Consumer complaint received 2018-02-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
The Loan Estimate and information on the Loan Estimate was not disclosed in a clear and conspicuous manner. NFCU provided false information that I based financial decisions on. I did not know the correct terms of my loan until it was too late to change loan terms or companies. 

Loan officer, XXXX XXXX, and I agreed over the phone on XX/XX/XXXX, to lock my loan of {$690000.00} on the day 's rate of 3.75 % and a {$7700.00} lender credit. On XX/XX/XXXX, after discovering the loan documents in my husband 's NFCU account, I noticed the rate was documented as 3.625 % with no lender credit.

After bringing this inconsistency to NFCU 's attention through email, I was asked to call XXXX. He said that I could take the higher rate of 3.75 % for a lender credit of {$6000.00}. I said that is not what he told me : he told me he was locking in a 3.75 % interest rate and a lender credit of {$7700.00}. He explained that he said I would have a " {$7700.00} '' after calculating it for a loan of {$800000.00}, which was my pre-approval number. It is well documented that we were talking about a loan of about $ XXXX {$690000.00}, never anything higher as we already were under a sales contract for our home. Additionally, the sales contract - which confirmed this price- was sent before the rate and lender credit lock. XXXX said he should have called me when he noticed the lender credit was less than what he said it would be. He offered his boss 's information and said that he [ XXXX ] could not do anything about the money lost, but his boss [ XXXX XXXX, DC Metro Regional Manager ] potentially could. 

NFCU employees provided 3 conflicting stories in explanation : 1 ) XX/XX/XXXX, conversation with XXXX : A lender credit of {$7700.00} was promised to me after calculating a lender credit for our pre-approval amount of {$800000.00}. I should have been notified when the amount was less. I could call XXXX to discuss this and potentially receive the amount agreed to : {$7700.00}.

2 ) XX/XX/XXXX, conversation with XXXX : XXXX said that the lender credit ( {$7700.00} ) was based off of my " pre-approval '' number of {$960000.00}, because it was the only number given to XXXX to calculate the rate and lender credit. [ I explained that I provided XXXX the purchase price prior to him providing that lender credit information, and that he must have made a typo : the first two digits in that number, if switched, would be the home 's original contract price of {$690000.00}. ] XXXX maintained that I do not understand how rates and lender credits are locked, which was the problem, and that nothing can be done regardless of what XXXX told me. 

( As follow-up to the call, I requested XXXX put his response in email ; he did not. 

Additionally, I asked to see a document that shows my preapproval number of {$960000.00}, to which XXXX sent the attached document. I would not be able to afford a house of {$960000.00} and the other pre-approvals I received came in much less. ) 3 )  XX/XX/XXXX, conversation with XXXX XXXX customer service ) : XXXX recounted that XXXX explained to her that I asked for {$7700.00}, and he said he could potentially do that for a larger loan. [ I explained that I was always talking about a loan of about {$690000.00} and did ask for a specific lender credit amount ; {$7700.00} was the number he provided for locking in that day on my loan. ] XXXX offered {$520.00} to cover the cost of the home inspection. I said I was going to file a complaint because of the disregard for the truth I experienced, to which XXXX explained that NFCU could no longer offer to cover the inspection cost.

ADDITIONAL HISTORY : When I did not receive an email or document confirming the lock, I emailed XXXX asking to confirm 3.75 % and {$7700.00}, to which I did not get a reply. He did leave a voicemail confirming I was locked in, and I had no reason to think it would be at any other terms than what we had agreed on. 

I lost negotiating power with other lenders because a {$7700.00} lender credit could not be beat, and I canceled my other locks based off this number. 

I asked XXXX to see closing costs multiple times and either did not get a response or I was told I would get them later in the process. 

The Loan Estimate was uploaded to my husband 's NFCU bank account within 3 business days, but I did not access the documents because NFCU always communicated and exchanged documents through email as attachments, so it appeared that the important documents were shared through email. Additionally, NFCU could see that we did not log in to the area that held our Loan Estimate. It was clear I did not receive the Loan Estimate based on my questions.

The Loan Estimate was not presented clearly and conspicuously, and I detrimentally trusted what was communicated to me person-to-person. 
__________________________________________________________________ It can not be reasonably assumed that the general population knows what a Loan Estimate is and something that is required as a protection to them. If it is not provided clearly and conspicuously, the default is to trust what was disclosed to you through other communication or to simply not have the needed information.

" Providing a Loan Estimate '' can be used to the detriment of the client. NFCU will say it " provided '' the Loan Estimate and argue that it was provided " clearly and conspicuously, '' which it was not. Additionally, the Loan Estimate should not conflict the information that was provided to me very clearly and conspicuously over the phone. When it is clear that I do not have the information on the Loan estimate, after I asked XXXX to confirm the information of the loan in email, and then asked for the information of the closing costs through email and phone, it proves that the Loan Estimate was not provided clearly and conspicuously.

The loan company can use the Loan Estimate as protection that it has disclosed the necessary terms, even if the loan company has told the client conflicting information or not provided answers to the needed information, like in my experience.

People may take the word of the loan company rather than ask for a document that they do not know exists. Additionally, my loan officer and his boss preferred to communicate through cell phones. Calls on NFCU landline are recorded, unlike their cell phones. Customer service was unable to pull the calls I had with XXXX and XXXX.

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