Consumer complaint received 2025-06-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
I requested cancellation of PMI on my conventional mortgage after approaching the XXXX XXXX  XXXX threshold. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX denied the request, citing a current XXXX of XXXX XXXX, based on the original value of {$390000.00}. 

At the time of denial, XXXX already had {$1400.00} in suspense a payment withdrawn from our account but not applied to principal. A second biweekly payment of the same amount is scheduled to draft on XX/XX/XXXX, which would bring the balance to or below the XXXX XXXX threshold. We are willing to submit any minimal additional principal needed to meet that requirement even though the current shortfall is only XXXX XXXX, which highlights how aggressively this policy is being enforced against responsible borrowers. Despite this, XXXX continues to accrue PMI and interest as though the funds were never received. 

The denial letter also cited XXXX XXXX PMI guidelines, including a XXXX XXXX  XXXX requirement, even though our loan is not XXXX XXXX. Referencing investor-specific policy in generic denials without confirming applicability is misleading. The letter also offers a {$150.00} broker price opinion ( BPO ) review based on XXXX XXXX policy that doesn't apply which feels predatory, especially toward borrowers who XXXX not recognize the inconsistency. 

Additionally, the denial letter itself is confusing and misleading. It includes multiple faint checkbox sections referencing unrelated disqualifiers such as the loan being XXXX days past due and the property value declining below its original value. These statements are not true in our case, yet they appear with the same visual weight as the active denial reason. This kind of ambiguous formatting gives the impression that multiple disqualifying factors apply, when they do not and would likely mislead less-informed borrowers reviewing the notice. 

XXXX own public equity estimator currently shows our home valued at over {$500000.00}, yet they continue to rely on the XXXX appraisal used at original loan closing to calculate loan-to-value. 
In early XXXX, we pursued a refinance and XXXX ordered a new appraisal, which came in at {$430000.00} but that appraisal contained material errors, including the omission of an entire bedroom, and was never corrected. Despite these inaccuracies, we were still required to pay for the appraisal in full and couldn't refinance. XXXX has refused to acknowledge that valuation for any servicing relief. Despite this history and current market evidence of significantly higher home value, XXXX continues to rely solely on the original XXXX appraisal for PMI purposes. 

If XXXX had used the {$430000.00} appraised value they themselves ordered in XX/XX/XXXX during our refinance attempt, we would have met the 80 % XXXX threshold at that time and PMI would have been cancelable over a year ago. Rejecting that appraisal for servicing relief, while using the lower XXXX value to prolong PMI charges, demonstrates selective policy enforcement and contradicts XXXX own data. This inconsistency has resulted in prolonged borrower costs that could have been avoided. 

I believe XXXX handling of payment suspense, PMI evaluation, and policy communication violates federal servicing standards and XXXX constitute unfair or deceptive conduct. 

NOTE : XXXX already possesses the appraisal referenced, dated XX/XX/XXXX, which they ordered and used during our refinance process. XXXX was also responsible for such fee imposed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation