. Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX Veteran Borrower | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX | XXXX | XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation