Consumer complaint received 2018-01-22 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a new home priced at {$460000.00}. I applied a down payment of over {$45000.00} towards the purchase and financed the remaining {$410000.00} through a loan with New American Funding. 
After little over a year, my property accumulated equity as my home was now valued at over {$560000.00} that would include upgrades to my property. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted New American Funding to inquire about having Property Mortgage Insurance ( PMI ) removed. According to New American Funding, New American Funding would remove the PMI as long as the loan balance was paid down to 80 % and/or if the value of the property had equity of 20 % or greater. 
Therefore, I formally requested to have my PMI removed from my loan and based on the following factors ; 1. Since, XX/XX/XXXX, home comparable similar to my property valued from approximately {$540000.00} to {$560000.00}, 2. as of XX/XX/XXXX, loan balance was paid down from {$410000.00} to approximately {$400000.00}, and 3. as of XX/XX/XXXX, additional upgrades in the amount of approximately {$10000.00} was added to my property value. 
I provided New American Funding with all the factors to be considered. Even though detailed, preeminent factors were provided for New American Funding, by conjecture New American Funding had ulterior motives other than to remove the PMI. 
1. In anticipation of cooperation from New American Funding, I formally and cordially requested New American Funding to start the process for review and consideration of removing PMI. Instead, New American Funding would delay my request for almost two months. 

2. As I inquired about the status of my request, I only received excuses from New American Funding representatives as they stated that they were either short staffed, the loan docs were misplaced and/or original request would have to be submitted once more. Despite the excuses given, it appeared that New American Funding representatives initiated my request once I suggested that I would elevate my concerns to management. 

3. As part of the process with the removal of PMI, the property value would be fundamental to excogitate any assessment in general but not paramount to any final decision. Hence, in an effort to mitigate any informalities and/or to avoid nonpareil circumstances, I requested to have an outside, third party perform the appraisal. Instead, New American Funding exclaimed that they would hire their own appraiser and that I would be responsible for the appraisal fees. Albeit, not only did such demand pose a parochial and biased argument on behalf of opposing party but indubitably creates an unjust outcome overall! 

Not only would unethical practices dampen the integrity of business relations but also created controversy among the New American Funding process. As a former State of California XXXX and a former advocate for Consumer Affairs, I am reverently aware of business practices that seldom follow a standardization of integrity. Furthermore, any business that operate outside ethical standards of conduct may and/or may not create an internecine situation among business practice in California, but even more, impact business practices nationwide! 
Fortunately, with the help of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and after CFPB became involved, New American Funding apologized for any mishaps CFPB was able to amicably resolve matters without any further quandary. CFPB was very effective resolving matters in every aspect. In fact, CFPB went above expectations to assure business integrity among consumers and public affairs respectively. Hence, my XXXX and I are seeking your assistance in amicably resolving issues that have repeatedly continued forward. 
In XX/XX/XXXX, I inquired about removing PMI from my mortgage account and with New American Funding once again. To substantiate my request, I gathered public data to support my claim. 
On and/or around XX/XX/XXXX and through XX/XX/XXXX, I conducted a general, analytical market research of property value comparisons within a 19 square miles radius of and/or from my property location. I gathered data from XX/XX/XXXX, and through XX/XX/XXXX. Among data analyzed, I was able to compare homes similarly situated in square footage ( from XXXX square feet to XXXX square feet ), number of bedrooms ( 3 to 4 bedrooms ) bathrooms ( 2 to 4 bathrooms ) attached garage space ( 2 to 3 car garage space ) and overall living space. Other factors that were considered was the level of upgrades ( throughout the property ) if at all, and overall residential influences ( such as schools, business establishments, parks, etcetera ). To put it laconically, the overall property value has risen more than 19 % to 22 % overall. 
Therefore, it would appear that such empirical data would substantiate an increase in equity value of our home/s within the vicinity of data analyzed. 
With that said, I contacted New American Funding on XX/XX/XXXX, to start the process of removing the PMI form my mortgage account. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from New American Funding for instructions to Request For Cancellation of PMI and criteria that would be considered for the removal of PMI. New American Funding stated that I would need to write a formal request for removal of PMI as long as my loan met the standard criteria. 
Therefore, I responded to New American Funding and provided a list of qualifying factors that meet the criteria qualifications for the removal of PMI along with my formal request to have my PMI removed from my mortgage loan. 
Unfortunately, New American Funding entrenched a pattern of creating unnecessary delays and drawbacks after formally requesting a PMI removal. XXXX, I reached out to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) for assistance and in an effort to amicably resolve those dilemmas that appeared to be perpetual at the time. 
Albeit, time would be of the essence for a removal of PMI due to factors that may and/or may not influence interest charges based on time of the loan and the financial obligations that coincide with such influential obligations my aim was to respond laconically and provide pertinent information to New American Funding for the purpose of moving forward in an effort to mitigate and/or avoid any unnecessary time delays thereof. 
I also admonish that under Federal Law and/or The Homeowners Protection Act of 1998, such mandate may and/or may not serve as an operative guide in maintaining a level of integrity between the Mortgage Loan Industry and its consumers respectively. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a reply from New American Funding audaciously asking for information that I had already provided month/s prior and to reiterate information that is already on file. Furthermore, New American Funding are requesting {$140.00} ( BPO fee ) or {$450.00} ( appraisal fee ) made payable to New American Funding. Yet, in complete reverence to my request, it would appear that New American Funding would have intentions of obtaining their appraiser which may and/or may not create nonpareil circumstance/s. Such circumstances may and/or may not influence a one-sided party that potentially result in a bias decision overall! 
Contrariwise, to support my request to remove PMI from my mortgage account, I have met the following criteria under The Homeowners Protection Act ; 1. Since XX/XX/XXXX, home value prices risen significantly in value from {$460000.00}, to approximately {$560000.00}. Therefore, Loan-to-value ratio is 78 % and property value would corollary be paid down by more than 80 %. 

2. Since XX/XX/XXXX, home loan payment history continues to be in excellent standing. 
Regardless, New American Funding still have not removed PMI from my mortgage account. 
It is indubitably transparent that decisions made to stay and/or keep PMI charges on our mortgage account were based on their own nonpareil terms and/or conditions.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation