Consumer complaint received 2020-05-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: WINNPOINTE CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2020 at XXXX XXXX, I responded to an advertisement by Interactive Mortgage following their commercial on XXXX XXXX XXXX. I left a message for a sales rep to return my call. The Interactive Mortgage commercial offered a 2.99 % Rate and APR 30 year fixed rate with No Closing Costs for New clients only with a Minimum loan amount of {$250000.00}. ( My current mortgage loan balance is {$280000.00} ) At XXXX XX/XX/2020, I received a phone call from an Interactive Mortgage sales rep by the name of XXXX. I inquired with XXXX about the 2.99 % interest rate promotion. XXXX advised me that even though I qualified for the lowest interest rate available, the 2.99 % interest rate was no longer available, but he could offer me a rate of 3.125 %. I proceeded to provide XXXX with answers to basic over the phone refi loan application questions in relation to the terms of a 3.125 % interest rate. 

At XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/2020, I observed the same identical Interactive Mortgage commercial, on XXXX XXXX XXXX, offering the same 2.99 % interest rate along with the SAME EXACT TERMS as the commercial I observed earlier that same morning of XX/XX/2020. To be clear, this commercial aired following my phone conversation with Interactive Mortgage sales rep XXXX who advised me that the 2.99 % interest rate was no longer available. 

At XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/2020, I contacted Interactive Mortgage following another Interactive Mortgage commercial, reflecting the 2.99 % interest rate. I observed the commercial on XXXX XXXX XXXX again. I spoke with XXXX and inquired about the 2.99 % interest rate. XXXX said the 2.99 % interest rate was no longer available. I explained to XXXX that I just saw the Interactive Mortgage commercial on XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX proceeded to argue with me refusing to honor their advertised interest rate of 2.99 %. As a result, XXXX said he would have Interactive Mortgage Manager XXXX contact me due to my dissatisfaction. 

At XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/2020, I contacted Interactive Mortgage hoping to speak to XXXX. Consequently, XXXX answered my phone call. I explained my dissatisfaction with XXXX argumentative attitude as well as my overall disgust and dissatisfaction that Interactive Mortgage would not honor their advertised interest rate. XXXX advised me that she had just gotten out of a meeting regarding the current lenders promotions. XXXX went on to explain that Interactive Mortgage could not honor the advertised interest rate of 2.99 % to me due to my mortgage balance of {$280000.00}, a minimum mortgage balance of {$350000.00} was required to qualify for 2.99 %. I explained that Interactives TV commercials ( have picture of TV commercial ) specifically stated a minimum mortgage balance of {$250000.00} was required, which I obviously qualify for. 

XXXX continued to defend Interactive Mortgage and said that they issued a retraction to the commercial that I responded to. I said, I have not seen the retraction on TV, but I continue to see Interactives commercials advertising the 2.99 % interest rate with a minimum mortgage balance requirement of {$250000.00}. XXXX adamantly refused to honor Interactive Mortgages commercial advertisement and insisted the original minimum mortgage balance of {$250000.00} was an advertisement mistake but she could get me the best rate possible. I did not accept XXXX elevated interest rate offer of 3.125 % and refused to accept her repeat offers that were in excess of the advertised offer of the 2.99 % interest rate. XXXX said that she would talk to her boss and contact me the following day with the best interest rate she could offer me. I never received a return phone call from XXXX. 

Ultimately, Interactive Mortgages television advertised bait and switch mistake is a textbook marketing deception violation that cost me over {$90000.00}. This type of business practice continues to plague our society and needs to cease and desist with consequences. Unfortunately, the uninformed and vulnerable hard-working citizens that fall for this type of crookedness and unfairness, support these companies and empower them to continue their shady business practices. 

The right thing to do by ANY company that advertises a specific price or terms that involve a discount or savings of a product is to HONOR the advertised price, despite if it is a " mistake ''. It's obviously not the customer 's fault for the mis advertised price. An advertised price is a deciding factor used by the customer and should not be abused by retailers to lure them in. That's simply Fraud 101! With today 's technology, instant fixes are quick and easy remedies. " Printing mistakes '' or " typos '' just aren't acceptable reasons for " misprints '' anymore with Spell Check and Grammar Check ; neither is blaming third party advertisers for their mistakes. If retailers are going to pass the buck onto the third party advertisers for their own " mistakes '', then the retailer needs to incorporate a proof reading provision prior to public circulation. Ultimately, the retailer needs to be held accountable and take responsibility for the material that they make public.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation