Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The response contains significant factual error, and perpetuates the fact that they are unwilling to admit their wrongdoing. Although the action to delete the inquiries will alleviate come of the damages, I remain very concerned that the management of Credit Union of Denver is unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge their wrongdoing.Point One: When I contacted CUD on 12-3-15, it was not for a 90% and 100% LTV product; it was exclusively for a 100% LTV product. When I made the initial and subsequent inquiries, I was very clear about needing to understand CUD's underwriting guidelines for the 100% product PRIOR to applying for it. I was given a fairly exhaustive list of guidelines, and told that there were no other parameters or "catches" for qualifying for the 100% product. This has since turned out to be false, as CUD management has since told me that the 100% LTV product is very much at underwriting discretion, and that there is subjective decision making involved (facts which were not shared with me originally, and which would have excluded further consideration for applying).Point Two: When MrNaughton e-mailed me to say I was approved for a 90% LTV loan, that was literally the first time 90% LTV had ever been discussed. I did not apply for a 90% LTV loan, nor did I authorize MrNaughton to do so on my behalf. I was only interested in applying for a 100% LTV loan, and only because I had been given erroneous information about the credit union's underwriting guidelines thereto.Point Three: If CUD was actually reviewing the communication chain, they would see that my "disenchantment" with the 90% product was immediate; because it was not what I had applied for. That sentiment is communicated quite clearly in e-mail, in case MrNaughton doesn't recall how irritated I was on the phone. It should be noted that the credit union has also violated additional FCRA rules by including extremely specific and protected credit information in their response to the Revdex.com. This further demonstrates the careless and unlawful manner in which they conduct themselves
Sincerely,
*** ***
We are somewhat dismayed as to where the disagreement with the borrower exists. The borrower initially contacted us on 12-03-15 inquiring about 90% and 100% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgage products. The borrower initially expressed an interest in a 100% LTV mortgage loan. That...
is a product that we advertise and a product where we approve many loans. After multiple discussions with the loan officer centered around what the borrower believed his house was worth and ultimately with a slightly lower loan amount (so he could qualify for a lower interest rate), the borrower actually applied for a 90% LTV mortgage loan. When the request was presented to our underwriting department, the borrower was approved for a 90% LTV loan (which is what he applied for). That approval by the underwriting department took into consideration that the borrower currently has an outstanding collection account on a credit card and has a past history of delinquency on a mortgage loan of 120 days or more, but was still willing to approve the borrower for a 90% LTV mortgage. At a point after the initial approval, the borrower appeared to become disenchanted with the approved loan at 90% LTV and inquired about increasing the loan to a 100% LTV mortgage. The credit union was unwilling to extend a 100% LTV loan, but continued to extend the approval for the originally requested 90% LTV product. In an effort to resolve this issue with the borrower, we will contact the credit bureau and request that the credit inquiries for him and his wife be removed.
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The response contains significant factual error, and perpetuates the fact that they are unwilling to admit their wrongdoing. Although the action to delete the inquiries will alleviate come of the damages, I remain very concerned that the management of Credit Union of Denver is unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge their wrongdoing.Point One: When I contacted CUD on 12-3-15, it was not for a 90% and 100% LTV product; it was exclusively for a 100% LTV product. When I made the initial and subsequent inquiries, I was very clear about needing to understand CUD's underwriting guidelines for the 100% product PRIOR to applying for it. I was given a fairly exhaustive list of guidelines, and told that there were no other parameters or "catches" for qualifying for the 100% product. This has since turned out to be false, as CUD management has since told me that the 100% LTV product is very much at underwriting discretion, and that there is subjective decision making involved (facts which were not shared with me originally, and which would have excluded further consideration for applying).Point Two: When MrNaughton e-mailed me to say I was approved for a 90% LTV loan, that was literally the first time 90% LTV had ever been discussed. I did not apply for a 90% LTV loan, nor did I authorize MrNaughton to do so on my behalf. I was only interested in applying for a 100% LTV loan, and only because I had been given erroneous information about the credit union's underwriting guidelines thereto.Point Three: If CUD was actually reviewing the communication chain, they would see that my "disenchantment" with the 90% product was immediate; because it was not what I had applied for. That sentiment is communicated quite clearly in e-mail, in case MrNaughton doesn't recall how irritated I was on the phone. It should be noted that the credit union has also violated additional FCRA rules by including extremely specific and protected credit information in their response to the Revdex.com. This further demonstrates the careless and unlawful manner in which they conduct themselves
Sincerely,
*** ***
We are somewhat dismayed as to where the disagreement with the borrower exists. The borrower initially contacted us on 12-03-15 inquiring about 90% and 100% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgage products. The borrower initially expressed an interest in a 100% LTV mortgage loan. That...
is a product that we advertise and a product where we approve many loans. After multiple discussions with the loan officer centered around what the borrower believed his house was worth and ultimately with a slightly lower loan amount (so he could qualify for a lower interest rate), the borrower actually applied for a 90% LTV mortgage loan. When the request was presented to our underwriting department, the borrower was approved for a 90% LTV loan (which is what he applied for). That approval by the underwriting department took into consideration that the borrower currently has an outstanding collection account on a credit card and has a past history of delinquency on a mortgage loan of 120 days or more, but was still willing to approve the borrower for a 90% LTV mortgage. At a point after the initial approval, the borrower appeared to become disenchanted with the approved loan at 90% LTV and inquired about increasing the loan to a 100% LTV mortgage. The credit union was unwilling to extend a 100% LTV loan, but continued to extend the approval for the originally requested 90% LTV product. In an effort to resolve this issue with the borrower, we will contact the credit bureau and request that the credit inquiries for him and his wife be removed.