Consumer complaint received 2017-04-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: 360 MORTGAGE GROUP LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : My mortgage servicer, 360 Mortgage Group, based in XXXX, TX, has failed to honor my valid request to have my PMI cancelled under the Homeowners Protection Act. They are attempting to overlap a separate XXXX " two-year seasoning '' rule to deny the cancellation. I can meet all the requirements under the HPA, however. 

See a portion of the second e-mail request ( awaiting an official response ) I submitted on XX/XX/XXXX below : " Attention : Escrow Department and XXXX ( Customer-Service Manager ) After consulting with an agent from the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau ( " CFPB '' ), my original loan officer, and an independent mortgage broker, it is evident that your company has violated federal law under the Homeowners Protection Act of XX/XX/XXXX ( " HPA '' ). Upon requesting my Private Mortgage Insurance ( " PMI '' ) be cancelled in accordance with this law on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a follow-up notice dated XX/XX/XXXX from your offices denying the cancellation on the grounds that my mortgage is not seasoned. This is in direct opposition to the law which supersedes any additional guidelines created by a mortgage lender. Please find attached a complete copy of the HPA in addition to the latest CFPB Bulletin dated XX/XX/XXXX concerning PMI and HPA requirements for your convenience. 

In the bulletin on page six, it clearly states the following regarding the seasoning of a loan : 'The HPA does not contain any requirements for a loan 's tenure before a borrower may request cancellation or be eligible for automatic PMI termination. Nonetheless, in at least one examination, CFPB examiners noted that a servicer imposed a two-year seasoning requirement to automatically terminate PMI, when the HPA does not provide for such a requirement. The CFPB expects mortgage servicers, among others subject to the HPA, to incorporate into their compliance management systems adequate measures to ensure compliance with HPA requirements. ' The above assertion of the CFPB as it pertains to my identical circumstantial denial for PMI removal justifies that you have wrongly rejected my request by overlapping a separate rule of XXXX with the requirements found under the HPA. 

The HPA outlines the requirements as follows under the section titled Cancellation and Termination of PMI : Non-High-Risk Residential Mortgage Transactions. 

( 1 ) I have submitted to you a written request to cancel my PMI. 

( 2 ) The principal balance of my loan ( {$110000.00} ) has reached 80 % of the " original value '' ( {$130000.00} ) based on actual payments. 

( 3 ) I have a good payment history seeing as I have not made a payment that was sixty or more days past due within the first 12 months of the last two years ( only two months approximately to consider in my case ) prior to the cancellation date, which is, per the CFPB, at my option, the date the principal balance actually reached 80 % ( i.e. XX/XX/XXXX ), nor have I made a payment that was thirty days or more past due within twelve months of this cancellation date. By these two criteria, my payment history is considered " good '' despite my loan being approximately 14 months old. Again, there is no seasoning requirement under the HPA. 

( 4 ) I can evidence that the property has not declined below the " original value '' ( XXXX ) upon request by 360 Mortgage Group to obtain a Brokers Price Opinion ( " BPO '' ), a Certification of Value, or appraisal. Any XXXX of the XXXX would be considered valid for XXXX purposes per their guidelines. A couple of homes along my street have recently sold for over {$150000.00}, and I have also made improvements to my pool and the surrounding area along with my sidewalk in front of the house that has likely boosted the property value since the last appraisal was performed in XX/XX/XXXX. 

( 5 ) I can also certify that my equity in the property is not subject to any subordinate liens. ''

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