Consumer complaint received 2026-04-29 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Changes in loan terms during the application process
Company: LD Holdings Group, LLC
State: KY

Complaint narrative:
Issue : Mortgage Refinance Misleading Information, Improper Loan Handling, and Inconsistent Underwriting Decisions I am submitting a complaint regarding the handling of my VA refinance ( IRRRL/streamline ) application with LoanDepot. My initial Loan Estimate was issued on XX/XX/year>. At that time, the loan was structured using an estimated property value of approximately {$270000.00} and a loan amount of approximately {$250000.00}, reflecting a loan-to-value ( LTV ) ratio of approximately 94 %. The loan proceeded under these terms and I received a conditional approval. At the outset, I was informed that this would be a VA streamline refinance and that no appraisal would be required. Based on that understanding, the loan proceeded for approximately XXXX month without an appraisal being ordered. Approximately XXXX month into the process, I was then informed that an appraisal was required. After the appraisal was completed and returned at approximately the same value initially used ( {$270000.00} ), I was later informed that the loan was denied due to the LTV being too high. This is particularly concerning because the LTV had not materially changed from the beginning of the process. The loan was conditionally approved and continued for an extended period before being denied for a factor that was present and known from the outset. There were also delays in obtaining subordination approval for an existing solar loan, which were referenced multiple times throughout the process. Despite this, there appeared to be a lack of effective coordination and follow-through. I was ultimately required to personally escalate the matter directly with the solar company, including filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, in order to obtain progress. Despite these delays, the appraisalif it was ultimately going to be requiredcould have been completed earlier rather than being introduced later in the process, which contributed to unnecessary inefficiency. Due to the delays in processing, rate lock extensions became necessary. I was informed that the costs associated with these extensions would be covered by lender credits. However, my Closing Disclosure reflects {$0.00} in lender credits while showing that I am being charged discount points and other fees. When I questioned this discrepancy, I was advised that such credits would not appear on the Closing Disclosure and were instead factored into the loan. This lack of transparency raises concerns regarding how these costs were applied and disclosed. Further, if the lender had a strict internal LTV requirement ( such as a 90 % cap ), this should have been identified at the beginning of the process based on the initial loan structure. Instead, the loan continued for an extended period before being denied for that same issue, which raises concerns about proper evaluation and underwriting practices. I was also provided inconsistent explanations regarding the status and structure of my loan. I was initially told the loan was impacted or denied due to loan-to-value ( LTV ), and later told it was due to cost structure and discount points. These conflicting explanations have made it difficult to understand what actually occurred. Despite these issues, the loan continued to move forward, and I was led to believe that the loan was progressing toward closing, including being told that it could close within XXXX hours once final approval was obtained. My concerns are that : - The loan proceeded for an extended period based on a Loan Estimate dated XX/XX/year>, despite an LTV that was later cited as a reason for denial - I was informed no appraisal was required, yet XXXX was introduced later in the process after significant time had passed - The appraisal was not completed earlier despite known delays, contributing to inefficiency - If lender LTV limits existed, they were not applied at the outset- I was required to personally escalate subordination approval, including filing a XXXX complaint, due to lack of coordination - Rate lock extension costs were represented as covered by credits but are not reflected transparently in final disclosures - Costs and lender credits were misrepresented or not clearly disclosed - I was given inconsistent and conflicting explanations regarding the loan structure and status I am requesting : - A full review of my loan file, including recorded communications - An explanation of how rate lock extension costs were applied and why they are not reflected on the Closing Disclosure - Clarification on lender credits that were discussed but not reflected in final disclosures - An explanation of why the loan proceeded with a known LTV that was later used as a basis for denial - A determination of whether this loan was handled in compliance with applicable consumer protection standards I am prepared to provide supporting documentation, including my Loan Estimate dated XX/XX/year>, Closing Disclosure, and written communications.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation