Amcap Mortgage, LTD.

Concerning the response provided by Mr [redacted] on June 29, 2015: [redacted] accepts Mr [redacted] ’s admissions that his relationship with [redacted] was for [redacted] originationAs previously stated, [redacted] is a [redacted] originator and not a servicer Mr [redacted] ’s assertion that [redacted] failed to provide him notice of the sale of his loan days before it occurred is incorrectApart from the reasons previously stated, Mr [redacted] apparently relies upon a personal interpretation of what constitutes a loan transfer which does not correspond to the actual term under federal law at U.S.C§2605(i)(1) [redacted] has attempted to explain this error to Mr [redacted] without success Mr [redacted] states that [redacted] cashed his check without applying the amount to his loan; that is incorrectAs we previously stated, when his first payment was received his loan information had already been placed out to bid with other loans and that data could not be updated for the bidders, however the credit was applied to his accountUpon the sale of the loan, the purchaser was notified that the credit had been received, but the purchaser failed to deduct the appropriate amount from the total payments sent to *** [redacted] detected the error when the payment balances would not reconcile and took immediate action to make sure that Mr [redacted] received the appropriate credit [redacted] accepts Mr [redacted] ’s confirmation that [redacted] applied the credits to his loan balance and that all payments received have been credited to his accountMr [redacted] admits that all payments were applied prior to May 1, which was the next date relevant to computation of accrued interest and loan balanceMr [redacted] continues to incorrectly argue that he is owed some further adjustment to credit his accountA representative from [redacted] has again contacted Mr [redacted] directly to provide him with a detailed accounting statement reflecting his payments received and showing that his loan balance and charges are all accurately computed through to the transfer of ownership Mr [redacted] resurrects complaints that have previously been addressed in other fora regarding complaints with his loan officerMr [redacted] was promised a credit for an appraisal fee which totaled $Following closing, a check request was submitted for processing in that amountDue to timing issues and an incomplete verification checklist that had to be resubmitted to accounting, it took three weeks to process the requestWhile the request was being processed, Mr [redacted] filed a complaint alleging he was owed $Before we received the complaint we had already mailed the refund check to Mr [redacted] , and we reported so in our response to that complaintMr [redacted] ’s other allegations involve alleged inaccuracies in the closing papers which delayed his closingThe documents prepared for Mr [redacted] ’s closing were based upon information provided by Mr [redacted] or obtained from investigation and disclosed to Mr [redacted] in documents he acknowledged receiving well in advance of the closingMr [redacted] ’s closing was delayed until the next business dayAs Mr [redacted] admits, the Texas [redacted] dismissed his complaint In summary, [redacted] denies Mr [redacted] ’s allegations that it has not complied with all laws it is subject to as a [redacted] originator Though Mr [redacted] clearly does not personally believe so, [redacted] carried out all actions in a timely manner and in accordance with established business practices and principles for the industry [redacted] has accurately credited all payments received from Mr [redacted] and reported all obligations due from Mr [redacted] In short, we have accommodated every reasonable request and provided all relevant information related to this transaction

To the Dispute Resolution Team:
*** ***, Ltdhas received the complaint notice
submitted by Mr*** ***, assigned the reference ID ***, and reviewed
the information provided therein.
Unfortunately, Mr***’s statement reflects an incomplete
understanding of certain
facts and processes surrounding his transaction as well as an inaccurate
representation of his relationship to our company
Mr*** did request, and was approved for, a *** loan
transaction that was consummated on March 30, However, as part of his
application process, and clearly noted in the documents signed by Mr*** at
closing, was the disclosure that *** would not be retaining and servicing the
loan which he was receivingInstead, we notified Mr*** that his loan, along with many others,
would be sold into the secondary *** retention and servicing market upon
consummation. *** is a ***
originator and is not in the business of servicing loans for other
companiesConsequently, Mr***’s assertion that his loan was illegally
transferred is false; it was always anticipated that *** would sell Mr
***’s loan to another entity which would then own the *** note and
lienWhat company that would be could not be ascertained at the time because
Mr***’s loan would be offered for sale along with a pool of other ***s
to be bid upon by investors.
A few days after his loan was originated, Mr***’s loan
was posted in such a pool and, on April 13, the sale of the entire pool was
finalized to ***, who requested that the information necessary to service
the loan be sent to ***, their servicing agentThe role of the servicing
agent is to collect payments on behalf of the investor, communicate with the
debtor when needed, and undertake collection efforts when the debtor defaults
on payments
The issues that Mr*** chiefly complains of are chiefly a result of his own actions following the origination of the loanGenerally,
when a consumer commits to a 30-year ***, they make monthly payments based
upon the principal and interest calculated in the loan terms beginning with the
next month after originationMr*** however, submitted three payments
within the first three weeks; before any payment was due At the same time, his loan had been placed for
sale based upon the unpaid principal balance of the loan prior to receipt of
the payments. I will attempt to place a
rapid series of concurrent events into an understandable order; however I wish
to convey that there are transactions and conversations occurring among separate
entities and ***s simultaneously; which resulted in a significant disruption
of what is a normally smooth process
Simplest to account for are the latter two payments
submitted by Mr***; for $20,and $20,These checks sent by Mr
*** were received at *** after the sale to *** had already
transferred ownership from ***The result is that *** did not legally own,
nor could we accept his paymentsWe could simply have returned the payments to
him as void; however, because Mr*** was at this point regularly contacting
the accounting *** at ***, they accommodated Mr*** by endorsing
the payment named for *** over to the rightful owner of the note, and
forwarded the payments on to *** for acceptance. As we no longer are legally or beneficially
involved with the transaction, *** cannot obtain payment history information
from *** on the processing of those checks; however we believe that once
*** received the payments they promptly credited them against Mr***’s
accountSince the payment is not received by the proper party until processed
by ***; that is the effective date on which his payments were received, not
when *** received themIf Mr*** had not attempted to make so many
payments so soon after the origination of his loan, he would have received the
notification which informed him of the correct address to use to ensure timely
processing of his paymentsIf Mr*** has any complaints regarding ***’s
handling of his payments, then he will need to address his complaints there as
*** cannot be responsible for another company or its agents
The first payment of $64,is more complicated to explain,
because the payment was received while *** still held Mr***’s note, but
after the loan had been posted for purchase as part of a larger pool of loans
The exact mechanisms of these sales are intricate and not germane here, except
that the extensive calculations that the bidders are undertaking require certainty
in the value of the assets for saleSo, when Mr***’s payment was received,
*** noted the credit, but could not update the information in the auction
transaction that was already underway.
Once the sale to *** was finalized, *** did notify the purchaser
of the reduction in loan amount on Mr***’s obligationAs that transaction
was finalized, there should have been an adjustment in the total purchase
reflecting the updated loan amount; however, for whatever reason, when the
final statements and settlements were audited, *** learned that the
adjustment had not been processed at the purchasing end and the unadjusted
balance was the final resultThis led to a corresponding overage in ***’s
accountsPromptly upon discovery, *** transmitted the $64,difference to
*** to credit Mr***’s accountMr*** complains that *** did not
credit this payment until they received it on April 30; however it is our
understanding that the servicer has made adjustments to Mr***’s account
that would effectively credit the account for the delay in processingIt would
take additional time and communication with *** to confirm that information,
however; and our understanding is that your group wishes for us to provide a
response as quickly as possible
To review: Mr***’s allegation that *** improperly
serviced his loan is misplaced, as *** is not a loan servicer but an
originatorThe regulations he references are established so that a borrower knows
where to send his next regular payment for prompt processing, and apply to a
transfer between servicing companies, not a sale transaction Had Mr*** waited until his regular
payment date or contacted our accounting *** to discuss his intent to
make an irregular payment in advance of sending that payment; we could have
directed him to the appropriate destinationMr***’s claim that payments
were not promptly applied is mostly inaccurate because he submitted two
payments to the wrong address; therefore they could not be credited to his
account until received by the correct partyThe last payment was received
while the loan was subject to a pending sale transaction; and the application of
that payment was made once it was noted that the transfer had failed to account
for the credit If Mr*** has
complaints concerning ***’s servicing of his loan, he will need to direct
them to *** or the owner of his ***; not ***, as we are not liable
for acts occurring following the legal transfer of ownership of the instrument
Nor can we intercede on his behalf, due
to privacy laws and lack of standing
I would close by noting that this is the latest in a series
of complaints that Mr*** has filed with ***, the *** of ***
and *** ***, and now, your organizationThe last of these complaints
was dismissed by *** earlier this monthMr*** has expressed
dissatisfaction with every aspect of his transaction and complained about
nearly every individual involved in assisting him*** expects that he will
continue to seek out additional fora in which to air his grievances and that no
undertaking by the company will placate himIn addition to the considerable
time and effort that has been expended in attempting to satisfy Mr*** and
address his complaints, an undertaking that is outside the norm for such a
transaction by several orders of magnitude, we would also note that Mr***’s
bad faith (demonstrated by requesting a *** which he evidently intended to
pay on a vastly accelerated schedule) interferes with the anticipated profits
of the investors who financed the transactionThere are costs associated with
*** ***; while some are defrayed in the form of fees paid at the time of
creation, most are expected to be recouped through the accumulation of interest
during the life of the loanMr***’s actions have interfered with those
expectations, and as a result *** expects that it will be asked to reacquire
the loan from *** due to the changed circumstances for performance against
what was originally represented at the time the loan was madeSo while Mr
*** complains that he is being unfairly penalized, he fails to take
responsibility for the harms and costs he has forced other entities to bear

An AmCap representative attempted to contact [redacted] to
obtain verifying information supporting his claims that he had been approved
for a loan only to have that approval later revoked by a supervisor, as well as
evidence of a second appraisal order. [redacted] did not respond. [redacted] claims
that AmCap withdrew funds from his earnest deposit. AmCap does not receive escrow deposits and does not have access to any funds [redacted] deposited with his escrow agent; those funds are part of the purchase contract between the seller
of the property and [redacted].
[redacted] evidently believes that he should have been approved for a
loan due to his statementt that his monthly principal and interest payments would
have been lower than what he was currently paying in rent. However, [redacted] are only part of the monthly payment obligation; and a total monthly payment is only one factor in determining the ability of a consumer to repay a
mortgage. Other factors relevant to [redacted]’ creditworthiness and qualifications to
repay a debt must be considered. Those elements, when evaluated, led to a determination
that we could not approve [redacted] for credit on the terms he requested. The
details of that decision are confidential and cannot be disclosed here by AmCap, but have already been furnished to [redacted] along with instructions on how he
can dispute or correct that data if he believes it to be incorrect.
After reviewing [redacted]’ claims, AmCap has determined that
it has fully addressed his complaint, and that no additional action is
warranted.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]The processor of the loan told us that everything was done and we were approved. Then there head processor told them no go. All we were told was lack of credit. They were afraid they could not sell the loan. They also ordered a survey that cost 695 and it was taken out of my earnest money.  I had a survey done as directed by the lenders agent, yet they ordered another and I paid for it. They did refund my survey, but not the one  they ordered. A loan that had payments below 850, I was paying 1495 lease on the home for 3 years. The house was to be sold for 125,000 and I was putting down 30,000.  They need to reimbursement  me for the second survey of 695. They need to tell the truth about the people who worked their. They have left and now work else where.  The processor gave us the ok and the supervisor said no.   
Regards,

Concerning the response provided by Mr. [redacted] on June 29,
2015:
[redacted] accepts Mr. [redacted]’s admissions that his relationship
with [redacted] was for [redacted] origination. As previously stated, [redacted] is a
[redacted] originator and not a servicer.
Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that [redacted] failed to provide him
notice of the sale of his loan 15 days before it occurred is incorrect. Apart
from the reasons previously stated, Mr. [redacted] apparently relies upon a
personal interpretation  of what
constitutes a loan transfer which does not correspond to the actual term under
federal law at 12 U.S.C. §2605(i)(1).  [redacted] has attempted to explain this error to
Mr. [redacted] without success.
Mr. [redacted] states that [redacted] cashed his check without
applying the amount to his loan; that is incorrect. As we previously stated,
when his first payment was received his loan information had already been
placed out to bid with other loans and that data could not be updated for the
bidders, however the credit was applied to his account. Upon the sale of the
loan, the purchaser was notified that the credit had been received, but the
purchaser failed to deduct the appropriate amount from the total payments sent
to [redacted] detected the error when the payment balances would not
reconcile and took immediate action to make sure that Mr. [redacted] received the
appropriate credit.
[redacted] accepts Mr. [redacted]’s confirmation that [redacted] applied
the credits to his loan balance and that all payments received have been
credited to his account. Mr. [redacted] admits that all payments were applied prior
to May 1, which was the next date relevant to computation of accrued interest
and loan balance. Mr. [redacted] continues to incorrectly argue that he is owed
some further adjustment to credit his account. A representative from [redacted] has
again contacted Mr. [redacted] directly to provide him with a detailed accounting
statement reflecting his payments received and showing that his loan balance
and charges are all accurately computed through to the transfer of ownership.
Mr. [redacted] resurrects complaints that have previously been
addressed in other fora regarding complaints with his loan officer. Mr. [redacted]
was promised a credit for an appraisal fee which totaled $495. Following
closing, a check request was submitted for processing in that amount. Due to
timing issues and an incomplete verification checklist that had to be
resubmitted to accounting, it took three weeks to process the request. While
the request was being processed, Mr. [redacted] filed a complaint alleging he was
owed $500. Before we received the complaint we had already mailed the refund
check to Mr. [redacted], and we reported so in our response to that complaint. Mr.
[redacted]’s other allegations involve alleged inaccuracies in the closing papers
which delayed his closing. The documents prepared for Mr. [redacted]’s closing were
based upon information provided by Mr. [redacted] or obtained from investigation
and disclosed to Mr. [redacted] in documents he acknowledged receiving well in
advance of the closing. Mr. [redacted]’s closing was delayed until the next
business day. As Mr. [redacted] admits, the Texas [redacted] dismissed his complaint.
In summary, [redacted] denies Mr. [redacted]’s allegations that it
has not complied with all laws it is subject to as a [redacted] originator.
Though Mr. [redacted] clearly does not personally believe so, [redacted] carried out all
actions in a timely manner and in accordance with established business
practices and principles for the industry. [redacted] has accurately credited all
payments received from Mr. [redacted] and reported all obligations due from Mr.
[redacted]. In short, we have accommodated every reasonable request and provided
all relevant information related to this transaction.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
The reason that I didn't report of Kyle [redacted]' behavior because I wanted the loan to go through successfully and complain later after the closing. Currently, I owned the property and that Kyle [redacted] and Amcap delayed my closing date to 2 months instead of 30 days as promised.  The property is under my daughter's name but my husband and I live there not her. If you don't want to give me the money back, then I would like to get a credit of $495 appraisal fee for a new loan with your company but with a different loan officer and tell me at least upfront why a loan between my daughter and myself have a restriction because of the relationship. Kyle [redacted] never addressed that. Thank you, 
Regards,

To the Revdex.com:
To appropriately place your business in the accurate category for Revdex.com reporting analysis, we request that you provide the following information.  Your company is welcome and encouraged to provide as many of the answers to the questions below but filling out the...

entire form is not necessary. It is not an all or nothing form, any information you are comfortable providing will assist us in updating your rating.
Please submit the ratings sheet SEPERATELY by mail, fax, or email.  Otherwise the entire response to the complaint and the ratings sheet are automatically included in the response and sent to the consumer.
Amcap Mortgage, LTD.   9999 Bellaire, Ste 700
Houston  TX  77036






Add to my information:


Used For:




# of Employees:

700



Reliability Report




# of Locations (see below):


92

Reliability Report




Business Scope:


___Local 1 Location
___Local Multiple Locations

___Regional
__x_National
___International
___Internet Only

Business Start Date-  Month:        Day:     Year: 2002


Reliability Report




# of Customers on an annual basis:


___1-499

_x__500-49,999

___50,000-99,999

___100,000-999,999

___1,000,000 or more


Revdex.com Internal Use Only




Gross Annual Revenue:





Revdex.com Internal Use Only



Local - 1 Location-The business has only one location
Local - Multiple Locations -The business has more than one location in the State
Regional -  more than one location, in more than one State, but not in all of the USA
National - The business has more than one location in all or most of the USA
International - has a location both inside the USA. and a location in at least one other foreign country
Internet Only - The business only does business on the internet and has no store locations
DISCLAIMER:
By signing this document your company attests that this is true and accurate information.  The Revdex.com reserves the right to request validation of the above information at any time.   Please notify the Revdex.com immediately if any of the information changes in the future.
 



Submitted by Name:







Submitted by Title







Date:






Please complete this form and fax to the Revdex.com a 713.867.4947

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
Revdex.com of Metropolitan Houston I do not accept the response made by the business to resolve this complaintI reviewed the June 26, 2015 response to my compliant assigned reference ID [redacted] from [redacted], Ltd.  Since my compliant only listed facts I am not sure how the responder determined that I do not understand the facts.  My relationship with [redacted] was a [redacted] contract and [redacted] accuses me of misrepresenting our relationship because I paid them too much money too soon, while the contract clearly states that there is no early payment penalty.  Also, I clearly communicated to [redacted]'s Loan Officer ([redacted])  during the loan origination process that I intended to pay off the loan within a year.My compliant had nothing to do with the selling of or who owned my loan it was about the servicing of my loan. The only thing in the [redacted] Contract about servicing was send payments to [redacted] LTD, [redacted], Houston, Texas. I called [redacted], Houston and talked to their representative [redacted] before I sent the first check to confirm how to make a payment to reduce principal. During the phone conversation. I was informed that [redacted] typically only serviced a loan until after the first monthly payment but that they could receive checks and apply them to the loan.  [redacted] never represented or discussed with me that they do not service a loan that they originate. The federal guidelines specify that I be notified 15 days in advance of a change to my [redacted] servicer and I was notified on April 22.  Therefore, [redacted] was the Servicer of my loan at least until I received notification and therefore should ensure that 3 checks sent before I was notified are applied to the loan in accordance with servicing guidelines on the date of receipt. I called [redacted] ([redacted]) about each of the 3 checks sent and I was not informed until April 22 that the loan servicing was with [redacted]. I tried to resolve this with [redacted] representative [redacted] but a week after she promised to call me back I decided to file this compliant. It should be noted that [redacted] admittedly cashed the first check before selling the loan but still sold the loan without applying the check that they had cashed and they infer in response to my complaint that I was responsible even though I talked to them before I sent the check.I have no complaints against [redacted]. They have serviced my loan in accordance with federal guidelines and I accept ZERO responsibility for [redacted] not servicing my loan in accordance with federal guidelines. [redacted] states in their response that they believe that [redacted] has made the adjustment for my first payment of $64,338 to credit the account for delay in processing.   [redacted] changed the date from April 30 to April 20 while [redacted] received the check on April 7 and it cleared my bank on April 10 which means that the adjustment which they arranged with [redacted] was not correct. [redacted] refers to my other complaints filed. I filed a complaint with the Revdex.com, San Antonio that I was promised by the originating Loan Officer ([redacted]) a reduction of $500 in loan origination costs as the basis for [redacted] originating my loan.  The cost was not reduced as promised at closing and the Loan Officer promised by text message that I would get a check for $500.  3 weeks after not receiving the promised check I filed the complaint.  I was sent a check for $495 to reimburse my Appraisal Fee and told that [redacted] was not informed by their Loan Officer of the promise.  I accepted the $495 for closure of the $500 promised since I already had filed a complaint with [redacted] against their Loan Officer.   My originating [redacted] Loan Officer filled out my loan application with wrong information about my financial history without informing me and would not give me a copy of the documents.  I did not discover this until the loan documents were reviewed by Underwriters.  The result was that my closing was delayed in order for me to resolve the false information entered by an [redacted] loan officer.    The Texas [redacted] did close my complaint against the [redacted] Loan Officer as not having adequate evidence to remove his license. In closing I DO NOT accept the [redacted] response as resolving my compliant.  I regret  having done business with a [redacted] company of such low integrity as to blame a customer for their inability to comply with federal [redacted] standards.  
Regards,

AmCap Mortgage, Ltd. has received the notice of the complaint submitted by Mr. [redacted] to the Revdex.com of Houston, and is pleased to provide its response. AmCap regrets that Mr. [redacted] has found his experience with AmCap confusing or distressing; we certainly strive to help every consumer we deal with to the best of our ability and in line with the best consumer satisfaction practices possible. Mr. [redacted] reports that the last communication he received from the consumer was on August 18, 2016. He states that he has not received any requests for updates or questions since then, and the branch office does not find any record of other inquiries. Nor can we locate any submission to our main company’s contact form. We would ask that Mr. [redacted] recheck his contacts to make sure that he is sending emails to the correct address or phoning the correct number. With regards to his application, our records indicate that we have requested additional documentation pertaining to Mr. [redacted]’s co-applicant. Based upon the material we received a few days prior to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, we need additional information to verify the duration and amount of employment and income. As the co-applicant’s income is necessary for us to approve the loan, we need to receive the confirmatory material in order to proceed with the application. After receiving notice of the complaint, the personnel working on Mr. [redacted]’s attempted to re-establish contact with him by sending email messages and placing phone calls to him and the co-applicant. The last indication was that they had not succeeded in contacting Mr. [redacted]. If he would return their calls, then they can provide him with additional information about the status of his loan application.

AmCap Mortgage, Ltd. has received the notice of the complaint submitted by Ms. [redacted] to the Revdex.com of Houston, and is pleased to provide its response. AmCap regrets that Ms. [redacted] has found her experience with AmCap confusing or distressing; we certainly strive to help every consumer we...

deal with to the best of our ability and in line with the best consumer satisfaction practices possible. That we evidently did not succeed in satisfying Ms. [redacted] expectations is a disappointment. Unfortunately, we cannot reconcile Ms. [redacted] account or requested resolution with the information in our records. Due to privacy considerations and regulations preventing us from disclosing consumer data, we are unable to go into extensive detail about the circumstances behind Ms. [redacted] application; however there are certain points she has already disclosed that I can address: Ms. [redacted] did contact Mr. [redacted], an AmCap employee, concerning her intention to finance a loan in order to acquire a property. The initial information provided by Ms. [redacted] indicated her eligibility to qualify for financing; however this initial qualification is followed by an intense and thorough underwriting process to verify the value and condition of the collateral which will secure the loan as well as Ms. [redacted] ability to successfully complete repayment of the loan funds. As this process unfolds, additional questions came to light concerning the [redacted]saction, which our underwriting department needed to resolve before issuing final approval to proceed with the [redacted]saction. Frequently this means that documents which are submitted or questions which are answered lead to, upon further processing and investigation, additional questions which must be answered. Without diving into specifics; such was the case with Ms. [redacted] application. While the vast majority of applications are processed and closed within 40 days, each application’s circumstances are different; and the speed with which the process progresses is impacted by the quality and nature of information provided or uncovered during the underwriting of the loan as well as that supplied by Ms. [redacted]. We cannot substantiate all of the events that Ms. [redacted] relates, and Mr. [redacted]’s account of some of their interactions varies from the version she relates; but we deeply apologize to Ms. [redacted] if she feels that she was not treated in a courteous and professional manner at all times. AmCap never countenances rudeness or disrespect to our customers under any circumstance. With regards to Ms. [redacted] requests for cash reimbursement; the $495 that she was charged for an appraisal is paid to an outside company for services associated with her loan application. Ms. [redacted] property was appraised, so the service was delivered as requested, and the obligation for payment of the service is not contingent on whether Ms. [redacted] loan application is ultimately approved; this was explained to Ms. [redacted] at the time her application was submitted. Furthermore, Ms. [redacted], having paid and received for her appraisal, is permitted to use that appraisal report in a [redacted]saction with another lender if she chooses to pursue a loan application with them; receiving the service without paying for it would be an unjust enrichment. Ms. [redacted] also seems to be asking for additional funds to make a mortgage payment on the property she intended to purchase from her daughter. We do not understand her reasoning for demanding compensation on this item; she does not own the property and is not obligated to pay, or payment would be obligated in any event through the daughter’s debt. In any event, it was ultimately Ms. [redacted] decision to withdraw her loan application, as stated in her letter. As a result, we deny any liability as a consequence of her independent actions.  Similarly, we dispute that we would have any obligation to pay any part of a future loa[redacted]saction at a later date, due to Ms. [redacted] decision to forego a loan at this time and simply contribute towards her daughter’s payments. Although we understand that the loan application process can be confusing, frustrating, and complex; we only have limited control over the details of the applicant’s process. Prior to withdrawing her application, we cannot find any evidence that Ms. [redacted] reported her concerns or complained about Mr. [redacted]'s behavior at any time prior to the withdrawal of her application. We wish that she had so that we might have investigated and taken steps to address any issues or resolve any matters about which she was confused. The application process is largely regulated by federal and state law and many delays or requirements are imposed on us and beyond our control; but we would have been happy to take the time to explain in better detail why we could not accommodate some of her requests. Unfortunately, at this point there is nothing we can do except to extend our apologies to Ms. [redacted] that her experience was unsatisfactory.