Consumer complaint received 2026-06-01 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Negative impact of inaccurate appraisal
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Lakeview Loan Servicing due to a complete systemic breakdown of the appraisal dispute process, where my formal Reconsideration of Value ( ROV ) submission directly triggered a pattern of retaliatory data manipulation, false administrative claims, and bad-faith timeline delays. The bank-ordered appraiser, XXXX XXXX XXXX , completely failed to perform a competent, objective property inspection. During his secure interior walkthrough, he engaged in a direct conflict of interest by pursuing personal financial gainsspecifically negotiating the purchase of my personal lawn equipmentrather than accurately evaluating the property layout. His original appraisal report contained severe factual errors, completely omitting a structural 4th bedroom and downgrading it to a " flex space. '' This room possesses a traditional privacy door, closet, egress window, and independent HVAC integration. Furthermore, he originally listed the kitchen and bathroom renovations incorrectly as being 610 years old. I followed Lakeview 's official corporate procedures by filing a formal ROV, attaching irrefutable factual layout evidence, structural definitions, and a historical certified appraisal baseline. The delusion that this property does not have 4 dedicated bedrooms is not going to continue ; the evidence submitted establishes its 4-bedroom structure as an undeniable, historical, and physical factone that is perfectly exposed by Lakeviews own internal hypocrisy, as the lender is currently servicing my current loan portfolio within their own system as a 4-bedroom home while simultaneously standing by this defective 3-bedroom origination report to block my transaction. In direct retaliation to my ROV submission, the appraiser and the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) manipulated the data to execute a cover-up. Instead of correcting the report objectively, the appraiser doubled down on the room dispute, inventing an arbitrary, non-regulatory defense claiming the bedroom is merely a " flex space '' due to its proximity to the entry door and the floor plan 's " flow. '' Additionally, he retroactively altered his report to concede that the renovations were actually 15 years old, falsely dismissing his original error as a mere " typo '' while leaving the market grid adjustment at {$0.00}. Furthermore, the appraiser completely failed to provide any valuation or adjustments for an entirely separate list of documented property improvements I submitted, deliberately omitting these verified value-add assets from the market grid to freeze the final property value. Instead of routing my evidence to an independent, qualified internal reviewer, Lakeview 's management simply rubber-stamped the XXXX 's defensive tactics. Crucially, the XXXX 's written response handed over direct evidence that my claims are true and did occur : the XXXX explicitly documented that the appraiser openly admitted to the personal property discussions on-site, yet they deliberately chose to defend his conduct and dismiss the severe ethics violation anyway. Furthermore, the XXXX attempted to justify the room deletion by hiding behind inaccurate XXXX and county record defense tactics, completely violating standard appraisal regulations which mandate that a valuation must reflect the actual, verified physical characteristics of the property at the time of inspection, regardless of lagging public databases. To further cover up these data failures, the XXXX actively fabricated XXXX XXXX Selling Guide text in writing, falsely claiming Section B4-1.3-05 does not dictate above-grade room reporting standards. Throughout this process, a clear pattern of systemic, week-long delays by Lakeview and the XXXX has occurred to stall my loan progression, contrasting sharply with my immediate responses. I escalated this entire paper trail to executive management on XX/XX/year>. Lakeview has failed to provide any response or internal compliance determination to date. This ongoing administrative silence and deliberate stalling is being used to run out the clock on my original 6.125 % interest rate lock, forcing me into an expensive alternate loan structure. A lender can not legally accept or base a credit decision on a defective valuation asset defended by documented bad-faith misrepresentations and an uncorrected failure to get a proper review.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation