Consumer complaint received 2021-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
We planned to refinance our mortgage for a lower rate and shorter term. We were seeking to refinance about one-third of the value of the property. We have excellent ( above XXXX XXXX credit and perfect payment history. We shopped for rates and chose a deal offered by XXXX, with a rate of 2 %, XXXX points, and an processing fee of {$500.00}, paid up front. We were told by the sales agent that it was not possible to lock in that rate, but that rates would likely stay the same or decrease. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after signing our disclosures and paying the {$500.00}, we began working with a processing agent, uploading documents and information to support our loan application. However, after awhile, that individual became difficult to reach, asked for the same information that had already been provided, disappeared and did not respond to questions for several days, and generally caused us to question the pace of our application processing. While we recognized that there is high demand for refinance services- and therefore some understandable delays -- we were growing increasingly concerned about the pace, the misplacing of our information and the long gaps in communication, since rates were steadily rising. At one point, the individual acknowledged he had been ill and reassured us that things were still underway. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, after six weeks without any progress, we wrote to the original loan sales agent about our concerns. The agent did respond to the email with a call in which he acknowledged that our original processing agent had not followed through appropriately, and offering a different agent, However, he also said that because rates had risen, we would need to pay additional points in order to keep the original rate we had chosen in the first place. We were angry but agreed, because we had already sunk the costs of our {$500.00} and the significant time and effort of tracking down and uploading ( sometimes multiple times ) the documentation to support our application. 

Over the next couple of weeks, we occasionally received new requests for more documents : bank statements, etc., which we provided. But we got no information about when the loan would be approved, when we would close, etc. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called the person whose contact information was on the incoming requests for information. That person informed us that the requests for documents we were receiving and responding to were being automatically generated, that they did not actually have anything to do with our application because our account had been made inactive! So, to summarize : after failing to process our application in a timely way, and after telling us that the product would now cost more due to XXXX 's delays in processing, XXXX closed our account without even telling us they were doing it, let alone giving any explanation such as that our loan application was denied. Meanwhile, XXXX continued to send requests for documentation to support our ( now inactive XXXX loan application, thereby giving the impression that they were providing a service that they were not, in fact, providing. This is after we had paid {$500.00} to receive this service. 

We have reached out several times to different individuals at XXXX, via phone calls and emails, documenting this example of fraudulent behavior on their part and requesting the return of our {$500.00}, since they failed to process the loan application at all, let alone within a time frame that allowed us to obtain the rates and costs advertised. While some representatives have acknowledged that their service was flawed, no one has committed to refunding the {$500.00}. They have stated that the fee is non-refundable, even if we are denied the mortgage or decide not proceed with the application. However, the failure here is on the part of XXXX, through their initial incompetence and delay and eventual misrepresentation of the service they claimed to be providing but weren't.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief