Consumer complaint received 2017-02-03 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
Dear CFPB : This was prepared as my Dispute of XXXX Bank 's Response in Case Number XXXX. The CFPB website, due to a technical glitch, will not permit the Dispute to be submitted. Consequently, I am filing a new Complaint. However, this should be consolidated with the aforementioned Case. 
This case pertains to the refund of tax overpayments by banks to their home mortgage customers. It is a standard practice for a homeowner with a mortgage that escrows taxes to pay real property taxes TWICE when a home is sold near the beginning of a tax year. When this happens, the taxing authority ( in my case, XXXX County, Maryland ) refunds the surplus tax payment to the homeowner. The procedure it follows for making this refund is as follows : half of the amount due is sent directly to the homeowner ; the other half is sent to the pertinent mortgage bank for repayment to its home mortgage customer. Accordingly, XXXX County made the direct payment of half the tax refund due ( {$10000.00} XXXX. It sent the other half to US Bank 's agent for tax payments and refunds, a company called XXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, has advised, in writing, that the latter payment cleared XXXX XXXX, 2016. Nevertheless, after the passage of four months, the tax refund of {$10000.00} is still in US Bank 's hands. 
So how did US Bank respond to these allegations when made in Case number XXXX? It pointed to the payment of {$10000.00} and implied that was everything to which I was entitled. The Bank ignored the payment by XXXX County of the second half of the tax refund to its collection agent, XXXX, for repayment to me. 
I have furnished US Bank with written documentation from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that it directly paid me a tax refund of {$10000.00}, representing half the sum due, and that it it paid the Bank 's agent, XXXX, the remaining tax refund of {$10000.00} earmarked for me. The written documentation confirms that saif payment to US Bank 's agent cleared XXXX, XXXX, 2016. 
Given these representations, is n't it clear that US Bank is either engaged in intentional obfuscation with the intent to defraud, or that its banking practices are sloppy and lack adequate controls. Either way, it is not reasonable to assume that the Bank 's mishandling of the tax refund is limited to my ordeal. The stronger assumption is that US Bank 's mishandling of tax refunds, whether due to intentional conversion or inadequate internal controls, is injuring a broad swathe of its home mortgage customers. 
For the forgoing reasons, I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate : 1 ) US Bank 's refusal to pay the {$10000.00} tax refund sent to it by XXXX County on my behalf ; and 2 ) US Bank 's tax refund practices and procedures across the base of its home mortgage customers. 
Thank you for considering this Complaint and for also reading this statement in conjunction with Case number XXXX.

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 monetary relief