Consumer complaint received 2022-05-01 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: BSI Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Servis One , Inc., d/b/a BSI Financial Services is a Repeat Offender they have signed a CFPB consent order indicating that they are aware of the problems, but they continue to behave in a way suggesting that they are ignoring the authority of the CFPB and BSIs responsibility to abide by the consent order. 

This document is part of an ongoing complaint I have filed against BSI Financial, wherein BSI has made an error in the accounting of my impound accounts. To summarize, BSI has debited my account three times for {$2500.00} each time, and two of these are legitimate property tax payments, but the third is inexplicable. Therefore, BSI needs to credit me for their {$2500.00} error. However, instead of evaluating the information and reviewing the accounting, BSI keeps fabricating explanations and never provides documentation to support their fictitious claims, because there is no logical explanation for the debit other than an accounting error on BSIs part. 
BSIs most recent fabrication attempts to dismiss the problem by claiming that the extra debit was a back-payment for unpaid XX/XX/XXXX property tax. But BSI provides no supporting documentation to defend this claim. 
Below, is my supporting documentation showing that BSIs claim of back-payment of taxes is clearly wrong. The taxes were paid in XX/XX/XXXX ( on time ) through my impounds held and paid by my mortgage service provider at that time : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. BSI was not even involved with my mortgage until XX/XX/XXXX after I had refinanced my home loan and the new loan was sold to BSI for mortgage servicing. 
My series of documents below shows : 1. A copy of property tax bill indicating {$2500.00} amount due by XX/XX/XXXX ( would be delinquent after that date ) 2. Mortgage statement from my credit union ( which was the loan servicer at that time ) indicating a payment of {$2500.00} for property tax Bill 2 corresponding to the payment due in XX/XX/XXXX. 
3. Copy of property tax statement indicating that the payment was applied on XX/XX/XXXX. 

These documents prove that BSI did not make a {$2500.00} payment toward XX/XX/XXXX taxes, since : 1. The taxes had already been paid on XX/XX/XXXX and were not delinquent 2. BSIs dollar amount does not match the tax amount due ( {$2500.00} vs {$2500.00} ), and the County will not accept tax payments that dont match the amount due 3. The property tax statement shows that payment was collected on XX/XX/XXXX which is ten months prior to when BSI claims to have sent a payment i.e. BSIs claim is patently false In addition, BSI has a history of mismanaging escrow/impound accounts as demonstrated by a {$200000.00} fine levied by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in XXXX for severe escrow mismanagement. In fact, BSI is currently under a five year consent order associated with the XXXX penalty. But a review of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX information on BSI reveals hundreds of complaints of a similar nature - all clearly demonstrating BSI 's disregard for the consent order.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation