Consumer complaint received 2018-05-29 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: ARVEST BANK GROUP, INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted a Hardships Assistance package to Arvest Central Mortgage Company ( ACMC ) for consideration of a modification of a XXXX loan. 

I received a call on Thursday XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX from XXXX who advised me that my submission was denied. I was given a generic reason that based on the information that I submitted I was not eligible. I requested a more specific reason, but XXXX provided me the same response again and informed that there is no other reason. I asked to speak with the underwriter who made the decision and was placed on hold. Then the call subsequently disconnected. 

I called back that same day around XXXX and spoke to XXXX who advised that she would email the underwriter and her supervisor to call me. 

I received a call Friday XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX from XXXX, a team lead, who informed me that my information was submitted into a tool that issues a value of either 1 or 2. I received a 2 and that means denied. XXXX informed me that beyond that, there is no other information that can provide further detail to explain why I was denied. I asked to speak with the underwriter and, after being placed on hold several times, XXXX advised that the processor, who she explained is the same person as the underwriter, is unable to provide me any additional information about my denial. 

It's a disservice to customers to not provide a clear reason for denial. XXXX offers an appeal option, but without knowing the reason behind a denial a customer would not know what is appeal worthy. There should be more transparency to better service the customers. 

I asked XXXX for various values used in my review. She informed me of my income which used a weekly calculation based on the average of 2 paystubs. My hardship is due to fluctuating income. Using a weekly calculation substantially overinflated my income as it didn't account for low periods. I asked for the rationale behind the calculation and why a year to date calculation wasn't used, but XXXX could not provide an answer. 

I submitted an appeal on Monday XX/XX/XXXX to dispute the income calculation used by the processor/underwriter. I explained that a year to date calculation would account for the fluctuations in my income and provide a more accurate value of my monthly income. 

I'm submitting this because I believe that XXXX needs to provide a better service to their customers requesting hardship assistance. Also, their credit policy for income calculation should be scrutinized and reviewed as they may be using incorrect methods to calculate income with no rationale which could subsequently result in denying eligible borrowers of retention options. 

Additionally, I would like further detail on the reasoning behind my initial submission for assistance along with a rationale behind using a weekly calculation for my monthly income. 

If possible, please include XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) as party in this CFPB submission. XXXX is the investor of my loan and I would like them to be aware of how their loans are being serviced.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation