Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: United Shore Financial Services, LLC
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against my mortgage servicer, United Wholesale Mortgage ( UWM ), for improperly refusing to remove private mortgage insurance ( PMI ), applying inconsistent and conflicting valuation standards, and failing to maintain adequate servicing records or provide clear, actionable guidance despite my good-faith efforts to meet their stated requirements. My loan had an original home value of {$520000.00}. On XX/XX/2026, I made a lump-sum principal payment of {$37000.00} specifically to reach the 80 % loan-to-value ( LTV ) threshold required for PMI removal. Prior to making this payment, I was explicitly told by a UWM representative that this payment would bring my loan to the required threshold and result in PMI removal. As of my XX/XX/2026 statement, my outstanding principal balance is {$410000.00}, reflecting significant principal reduction and consistent payment history. My payment history also confirms ongoing, timely monthly payments of {$3300.00}. UWMs system reflects that I am currently at 20.3 % equity. However, after making the payment, UWM denied or delayed PMI removal and provided conflicting explanations : - UWM stated that an automated valuation model ( AVM ) estimated my home value at {$470000.00}, resulting in an 88.40 % LTV. - This AVM-based LTV calculation appears to ignore over {$49000.00} in principal reduction already paid toward the loan when compared to the original home value of {$520000.00}, effectively resetting the LTV calculation in a way that disregards actual borrower equity. - UWM stated that I would need to pay down an additional {$37000.00} to reach 80 % LTV. - At the same time, UWM stated that my property would need to appraise at the original value of {$520000.00} or higher in order to qualify for PMI removal. These positions are contradictory and create an unclear and potentially unattainable standard for PMI removal. Additionally, throughout this process, I encountered significant servicing and communication failures : - I was unable to speak with anyone directly responsible for the PMI decision despite multiple attempts via phone, chat, and secure messaging. - I was told that UWM could not provide email records of phone conversations, and there was no clear system tying calls, messages, and case activity together. - I was repeatedly forced to re-explain the situation from the beginning with each interaction, with no indication that prior communications were being tracked or considered. - The only identifying information provided for prior interactions was employee initials, which is insufficient for continuity or accountability. - I received vague and inconsistent responses and no clear explanation of how XXXX was being calculated. - I was given a review timeline extending to XX/XX/2026 for what should be a straightforward PMI removal request. - A work order for an appraisal was initiated without clearly explaining that valuation could be used to deny PMI removal. Due to the lack of transparency, inconsistent guidance, and the risk that my {$37000.00} payment would not be recoverable if delays continued, I made the decision to cancel the process and request a refund of the {$37000.00} payment. This decision was made to mitigate financial risk caused by the servicers failure to provide clear and consistent guidance. Despite these efforts, I continue to be charged {$170.00} per month in PMI, as reflected on my XX/XX/2026 statement.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation