Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: HI

Complaint narrative:
I am attempting to cancel Private Mortgage Insurance on my conventional mortgage serviced by Onity Mortgage ( formerly PHH Mortgage ). Onity denied my request based on a flawed Broker Price Opinion ( BPO ), allowed that XXXX to expire during its own review of my dispute, refused to reconsider it, and in its most recent response reverted to an even lower, years-old value to keep me ineligible. Onity has also failed to answer four of the five specific information requests I made in a Qualified Written Request under RESPA. XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Onity sent a PMI removal options letter identifying {$360000.00} as the value needed to reach 75 % LTV. XX/XX/XXXX I paid the {$150.00} valuation fee. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX completed an interior+exterior BPO. XX/XX/XXXX Onity denied PMI removal citing a BPO value of {$320000.00} ( 84.22 % LTV ). XX/XX/XXXX I requested the full valuation report. XX/XX/XXXX Onity delivered the BPO, 43 days after the inspection. XX/XX/XXXX I submitted a detailed Reconsideration of Value with four same-project comparable sales, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$360000.00}, and documentation of interior upgrades. XX/XX/XXXX Onity declined the XXXX solely because the BPO was more than 90 days old, demanded a new valuation fee, and stated no servicing error occurred. XXXX XXXX, XXXX I sent a Qualified Written Request / Notice of Error / Request for Information under RESPA and Regulation X, by email and certified mail. XXXX XXXX, XXXX Onity acknowledged the QWR. XX/XX/XXXX Onity issued its substantive response : still denying, fee non-refundable, and now relying on a property value of {$310000.00} ( an origination-era figure, lower than the BPO it had charged me for ) to calculate LTV at 85.50 %. Why Onity 's handling is improper Onity allowed its own valuation to expire during its own review cycle, then used that expiration as the reason it would not reconsider the value. Onity took 43 days just to deliver the BPO to me. The 90-day validity window expired inside Onity 's own review and document-production timeline, not because of any delay on my part. After refusing to use the expired BPO, Onity reverted to a property value of {$310000.00} a figure tied to my XXXX loan origination and LOWER than the {$320000.00} BPO it charged me {$150.00} to obtain. PMI removal eligibility is based on current market value. Onity can not reject a valuation as too old to be reliable and simultaneously rely on an even older value to deny eligibility. Onity charged me a {$150.00} fee for a BPO, denied me based on that BPO, and now says the same BPO can not be used yet refuses to refund the fee. In my XX/XX/XXXX QWR I made five specific Requests for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36. Onity 's XX/XX/XXXX response answered only one ( the fee question ) and did not provide, or explain the unavailability of, the other four : the specific investor guideline requiring 75 % LTV ; Onity 's BPO-versus-appraisal ordering policy ; Onity 's written Reconsideration of Value procedures and borrower timeframe ; and confirmation whether the valuation vendor and broker were notified of my reconsideration. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 ( d ) a servicer must either provide the information or explain why it is unavailable. Onity 's XX/XX/XXXX response did not address any of the specific substantive defects I identified in the BPO ( described below ). Substantive defects in the BPO that Onity has never addressed The BPO 's own three closed comparables all within my condominium project, XXXX XXXX XXXX produced adjusted values of {$400000.00}, {$320000.00}, and {$380000.00}. The median is {$380000.00} and the mean is {$360000.00}. The broker selected the single lowest adjusted figure ( {$320000.00} ) as the final value with no articulated reconciliation. The BPO 's own neighborhood active-listing range was {$320000.00} {$390000.00}. The final value of {$320000.00} falls below the bottom of the broker 's own reported range. The broker assigned only {$5500.00} of contributory value to extensive interior upgrades she personally observed during the XX/XX/XXXX interior inspection including luxury vinyl flooring throughout, recessed lighting in every room, a refinished shower with new plumbing, a custom built-in entertainment center, repainted interior and exterior, and a fully boarded stand-up attic storage area. This is inconsistent with the broker 's own + {$40000.00} condition adjustment applied to a separate comparable that was in merely Fair condition. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX values the property at {$360000.00} above the {$360000.00} figure Onity itself identified as the 75 % LTV threshold. A same-project sale at XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX ( XXXX bed / XXXX bath / XXXX sqft ) closed XX/XX/XXXX at {$410000.00}.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation