Consumer complaint received 2023-03-24 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: SERVICEMAC, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is in regard to an apartment we own at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( the " Property '' ) that is managed by an HOA. We have a conventional 30-year mortgage on the Property through ServiceMac , LLC ( the " Lender '' ). 

In early XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX, we received a letter from the Lender indicating that we needed to submit proof of flood insurance on the subject Property or the Lender would purchase a flood insurance policy on our behalf and charge the premium to our escrow account. In response to this letter, I contacted the Lender on XX/XX/XXXX and provided proof of flood insurance to a Lender representative ( XXXX ) who confirmed receipt of the insurance certificate and advised that it would be processed within 5 business days. I assumed at this point that I had fulfilled the Lender request as our auto-payments on the mortgage remained unchanged and there was no further correspondence from the Lender. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a similar letter from the Lender indicating that the they did not have evidence of flood insurance on the Property in XXXX and had previously purchased insurance on the Property and charged it to our account. The letter requested that I provide proof of insurance within 45 days or the Lender would renew the Lender-placed flood policy and the premium would be charged to my escrow account. The fact that the Lender purchased a flood insurance policy on my behalf contradicts what I were told by the Lender representative on XX/XX/XXXX. So, at this time, I checked our escrow account and there was a {$2200.00} charge on XX/XX/XXXX labeled as " Flood Insurance Dispersement ''. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the Lender in response to this letter and spoke with another Lender representative ( XXXX ). I advised that proof of insurance was previously provided and that we have confirmation from XX/XX/XXXX that the insurance certificate was received and processed. The Lender requested that I re-submit the certificate in order to reverse the XX/XX/XXXX charge to my escrow account and ensure that the premium for renewing the original Lender-placed flood policy mentioned in the XX/XX/XXXX letter would not be executed. I re-sent my certificate of insurance that was originally transmitted on XX/XX/XXXX and confirmed by the Lender as having been received and processed. Because there was clearly an issue with the first flood certificate transmittal, I asked if I could stay on the phone with the Lender representative to receive verbal confirmation that the email with proof of insurance was received. However, the Lender representative advised that emails take up to 5 business days to be received and he would be unable to confirm and process my email while on the phone. Having no other apparent options, the conversation ended there. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, a second {$2200.00} charge labeled " Flood Insurance Dispersement '' hit my escrow account suggesting that the proof of flood insurance had still not been received or processed. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called and spoke with another Lender representative XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) who advised that I re-send our proof of insurance via the same method I had already tried twice in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. An alternative method that was proposed by the Lender was to fax the documentation, but I advised that I do not have access to technology that antiquated. I again requested to submit the documentation via email and have the Lender confirm verbally that they have received and processed it. However, I was again advised that emails can take " several business days '' to be received, so I requested to escalate the matter in order to connect with someone who has the authority to receive a direct email. The intent of this request was to ensure that my proof of insurance was received immediately ( e.g. at the speed of email, not several business days later ). 

I was connected with a Lender escalation specialist ( XXXX, Washington XXXX ) who proposed the same solutions that the original Lender representative proposed : ( 1 ) send proof-of-insurance to the same address I had already submitted information to twice, or ( 2 ) send the documentation via fax. I explained that I have already un-successfully submitted proof to the email address ( with an " up to 5 business day '' processing time ) twice and that I do not have access to antiquated fax technology, so would prefer to send the documentation to a direct email address that could be checked while I was on the phone in order to receive verbal confirmation of receipt. The escalation specialist advised that they are not issued direct email addresses in their company, that this would not be possible, and that another option would be to involve our insurance agent and have them fax the documentation to the Lender on our behalf. 

At this point, it seemed like the Lender was intentionally not processing our proof of insurance and attempting to sow confusion into the matter by involving more third parties. I said this to the escalation specialist and advised that what was being done felt predatory. I indicated that I have watched over {$4000.00} be taken from my account despite dedicating numerous hours of my own personal time to the matter only to have my efforts be ignored by the Lender dating back to XX/XX/XXXX. I again requested - one last time- to be connected with someone with a direct email address that I could send our proof of insurance to and receive verbal confirmation that it was received and processed. However, the Lender escalation specialist advised that the options presented previously were all that were available to me. The conversation ended there. 

After our call, I re-submitted my proof of insurance via email- for the third time - and am turning to the CFPB to help me resolve this issue. The Lender says they would prefer that that I carry my own flood insurance, but their actions indicate that the opposite is true. It seems highly predatory to lie to the consumer about receiving/processing proof of insurance, purchasing a duplicate flood policy on my behalf ( not once, but twice ), and then intentionally obfuscating the matter by requesting information be sent via antiquated technology ( fax ) or through third party middle-men.

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