CampusDoor, Inc

Good Afternoon,Attached, please find CampusDoor's response to the consumer's response to CampusDoor's response regarding Complaint #***.Thank you,RyanCampusDoor A text version of the attachment is provided below:To whom it may concern:We are unable to approve the applicant’s application. The original application listed an employer for which the applicant did not provide documentation and advised that he could not provide current documentation. At no time did the applicant submit all documents that were required of him. The applicant agreed to withdraw the application to resubmit the application with correct employment information. The applicant did reapply, but applied for a larger loan amount, listed a lower income amount and the credit report received differed substantially compared to the one accessed for his initial application. The applicant was asked to provide proof of major to see if he could qualify for the loan based on alternative underwriting, but he did not meet that requirement and the second application was declined with the option to reapply with a creditworthy cosigner.The company concurs in part and disputes in part the applicant’s statement that the company did not inform him or his authorized third party that credit would be run again. In none of the calls did the applicant or third party ask if a new credit report would be obtained and in no cases did an agent of the company advise or imply affirmatively or negatively that a new credit report would be obtained. The applicant did resubmit the application and agreed to the terms of conditions which stated that a credit report would be obtained for this application and again agreed to a credit inquiry by acknowledging that when submitting the application. No reasonable applicant would be able to state they were not aware that a credit report was being obtained in connection with the new application.The company does retain recordings of phone calls exclusively for training and quality assurance purposes, in accordance with Pennsylvania law. All communications were reviewed in addressing the applicant’s complaint.We again encourage the applicant to reapply with a creditworthy cosigner and to contact Transunion for a free copy of his credit report so that he can verify that the information showing on the credit report accessed for his second application is accurate and if it is not that he can dispute that information with the credit reporting bureau.We conclude that we provided accurate information throughout the communications with both the borrower and authorized third party and at no time made any statement that could be interpreted as suggesting that a new credit report and credit decisioning would not be conducted for the subsequent application. The applicant had substantial changes in the information he provided, the amount he requested and the composition of his credit report, which caused his subsequent application to not be approved. The applicant may reapply with a creditworthy cosigner. Sincerely,Ryan ACampusDoor

Good Afternoon,Attached, please find CampusDoor's response to Complaint #***.Thank you,RyanCampusDoor A text version of the attachment is below:To whom it may concernWe are in receipt of the complaint dated 1/2/2017, ID# *** in regards to an application for an Ascent Tuition Loan
through the CampusDoor platform.The complainant states that he applied for a student loan and was approved without a cosigner. The complainant did receive a conditional approval and was notified of the documentation needed to complete the loan process, including verification of the income listed on the application.The complainant states that he changed jobs during the loan process and stated that he notified CampusDoor and was advised that we could update the employment information when submitted. A review of all contact made by the complainant to CampusDoor confirms that each time our associates advised the applicant that if the employment information on the application was no longer correct, the applicant would need to reapply with the correct and current information and that we would not update the application. The complainant states that all supporting documentation was submitted for the first application. The complainant started the application in late September, but did not provide income documentation until the end of November and the income documentation did not verify the employment information provided on the application. At no point did CampusDoor receive all required information from the applicant.The complainant correctly states that he was called by CampusDoor in November (actually December 1, 2016) and was advised that he would need to reapply for the loan with the correct employment information.The complainant states that both he and his authorized third party were advised that credit would not be run again since the original application was conditionally approved. A review of all communication with the applicant and the applicant’s authorized third party confirms that neither person asked about whether a new credit report would be obtained and neither person was advised that a new credit report would not be obtained. The applicant agreed to withdraw the application to reapply as the application could not proceed if he could not provide the required income verification for the employer he listed on the initial application. When the borrower reapplied, he provided affirmative consent for CampusDoor to obtain a copy of his consumer report from a credit reporting agency.The complainant states that CampusDoor stated “once I receive an email to update my application, to call them so they can pull my application up and make changes”. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what was told to the consumer. CampusDoor at no time stated that the original application would be updated and made very clear that the application was closed when the applicant agreed to withdraw the original application. The CampusDoor associates advised that when the applicant submits a new application that he may call us so that we can move reusable documentation from the original application to the new application.The complainant correctly states that on December 17th that he received an email advising that the second loan application was not approved and that he had been provided a Notice of Adverse Action providing the specific reasons why we could not approve the credit request. The information provided on the new application had numerous material differences. The loan amount was increased, the income amount listed decreased and the credit information on the consumer report changed substantially from the initial applicationBased on the application as submitted, the applicant was not eligible for the loan individually, but would be eligible if he reapplied with a cosigner that meets the eligibility requirements.The complainant states that he had already signed the “loan agreement,” however he had signed the “loan agreement” for the initial application which could not be completed because the borrower was unable to provide documentation to substantiate the income listed on the application.The complainant alleges information and unfair treatment in the loan process, however all information provided was accurate and complete and the applications submitted were evaluated in accordance with the lender’s program guidelines.The complainant requests the original loan application be reinstated and approved. We are unable to comply with this request as the income information listed on the initial application is unable to be substantiated by the applicant in accordance with the lender’s processing guidelines. We find that the complaint misstates the communications between the applicant and CampusDoor and incorrectly states that CampusDoor advised 1) that a new credit report would not be accessed and 2) that the original application would be updated with employment information. CampusDoor associates explained clearly to the applicant that the original application could not be approved unless the income documentation required was provided As the applicant had changed employment, he was unable to provide the required documentation. The applicant was advised that if he wished to reapply for the loan listing the correct employment information that he could do so and that there would be a new application for consideration. Due to actions of the applicant that affected his credit information as reported by the Credit Reporting Bureau and due to changes in the income amount listed on the application and the increase in the requested loan amount, the application that was subsequently submitted was not approvable as it did not meet the guidelines for the loan product.We encourage the applicant to reapply with a cosigner who meets the eligibility requirements. Sincerely,Ryan *CampusDoor

We can confirm that the complainant made a call to CampusDoor at about 5 PM on October 19, 2015 where the complainant spoke with a customer service agent and then spoke with a supervisor. On those calls, the complainant alleged that CampusDoor didn’t send “the right number” to the Bank with regards...

to rental income. The complainant also alleged that the application had asked for monthly income, which as you can see from the attachment is incorrect, it requests annual income. The complainant completed the application incorrectly and may submit a new application with the correct information if the complainant would like to do so. Our associate did advise that the income used is based on the amount we are actually able to calculate based upon the supporting documentation, in this case, schedule E from the past two years of income tax returns. The complainant listed $2,670 as rental income and now says it should read $32,000. The review of the income tax documents did not substantiate either of these values and another value was used in accordance with the processing guidelines for income. The complainant alleges that the associate the complainant spoke to was “inexperienced” and unable to answer “basic questions”. We find the allegation that the associate was “inexperienced” to be baseless and inaccurate. We can also confirm that each of the complainant’s questions were answered correctly by the associate and we would need more information about what the complainant thinks was a basic question that was unable to be answered.The complainant was transferred to a supervisor. A review of the call did not indicate any rudeness by the supervisor. The complainant was not told that the supervisor was unable to help, the supervisor again stated that the income will be based on the documents actually provided, not on the amount listed on the application and that the application information cannot be changed after submitted as that is the record of the application as submitted, which is retained for compliance purposes. The supervisor did provide a new number to the Lender’s underwriting department, so the statement “referred me back to [redacted] Bank” is not entirely accurate in that it omits that the number provided was for the underwriters who reviewed the complainant’s income rather than the main [redacted] Bank customer service center which the complainant had previously contacted. On both calls the complainant made to [redacted], the complainant was also advised that the complainant could reapply or could provide the required documentation that is used to calculate the income, consistent with the information CampusDoor provided. The complainant states that the supervisor said that there was “no number to their headquarters”, but the supervisor actually advised the complainant that there is a single location for CampusDoor. The complainant did ask to file an official complaint and one was filed in our internal system on the date of the call. The complaint was reviewed the next business day and no action was deemed necessary as there is no materiality to this complaint and the correct information was provided to the complainant to ad**ess the complainant’s concerns. The complaint number is #[redacted].Complainant requests that the current application be updated to “the accurate number” so that the complainant’s “application with [redacted] Bank is not canceled for a second time”. The complainant also has a Desired Settlement of “Other (requires explanation)” but no explanation was given, so we are unable to ad**ess this item. With regards to the request to update the application information, we will not be able to comply. The application as submitted is a record that must maintain its integrity. The complainant has already been advised that the underwriting review will look at the complainant’s actual income as demonstrated on the complainant’s federal income tax returns, regardless of the representation on the application. The complainant has the option to reapply and fill out the income information with whatever information the complainant believes to be correct. Otherwise, the correct income amount will be used when underwriting is performed. We believe that the complainant was treated fairly and was provided complete and correct information to ad**ess the complainant’s concerns.Regards,Ryan AGovernance Associate General Counsel

We are in receipt of your complaint dated 2/12/2016 regarding your [redacted] refinance loan. CampusDoor is an origination service provider that works for lenders to intake applications, process supporting documentation and to provide disclosures on behalf of lenders. Our records...

indicate that you completed the online application in October 2015 and received an offer in that same month. You were provided a credit agreement that was then signed by all parties and you were provided a final disclosure on October 19, 2015. Your disbursement was originally scheduled for November 21, 2015. The disbursement of loan funds is the sole responsibility of the lender, [redacted], and we currently show that the disbursement is pending. We have no information regarding why a disbursement has not been made and are unable to provide any estimate of when a disbursement will be made; as such action is solely at the discretion of the Lender, [redacted].We have records of contact relating to your pending disbursement for the following dates: 12/2/15, 12/29/15, 1/27/16, and 1/29/16. On 12/2/15, you called CampusDoor to inquire about the disbursement. We advised that the lender was currently preparing your disbursement and that we anticipate funds will be disbursed shortly. We also advised to continue to make payments at your existing servicer until the balance is verified as having been paid in full. On 12/29/15, you called CampusDoor to ask for a disbursement status. We advised that the lender was preparing your disbursement and to continue to make payments to your existing servicers. We also advised that you will be able to see in the CampusDoor MyAccount, when the disbursements have been completed. On 1/27/16, you emailed CampusDoor to check the status of the application advising that it has been almost four months and you were inquiring what the “holdup” was. We replied that for further information regarding the disbursement to contact [redacted] and provided the email address and telephone number for them. On 1/29/16, you called CampusDoor to question the status of disbursement. Our associate asked if you had received our email response which you acknowledged and you stated that you emailed the email for [redacted] and said that you then also contacted the lender’s telephone number. On this call you stated that the lender’s representative had stated that they would contact you back in the next day and they never did and that that was why you were contacting the CampusDoor number again. Our associate advised that CampusDoor is the originator and that you would need to contact the Lender regarding why the disbursement has not been sent out yet. Our associate provided you the contact number for the lender at that time.
Unfortunately, we do not have any records regarding your contact(s) with [redacted].
The complaint alleges that in your last contact with CampusDoor, we advised that we would call you back the following day to give an update on the consolidation process. We have no record of having advised that. After reviewing the calls, none of the documented calls (listed above) included a request for or a promise to make a call to you regarding an update on the consolidation process. If it had, our process is to document the request and to return the call within one business day. Based on the call with us on 1/29/16, we believe that the request for a follow-up was made to [redacted] and not to CampusDoor.
Since filing this complaint, you emailed CampusDoor on 2/17/16 asking for answers regarding disbursement and expressing frustration with not receiving the information you wanted when calling us or the lender. Upon receipt, a CampusDoor supervisor called you to discuss your concerns. The supervisor advised that CampusDoor was preparing a response to your complaint, but that she could discuss the application with you. She advised you of CampusDoor’s role in the origination process and that CampusDoor is unable to disburse funds for a lender and that only the lender has that authority. She provided you with two telephone numbers for the lender, their standard line and a direct line, to see if the lender can provide additional information about the expected disbursement date. The CampusDoor manager also offered her direct line for any further questions you may have.
We are sorry for the inconvenience that you have experienced regarding the disbursement on your complete and approved refinance loan application with [redacted]. We also apologize if you are unsatisfied with the assistance that our associates provided with respect to the application process or with regard to the need to contact the lender regarding the status of disbursements. Unfortunately, CampusDoor has no ability to initiate a disbursement for your account as disbursement of funds is solely the responsibility of the lender. Our recommendation at this time is to contact [redacted] to inquire when disbursements will be made on your completed application.
Sincerely,Ryan A.
VP, Governance

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
This is a rejection to CampusDoor's response, until CampusDoor verifies the correct information was relayed to **Bank.

[To assist us in bring this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I submitted all documents that was required of me, the company even requested for me to send them proof of my major which has nothing to do with the loan.. The company DID NOT inform my mom or myself, that my credit will be ran again. Their phone lines are recorded so I refuse to allow them to make a fool out of me. They strictly told me, that once I redo my application and update my work information that all I had to do was call and let them know so they can process the updated application.
Regards,
[redacted]

The complainant’s description of events and processes is incorrect. The complainant alleges that “**Bank assess the applications that CampusDoor provides to them” and that “CampusDoor submitted an inaccurate application to **Bank”. The applicant is the one who submits an application and that application is stored by CampusDoor and is accessed by **Bank. CampusDoor does not submit applications for applicants. Here, if there was inaccuracy, the complainant submitted an inaccurate application to **Bank and has the option to cancel the application and reapply with what the complainant deems to be “accurate” information. As stated previously, the application information cannot be changed after submission as it is retained as a document demonstrating how the applicant applied and is used for required regulatory practices and the auditing of application evaluation. The complainant also incorrectly alleges that the inaccuracy on the application, due to the complainant’s error, “led to the rejection of [the] first application”. The complainant was provided with a notice of adverse action that stated the reasons for the declination of the first application.The complainant incorrectly states that the “CampusDoor online application form asked for additional monthly income.” This is false. As demonstrated in the previously attached GIF, the application clearly requests annual income from the additional income information source. The complainant failed to complete the application correctly if the complainant only listed the monthly amount of income. The only error being alleged is one that originated from the complainant and the complainant has been advised the options available: reapply with correct information or wait for the underwriting to be completed based on the documents the complainant provides to substantiate the rental income. The amount of rental income actually verified is used in the underwriting, regardless of the value the applicant listed on the application. The complainant also incorrectly states that CampusDoor “sent the monthly income as annual additional income”, CampusDoor as stated above reviews the documentation provided and only the verified amount is sent to **Bank. At no time did CampusDoor send the annual additional income listed on the application to **Bank.The complainant says the complainant’s request was that “ALL correct information be submitted with the next application”. That is an action outside of CampusDoor’s control, as the applicant is the one that submits the information. It is within the complainant’s facilities to reapply and fill out the application in the manner that the complainant sees fit. The complainant says that the rental income can be verified by bank statements, which is not the documentation requested or utilized; as disclosed, we require two years of federal income tax returns with the schedule E to evaluate rental income.The complainant alleges that it is “the responsibility of CampusDoor to verify that the correct information is being submitted with the second application.” That is an incorrect understanding of credit applications. CampusDoor does not submit applications, applications are submitted by applicants when the applicant consents to apply for a credit product. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide correct information when submitting the application.The complainant says that “CampusDoor should update their online application form so that other applicants are not discounted by misinformation.” The application requests annual income from other sources including rental income. The complainant is under a false understanding that the application requests monthly income, which is factually incorrect and substantiated by the image provided in the original response. There is no update to be made as the application already requests annual income.The complainant may reapply and complete the application correctly. The first and second applications that the complainant completed have already been submitted by the applicant and constitute an application for credit, the record of which cannot be altered.CampusDoor considers this complaint to be frivolous and unsubstantiated.

We are in receipt of your complaint dated 2/12/2016 regarding your [redacted] refinance loan. CampusDoor is an origination service provider that works for lenders to intake applications, process supporting documentation and to provide disclosures on behalf of lenders. Our records indicate...

that you completed the online application in October 2015 and received an offer in that same month. You were provided a credit agreement that was then signed by all parties and you were provided a final disclosure on October 19, 2015. Your disbursement was originally scheduled for November 21, 2015. The disbursement of loan funds is the sole responsibility of the lender, [redacted], and we currently show that the disbursement is pending. We have no information regarding why a disbursement has not been made and are unable to provide any estimate of when a disbursement will be made; as such action is solely at the discretion of the Lender, [redacted].We have records of contact relating to your pending disbursement for the following dates: 12/2/15, 12/29/15, 1/27/16, and 1/29/16. On 12/2/15, you called CampusDoor to inquire about the disbursement. We advised that the lender was currently preparing your disbursement and that we anticipate funds will be disbursed shortly. We also advised to continue to make payments at your existing servicer until the balance is verified as having been paid in full. On 12/29/15, you called CampusDoor to ask for a disbursement status. We advised that the lender was preparing your disbursement and to continue to make payments to your existing servicers. We also advised that you will be able to see in the CampusDoor MyAccount, when the disbursements have been completed. On 1/27/16, you emailed CampusDoor to check the status of the application advising that it has been almost four months and you were inquiring what the “holdup” was. We replied that for further information regarding the disbursement to contact [redacted] and provided the email address and telephone number for them. On 1/29/16, you called CampusDoor to question the status of disbursement. Our associate asked if you had received our email response which you acknowledged and you stated that you emailed the email for [redacted] and said that you then also contacted the lender’s telephone number. On this call you stated that the lender’s representative had stated that they would contact you back in the next day and they never did and that that was why you were contacting the CampusDoor number again. Our associate advised that CampusDoor is the originator and that you would need to contact the Lender regarding why the disbursement has not been sent out yet. Our associate provided you the contact number for the lender at that time.Unfortunately, we do not have any records regarding your contact(s) with [redacted].The complaint alleges that in your last contact with CampusDoor, we advised that we would call you back the following day to give an update on the consolidation process. We have no record of having advised that. After reviewing the calls, none of the documented calls (listed above) included a request for or a promise to make a call to you regarding an update on the consolidation process. If it had, our process is to document the request and to return the call within one business day. Based on the call with us on 1/29/16, we believe that the request for a follow-up was made to [redacted] and not to CampusDoor.Since filing this complaint, you emailed CampusDoor on 2/17/16 asking for answers regarding disbursement and expressing frustration with not receiving the information you wanted when calling us or the lender. Upon receipt, a CampusDoor supervisor called you to discuss your concerns. The supervisor advised that CampusDoor was preparing a response to your complaint, but that she could discuss the application with you. She advised you of CampusDoor’s role in the origination process and that CampusDoor is unable to disburse funds for a lender and that only the lender has that authority. She provided you with two telephone numbers for the lender, their standard line and a direct line, to see if the lender can provide additional information about the expected disbursement date. The CampusDoor manager also offered her direct line for any further questions you may have.We are sorry for the inconvenience that you have experienced regarding the disbursement on your complete and approved refinance loan application with [redacted]. We also apologize if you are unsatisfied with the assistance that our associates provided with respect to the application process or with regard to the need to contact the lender regarding the status of disbursements. Unfortunately, CampusDoor has no ability to initiate a disbursement for your account as disbursement of funds is solely the responsibility of the lender. Our recommendation at this time is to contact [redacted] to inquire when disbursements will be made on your completed application.Sincerely,Ryan A.VP, Governance

We can confirm that the complainant made a call to CampusDoor at about 5 PM on October 19, 2015 where the complainant spoke with a customer service agent and then spoke with a supervisor. On those calls, the complainant alleged that CampusDoor didn’t send “the right number” to the Bank with...

regards to rental income. The complainant also alleged that the application had asked for monthly income, which as you can see from the attachment is incorrect, it requests annual income. The complainant completed the application incorrectly and may submit a new application with the correct information if the complainant would like to do so. Our associate did advise that the income used is based on the amount we are actually able to calculate based upon the supporting documentation, in this case, schedule E from the past two years of income tax returns. The complainant listed $2,670 as rental income and now says it should read $32,000. The review of the income tax documents did not substantiate either of these values and another value was used in accordance with the processing guidelines for income. The complainant alleges that the associate the complainant spoke to was “inexperienced” and unable to answer “basic questions”. We find the allegation that the associate was “inexperienced” to be baseless and inaccurate. We can also confirm that each of the complainant’s questions were answered correctly by the associate and we would need more information about what the complainant thinks was a basic question that was unable to be answered.The complainant was transferred to a supervisor. A review of the call did not indicate any rudeness by the supervisor. The complainant was not told that the supervisor was unable to help, the supervisor again stated that the income will be based on the documents actually provided, not on the amount listed on the application and that the application information cannot be changed after submitted as that is the record of the application as submitted, which is retained for compliance purposes. The supervisor did provide a new number to the Lender’s underwriting department, so the statement “referred me back to [redacted] Bank” is not entirely accurate in that it omits that the number provided was for the underwriters who reviewed the complainant’s income rather than the main [redacted] Bank customer service center which the complainant had previously contacted. On both calls the complainant made to [redacted], the complainant was also advised that the complainant could reapply or could provide the required documentation that is used to calculate the income, consistent with the information CampusDoor provided. The complainant states that the supervisor said that there was “no number to their headquarters”, but the supervisor actually advised the complainant that there is a single location for CampusDoor. The complainant did ask to file an official complaint and one was filed in our internal system on the date of the call. The complaint was reviewed the next business day and no action was deemed necessary as there is no materiality to this complaint and the correct information was provided to the complainant to ad**ess the complainant’s concerns. The complaint number is #[redacted].
Complainant requests that the current application be updated to “the accurate number” so that the complainant’s “application with [redacted] Bank is not canceled for a second time”. The complainant also has a Desired Settlement of “Other (requires explanation)” but no explanation was given, so we are unable to ad**ess this item. With regards to the request to update the application information, we will not be able to comply. The application as submitted is a record that must maintain its integrity. The complainant has already been advised that the underwriting review will look at the complainant’s actual income as demonstrated on the complainant’s federal income tax returns, regardless of the representation on the application. The complainant has the option to reapply and fill out the income information with whatever information the complainant believes to be correct. Otherwise, the correct income amount will be used when underwriting is performed. We believe that the complainant was treated fairly and was provided complete and correct information to ad**ess the complainant’s concerns.
Regards,
Ryan A
Governance Associate General Counsel

The complainant’s description of events and processes is incorrect. The complainant alleges that “**Bank assess the applications that CampusDoor provides to them” and that “CampusDoor submitted an inaccurate application to **Bank”. The applicant is the one who submits an application and that application is stored by CampusDoor and is accessed by **Bank. CampusDoor does not submit applications for applicants. Here, if there was inaccuracy, the complainant submitted an inaccurate application to **Bank and has the option to cancel the application and reapply with what the complainant deems to be “accurate” information. As stated previously, the application information cannot be changed after submission as it is retained as a document demonstrating how the applicant applied and is used for required regulatory practices and the auditing of application evaluation. The complainant also incorrectly alleges that the inaccuracy on the application, due to the complainant’s error, “led to the rejection of [the] first application”. The complainant was provided with a notice of adverse action that stated the reasons for the declination of the first application.
The complainant incorrectly states that the “CampusDoor online application form asked for additional monthly income.” This is false. As demonstrated in the previously attached GIF, the application clearly requests annual income from the additional income information source. The complainant failed to complete the application correctly if the complainant only listed the monthly amount of income. The only error being alleged is one that originated from the complainant and the complainant has been advised the options available: reapply with correct information or wait for the underwriting to be completed based on the documents the complainant provides to substantiate the rental income. The amount of rental income actually verified is used in the underwriting, regardless of the value the applicant listed on the application. The complainant also incorrectly states that CampusDoor “sent the monthly income as annual additional income”, CampusDoor as stated above reviews the documentation provided and only the verified amount is sent to **Bank. At no time did CampusDoor send the annual additional income listed on the application to **Bank.
The complainant says the complainant’s request was that “ALL correct information be submitted with the next application”. That is an action outside of CampusDoor’s control, as the applicant is the one that submits the information. It is within the complainant’s facilities to reapply and fill out the application in the manner that the complainant sees fit. The complainant says that the rental income can be verified by bank statements, which is not the documentation requested or utilized; as disclosed, we require two years of federal income tax returns with the schedule E to evaluate rental income.
The complainant alleges that it is “the responsibility of CampusDoor to verify that the correct information is being submitted with the second application.” That is an incorrect understanding of credit applications. CampusDoor does not submit applications, applications are submitted by applicants when the applicant consents to apply for a credit product. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide correct information when submitting the application.The complainant says that “CampusDoor should update their online application form so that other applicants are not discounted by misinformation.” The application requests annual income from other sources including rental income. The complainant is under a false understanding that the application requests monthly income, which is factually incorrect and substantiated by the image provided in the original response. There is no update to be made as the application already requests annual income.The complainant may reapply and complete the application correctly. The first and second applications that the complainant completed have already been submitted by the applicant and constitute an application for credit, the record of which cannot be altered.
CampusDoor considers this complaint to be frivolous and unsubstantiated.