Consumer complaint received 2017-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Suntrust Mortgage  violated the Periodic Statement Rule with my mortgage statement of  X/XX/XXXX . There was a new " fee '' of {$190.00} added to this bill. The  Rule requi res a detailed explanation of any fees but no explanation was on the bill for it. Called the number on the mortgage statement, required by law to take me to someone with answers about this unknown charge. Person answering said could not tell what the charge was for, other than it was "  Home Preservation. ''  They gave another phone number, which I called and selected to receive a callback.  Three  days later (  X/XX/XXXX  ) I had not received a callback, so I called again.  XXXX  in Collections answered, said she was NOT  Home Preservation, that I n eeded client services. I requested her to transfer me to a Supervisor a t Client Services. Inste ad, she connected me to  Home Preservation.  That representative  ( I D #  XXXX   ) s aid he was not the correct person either, but after I had to provide all of my account details yet again, he offered to " check into it. '' He said the fee appeared to be for "  Corporate Advance Fee '' a nd " BPO Evaluation. '' I explained I had not applied for a refi, restructuring, nor new loan since I was had been a severely mistreated victim of  Suntrust 's H AMP debacle, for which they were fined billions, back in spring of  XXXX . I was placed on hold for more than  ten mi nutes. Finally the gentleman said that charges for a " Market Analysis, ''  " BPO, ' ' and " Corporate Advance '' totaling {$190.00} had been added to my   XXXX   XXXX   bill because they neglected to charge me for it at the time of my applicatio n THREE YE ARS AGO - spring of   XXXX  . At that time, when I was told m y Suntrust Mortga ge the exact amount to bring my account current, that amount was paid, in every month in the  three years since,  that bill has been paid on time. Therefore, I refused to accept this {$190.00} charge as I believe  Suntrust i s up to their old tricks again and am not paying for something twice. If they failed to include it in my bill when we requested to know the exact amoun t Suntrust wanted  back in  XXXX  after they turned down my  HAMP  application, that is o n Suntrust. I qualif ied for that Application on  seven lev els. They kept denying it or sending it back to be resubmitted for items including wanting the date written out on my  Financial Statements as  "   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   '' instead of   XXXX  , and other ridiculous, bogus reasons. After  five m onths of jumping through hoops I was congratulated b y Suntrust for com pleting the application, which I was told was " something hardly anyone accomplishes. '' I was specificially instructed b y my Suntrust  home preservation representative which of the  seven qu alification categories to select for the application, even though they give you the option for many more than that. Later, when I hadnt heard back for several weeks after the application was accepted, I called and was told the qualification category I had selected for the application " could never had let me have the application granted because my home wasnt underwater. '' I KNOW that my home preservation representative knew that, and I believe  Suntrust informed her to have me make that choice because it was the only one of the seven that might have disqualified my application. I asked to resubmit my app under one of the other six circumstances fo relief I qualified for. The gentlman said, " I 'm sorry, there is no money left in the program. '' Which is an utter lie because it is public online that Suntrust on ly gave out about {$250000.00} of the {$2.00}  XXXX  they were given by the government to assist applicants. Not only  that, Suntrust had solicite d ME to apply for this program ; therefore, I should not have been charged any fees when they knew they were ripping off clients. They were convicted of criminal fraud and had to pay billions. But not to me. I couldnt afford the lawyer to sue them

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