Consumer complaint received 2020-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
To whom it may concern : I initially complained to your agency about USAA changing my escrow analysis date without any warning. When I notified USAA and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) I was given the run-a-round for a while. Eventually, someone from XXXX offered me the option of reverting back to my original escrow analysis date. I accepted but then was informed that my escrow analysis date would still be changed in order to better align themselves with the NY tax schedule. This of course, did not make any sense because my mortgage account has been active and in good standing for the past 7 years, regardless of any state tax scheduling or whatever excuse USAA decides on. 
USAA 's recent response makes no sense. The following is their response : Company 's Response We are responding to the concerns about the USAA Federal Savings Bank ( FSB ) you outlined in your correspondence to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding your mortgage loan serviced by XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/2019, XXXX mailed you an escrow analysis indicating your monthly payment would increase by {$60.00} due to an increase in taxes. The new monthly payment was {$2900.00}. The escrow analysis also showed an overage, and a surplus refund check was mailed to you for {$1300.00}. On XX/XX/2019, XXXX mailed you an escrow analysis indicating your monthly payment would increase by {$60.00} due to an increase in taxes. The new monthly payment was {$2900.00}. There was a surplus in the escrow account, and a check for {$94.00} was mailed to you. You called XXXX on XX/XX/2019, asking why an escrow analysis was run twice in one year. You were correctly advised that the state scheduled changed for New York from XXXX to XXXX. In order to better align the escrow analysis with the tax disbursements, the escrow analysis was changed to XXXX. However, XXXX offered you the option to cancel the XXXX analysis and revert the loan back to the XX/XX/2019, analysis. You accepted the offer, the XX/XX/2019, analysis was canceled, a stop-payment was placed on the escrow surplus check of {$94.00}, and your monthly payment was updated to {$2900.00}. XXXX XXXX, we regret any frustration you experienced ; however, a thorough review of your loan and escrow account was completed, and we confirmed that your escrow account was handled according to established guidelines and procedures. Should you have any additional questions, XXXX XXXX, of our staff, remains available to assist you. We appreciate the opportunity to review this matter and respond to you. 


The company 's response doesn't make any sense. Aside from the fact that they acknowledge that I filed correspondence with the Consumer Financial Protection bureau for a sudden change in my escrow analysis date. USAA Federal Savings Bank claims that my escrow analysis showed an overage and a surplus check in the amount of {$1300.00} was mailed to me? What are they talking about? The only check I received was for {$94.00}. What are they trying to pull here? USAA and XXXX XXXX ( now calling themselves XXXX XXXX ) are set on changing my escrow analysis from XXXX to XXXX of every year in order to align themselves with the time of year the NY Governor usually sends out the TAX RELIEF check to all NY home owners. I understand that under the RESPA, the homeowner is entitled to request a new escrow analysis from their bank upon receiving at tax relief check. It seems that USAA and XXXX are both looking for convenience at the inconvenience of their homeowner clients. As a homeowner I should not have make anything convenient for my bank. If it's not broken then why fix it? USAA never had a problem with my Escrow Analysis in the past 7 years regardless of when the Tax RELIEF check was issued. That's why RESPA was created in the first place. Banks use any possible reason they can to conduct two or more escrow analysis in order to prematurely increase mortgage payments to the point where the homeowner has no alternative but to payoff the mortgage or sell their home. Is this really fair to all homeowners?

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