We can confirm that the complainant made a call to CampusDoor at about PM on October 19, where the complainant spoke with a customer service agent and then spoke with a supervisorOn those calls, the complainant alleged that CampusDoor didn’t send “the right number” to the Bank with regards to rental incomeThe complainant also alleged that the application had asked for monthly income, which as you can see from the attachment is incorrect, it requests annual incomeThe complainant completed the application incorrectly and may submit a new application with the correct information if the complainant would like to do soOur 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 returnsThe complainant listed $2,as rental income and now says it should read $32,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 incomeThe 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 inaccurateWe 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 supervisorA review of the call did not indicate any rudeness by the supervisorThe 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 purposesThe 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 contactedOn both calls the complainant made to ***, 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 providedThe 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 CampusDoorThe complainant did ask to file an official complaint and one was filed in our internal system on the date of the callThe 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 concernsThe complaint number is #***.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 itemWith regards to the request to update the application information, we will not be able to complyThe application as submitted is a record that must maintain its integrityThe 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 applicationThe complainant has the option to reapply and fill out the income information with whatever information the complainant believes to be correctOtherwise, the correct income amount will be used when underwriting is performedWe 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
The complainant’s description of events and processes is incorrectThe 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 **BankCampusDoor does not submit applications for applicantsHere, 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” informationAs 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 evaluationThe 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 falseAs demonstrated in the previously attached GIF, the application clearly requests annual income from the additional income information sourceThe complainant failed to complete the application correctly if the complainant only listed the monthly amount of incomeThe 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 incomeThe amount of rental income actually verified is used in the underwriting, regardless of the value the applicant listed on the applicationThe 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 **BankAt 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 informationIt is within the complainant’s facilities to reapply and fill out the application in the manner that the complainant sees fitThe 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 applicationsCampusDoor does not submit applications, applications are submitted by applicants when the applicant consents to apply for a credit productIt 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 incomeThe complainant is under a understanding that the application requests monthly income, which is factually incorrect and substantiated by the image provided in the original responseThere is no update to be made as the application already requests annual income.The complainant may reapply and complete the application correctlyThe 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
[To assist us in bring this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf 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 loanThe company DID NOT inform my mom or myself, that my credit will be ran againTheir phone lines are recorded so I refuse to allow them to make a fool out of meThey 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]
We are in receipt of your complaint dated 2/12/regarding your [redacted] refinance loanCampusDoor is an origination service provider that works for lenders to intake applications, process supporting documentation and to provide disclosures on behalf of lendersOur records indicate that you completed the online application in October and received an offer in that same monthYou were provided a credit agreement that was then signed by all parties and you were provided a final disclosure on October 19, Your disbursement was originally scheduled for November 21, The disbursement of loan funds is the sole responsibility of the lender, [redacted] ***, and we currently show that the disbursement is pendingWe 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/On 12/2/15, you called CampusDoor to inquire about the disbursementWe advised that the lender was currently preparing your disbursement and that we anticipate funds will be disbursed shortlyWe also advised to continue to make payments at your existing servicer until the balance is verified as having been paid in fullOn 12/29/15, you called CampusDoor to ask for a disbursement statusWe advised that the lender was preparing your disbursement and to continue to make payments to your existing servicersWe also advised that you will be able to see in the CampusDoor MyAccount, when the disbursements have been completedOn 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” wasWe replied that for further information regarding the disbursement to contact [redacted] and provided the email address and telephone number for themOn 1/29/16, you called CampusDoor to question the status of disbursementOur 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 numberOn 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 againOur 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 yetOur 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 processWe have no record of having advised thatAfter 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 processIf it had, our process is to document the request and to return the call within one business dayBased on the call with us on 1/29/16, we believe that the request for a follwas made to [redacted] and not to CampusDoor.Since filing this complaint, you emailed CampusDoor on 2/17/asking for answers regarding disbursement and expressing frustration with not receiving the information you wanted when calling us or the lenderUpon receipt, a CampusDoor supervisor called you to discuss your concernsThe supervisor advised that CampusDoor was preparing a response to your complaint, but that she could discuss the application with youShe 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 authorityShe 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 dateThe 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 disbursementsUnfortunately, CampusDoor has no ability to initiate a disbursement for your account as disbursement of funds is solely the responsibility of the lenderOur 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 responseIf 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
We are in receipt of your complaint dated 2/12/regarding your [redacted] refinance loanCampusDoor is an origination service provider that works for lenders to intake applications, process supporting documentation and to provide disclosures on behalf of lendersOur records indicate that you completed the online application in October and received an offer in that same monthYou were provided a credit agreement that was then signed by all parties and you were provided a final disclosure on October 19, Your disbursement was originally scheduled for November 21, The disbursement of loan funds is the sole responsibility of the lender, [redacted] ***, and we currently show that the disbursement is pendingWe 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/On 12/2/15, you called CampusDoor to inquire about the disbursementWe advised that the lender was currently preparing your disbursement and that we anticipate funds will be disbursed shortlyWe also advised to continue to make payments at your existing servicer until the balance is verified as having been paid in fullOn 12/29/15, you called CampusDoor to ask for a disbursement statusWe advised that the lender was preparing your disbursement and to continue to make payments to your existing servicersWe also advised that you will be able to see in the CampusDoor MyAccount, when the disbursements have been completedOn 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” wasWe replied that for further information regarding the disbursement to contact [redacted] and provided the email address and telephone number for themOn 1/29/16, you called CampusDoor to question the status of disbursementOur 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 numberOn 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 againOur 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 yetOur associate provided you the contact number for the lender at that timeUnfortunately, 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 processWe have no record of having advised thatAfter 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 processIf it had, our process is to document the request and to return the call within one business dayBased on the call with us on 1/29/16, we believe that the request for a follwas made to [redacted] and not to CampusDoorSince filing this complaint, you emailed CampusDoor on 2/17/asking for answers regarding disbursement and expressing frustration with not receiving the information you wanted when calling us or the lenderUpon receipt, a CampusDoor supervisor called you to discuss your concernsThe supervisor advised that CampusDoor was preparing a response to your complaint, but that she could discuss the application with youShe 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 authorityShe 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 dateThe CampusDoor manager also offered her direct line for any further questions you may haveWe 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 disbursementsUnfortunately, CampusDoor has no ability to initiate a disbursement for your account as disbursement of funds is solely the responsibility of the lenderOur recommendation at this time is to contact [redacted] to inquire when disbursements will be made on your completed applicationSincerely,Ryan AVP, Governance
We can confirm that the complainant made a call to CampusDoor at about PM on October 19, where the complainant spoke with a customer service agent and then spoke with a supervisorOn those calls, the complainant alleged that CampusDoor didn’t send “the right number” to the Bank with regards to rental incomeThe complainant also alleged that the application had asked for monthly income, which as you can see from the attachment is incorrect, it requests annual incomeThe complainant completed the application incorrectly and may submit a new application with the correct information if the complainant would like to do soOur 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 returnsThe complainant listed $2,as rental income and now says it should read $32,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 incomeThe 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 inaccurateWe 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 supervisorA review of the call did not indicate any rudeness by the supervisorThe 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 purposesThe 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 contactedOn both calls the complainant made to ***, 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 providedThe 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 CampusDoorThe complainant did ask to file an official complaint and one was filed in our internal system on the date of the callThe 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 concernsThe complaint number is #***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 itemWith regards to the request to update the application information, we will not be able to complyThe application as submitted is a record that must maintain its integrityThe 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 applicationThe complainant has the option to reapply and fill out the income information with whatever information the complainant believes to be correctOtherwise, the correct income amount will be used when underwriting is performedWe believe that the complainant was treated fairly and was provided complete and correct information to ad**ess the complainant’s concernsRegards, Ryan A Governance Associate General Counsel
The complainant’s description of events and processes is incorrectThe 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 **BankCampusDoor does not submit applications for applicantsHere, 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” informationAs 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 evaluationThe 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 applicationThe complainant incorrectly states that the “CampusDoor online application form asked for additional monthly income.” This is falseAs demonstrated in the previously attached GIF, the application clearly requests annual income from the additional income information sourceThe complainant failed to complete the application correctly if the complainant only listed the monthly amount of incomeThe 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 incomeThe amount of rental income actually verified is used in the underwriting, regardless of the value the applicant listed on the applicationThe 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 **BankAt no time did CampusDoor send the annual additional income listed on the application to **BankThe 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 informationIt is within the complainant’s facilities to reapply and fill out the application in the manner that the complainant sees fitThe 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 incomeThe 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 applicationsCampusDoor does not submit applications, applications are submitted by applicants when the applicant consents to apply for a credit productIt 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 incomeThe complainant is under a understanding that the application requests monthly income, which is factually incorrect and substantiated by the image provided in the original responseThere is no update to be made as the application already requests annual income.The complainant may reapply and complete the application correctlyThe 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 alteredCampusDoor considers this complaint to be frivolous and unsubstantiated
We can confirm that the complainant made a call to CampusDoor at about PM on October 19, where the complainant spoke with a customer service agent and then spoke with a supervisorOn those calls, the complainant alleged that CampusDoor didn’t send “the right number” to the Bank with regards to rental incomeThe complainant also alleged that the application had asked for monthly income, which as you can see from the attachment is incorrect, it requests annual incomeThe complainant completed the application incorrectly and may submit a new application with the correct information if the complainant would like to do soOur 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 returnsThe complainant listed $2,as rental income and now says it should read $32,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 incomeThe 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 inaccurateWe 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 supervisorA review of the call did not indicate any rudeness by the supervisorThe 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 purposesThe 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 contactedOn both calls the complainant made to ***, 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 providedThe 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 CampusDoorThe complainant did ask to file an official complaint and one was filed in our internal system on the date of the callThe 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 concernsThe complaint number is #***.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 itemWith regards to the request to update the application information, we will not be able to complyThe application as submitted is a record that must maintain its integrityThe 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 applicationThe complainant has the option to reapply and fill out the income information with whatever information the complainant believes to be correctOtherwise, the correct income amount will be used when underwriting is performedWe 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
The complainant’s description of events and processes is incorrectThe 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 **BankCampusDoor does not submit applications for applicantsHere, 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” informationAs 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 evaluationThe 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 falseAs demonstrated in the previously attached GIF, the application clearly requests annual income from the additional income information sourceThe complainant failed to complete the application correctly if the complainant only listed the monthly amount of incomeThe 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 incomeThe amount of rental income actually verified is used in the underwriting, regardless of the value the applicant listed on the applicationThe 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 **BankAt 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 informationIt is within the complainant’s facilities to reapply and fill out the application in the manner that the complainant sees fitThe 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 applicationsCampusDoor does not submit applications, applications are submitted by applicants when the applicant consents to apply for a credit productIt 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 incomeThe complainant is under a understanding that the application requests monthly income, which is factually incorrect and substantiated by the image provided in the original responseThere is no update to be made as the application already requests annual income.The complainant may reapply and complete the application correctlyThe 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
[To assist us in bring this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf 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 loanThe company DID NOT inform my mom or myself, that my credit will be ran againTheir phone lines are recorded so I refuse to allow them to make a fool out of meThey 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]
We are in receipt of your complaint dated 2/12/regarding your [redacted] refinance loanCampusDoor is an origination service provider that works for lenders to intake applications, process supporting documentation and to provide disclosures on behalf of lendersOur records indicate that you completed the online application in October and received an offer in that same monthYou were provided a credit agreement that was then signed by all parties and you were provided a final disclosure on October 19, Your disbursement was originally scheduled for November 21, The disbursement of loan funds is the sole responsibility of the lender, [redacted] ***, and we currently show that the disbursement is pendingWe 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/On 12/2/15, you called CampusDoor to inquire about the disbursementWe advised that the lender was currently preparing your disbursement and that we anticipate funds will be disbursed shortlyWe also advised to continue to make payments at your existing servicer until the balance is verified as having been paid in fullOn 12/29/15, you called CampusDoor to ask for a disbursement statusWe advised that the lender was preparing your disbursement and to continue to make payments to your existing servicersWe also advised that you will be able to see in the CampusDoor MyAccount, when the disbursements have been completedOn 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” wasWe replied that for further information regarding the disbursement to contact [redacted] and provided the email address and telephone number for themOn 1/29/16, you called CampusDoor to question the status of disbursementOur 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 numberOn 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 againOur 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 yetOur 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 processWe have no record of having advised thatAfter 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 processIf it had, our process is to document the request and to return the call within one business dayBased on the call with us on 1/29/16, we believe that the request for a follwas made to [redacted] and not to CampusDoor.Since filing this complaint, you emailed CampusDoor on 2/17/asking for answers regarding disbursement and expressing frustration with not receiving the information you wanted when calling us or the lenderUpon receipt, a CampusDoor supervisor called you to discuss your concernsThe supervisor advised that CampusDoor was preparing a response to your complaint, but that she could discuss the application with youShe 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 authorityShe 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 dateThe 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 disbursementsUnfortunately, CampusDoor has no ability to initiate a disbursement for your account as disbursement of funds is solely the responsibility of the lenderOur 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 responseIf 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
We are in receipt of your complaint dated 2/12/regarding your [redacted] refinance loanCampusDoor is an origination service provider that works for lenders to intake applications, process supporting documentation and to provide disclosures on behalf of lendersOur records indicate that you completed the online application in October and received an offer in that same monthYou were provided a credit agreement that was then signed by all parties and you were provided a final disclosure on October 19, Your disbursement was originally scheduled for November 21, The disbursement of loan funds is the sole responsibility of the lender, [redacted] ***, and we currently show that the disbursement is pendingWe 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/On 12/2/15, you called CampusDoor to inquire about the disbursementWe advised that the lender was currently preparing your disbursement and that we anticipate funds will be disbursed shortlyWe also advised to continue to make payments at your existing servicer until the balance is verified as having been paid in fullOn 12/29/15, you called CampusDoor to ask for a disbursement statusWe advised that the lender was preparing your disbursement and to continue to make payments to your existing servicersWe also advised that you will be able to see in the CampusDoor MyAccount, when the disbursements have been completedOn 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” wasWe replied that for further information regarding the disbursement to contact [redacted] and provided the email address and telephone number for themOn 1/29/16, you called CampusDoor to question the status of disbursementOur 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 numberOn 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 againOur 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 yetOur associate provided you the contact number for the lender at that timeUnfortunately, 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 processWe have no record of having advised thatAfter 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 processIf it had, our process is to document the request and to return the call within one business dayBased on the call with us on 1/29/16, we believe that the request for a follwas made to [redacted] and not to CampusDoorSince filing this complaint, you emailed CampusDoor on 2/17/asking for answers regarding disbursement and expressing frustration with not receiving the information you wanted when calling us or the lenderUpon receipt, a CampusDoor supervisor called you to discuss your concernsThe supervisor advised that CampusDoor was preparing a response to your complaint, but that she could discuss the application with youShe 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 authorityShe 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 dateThe CampusDoor manager also offered her direct line for any further questions you may haveWe 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 disbursementsUnfortunately, CampusDoor has no ability to initiate a disbursement for your account as disbursement of funds is solely the responsibility of the lenderOur recommendation at this time is to contact [redacted] to inquire when disbursements will be made on your completed applicationSincerely,Ryan AVP, Governance
We can confirm that the complainant made a call to CampusDoor at about PM on October 19, where the complainant spoke with a customer service agent and then spoke with a supervisorOn those calls, the complainant alleged that CampusDoor didn’t send “the right number” to the Bank with regards to rental incomeThe complainant also alleged that the application had asked for monthly income, which as you can see from the attachment is incorrect, it requests annual incomeThe complainant completed the application incorrectly and may submit a new application with the correct information if the complainant would like to do soOur 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 returnsThe complainant listed $2,as rental income and now says it should read $32,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 incomeThe 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 inaccurateWe 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 supervisorA review of the call did not indicate any rudeness by the supervisorThe 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 purposesThe 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 contactedOn both calls the complainant made to ***, 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 providedThe 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 CampusDoorThe complainant did ask to file an official complaint and one was filed in our internal system on the date of the callThe 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 concernsThe complaint number is #***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 itemWith regards to the request to update the application information, we will not be able to complyThe application as submitted is a record that must maintain its integrityThe 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 applicationThe complainant has the option to reapply and fill out the income information with whatever information the complainant believes to be correctOtherwise, the correct income amount will be used when underwriting is performedWe believe that the complainant was treated fairly and was provided complete and correct information to ad**ess the complainant’s concernsRegards, Ryan A Governance Associate General Counsel
The complainant’s description of events and processes is incorrectThe 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 **BankCampusDoor does not submit applications for applicantsHere, 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” informationAs 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 evaluationThe 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 applicationThe complainant incorrectly states that the “CampusDoor online application form asked for additional monthly income.” This is falseAs demonstrated in the previously attached GIF, the application clearly requests annual income from the additional income information sourceThe complainant failed to complete the application correctly if the complainant only listed the monthly amount of incomeThe 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 incomeThe amount of rental income actually verified is used in the underwriting, regardless of the value the applicant listed on the applicationThe 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 **BankAt no time did CampusDoor send the annual additional income listed on the application to **BankThe 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 informationIt is within the complainant’s facilities to reapply and fill out the application in the manner that the complainant sees fitThe 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 incomeThe 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 applicationsCampusDoor does not submit applications, applications are submitted by applicants when the applicant consents to apply for a credit productIt 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 incomeThe complainant is under a understanding that the application requests monthly income, which is factually incorrect and substantiated by the image provided in the original responseThere is no update to be made as the application already requests annual income.The complainant may reapply and complete the application correctlyThe 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 alteredCampusDoor considers this complaint to be frivolous and unsubstantiated