Geibel's Auto

[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 as Answered] ? Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:In the response, the agent clearly said that their representative miscommunicated their policyThe timing of this miscommunication is the problemHad it been communicated clearly and according to company guidelines, then I might have not invested more money in the appraisalBut the correct information was given to me after I paid for the appraisal.? I had already paid for an inspection, and two appraisalsOne appraisal paid by my son when he tried to apply for residential financing (note: he was rejected yet they are requiring him to be on the title), and one paid by meSo we were already invested into the property over $1000.Also, me choosing to continue the application doesn't absolve guidance of their negligence in this matterThey clearly have a problem with communicating company policy to their representative.? The fact that they are going to be making over $100,in profit from this business transaction yet they are unwilling to provide some sort of minute concession to address the undue stress that they caused me and my family is indicative of their lack of concern for the consumer.? Regards, [redacted]

RE: Revdex.comID# [redacted] ; Guidance Residential file #***Dear [redacted] :In response to your correspondence received February 21, 2017, have reviewed the information from the customerThe complaint concerns the financing application of a new property; whether it could be financed as an investment property or an owner-occupied property; listing of the customer's current residence and the appraisal fee charged to the customer.Since filing the complaint, the customer has advised that he wants to continue with the transaction as an investment propertyThe Customer was fully approved as of March 2, Anticipated closing date is March 16, 2017.The Customer Contacted us in mid-January concerning possible financing for a new home, in his Correspondence to us, the customer stated that he was aware of the differences between the down payment requirements for investment and residential propertiesOn January 25, 2017, the customer filed a full application for an investment property transaction with usOn January 26, 2017, the Customer returned signed disclosures to us including the application and his intent to proceed with the investment transactionThe customer contacted us again on January 27, stating he wanted to change the financing from investment to residential because "putting all that money on closing costs will not leave us any money to do some of the necessary updates and cleaning of the house that will make it livable." The customer listed his home on the same date as "for sale by owner." The property is still listed as of today's date.After review by our underwriting and risk management departments, it was determined that the transaction could only move forward as an investment transactionReasons for this determination include significant reduction in value and square footage between current and proposed properties and the new property was significantly below customer's affordabilityAdditionally, the customer's son submitted an application for the same property in December and was denied in January shortly before the customer contacted Guidance regarding financing for the propertyThe customer was provided the option of moving forward with the transaction as an investment property or as a residential transaction with the requirement that funds be held in escrow until the customer provided Guidance Residential, LEC| [redacted] *** Reston, WA *** tel [redacted] fax [redacted] www.guidanceresidential.corn proof of occupancy (i.eutility bills, address change, driver's license change, etc.)Once the occupancy documentation was provided, the escrow funds would be refunded to the customerThe customer informed us he wanted to move forward as an investment property on February 18, 2017.Regarding the appraisal fee, an appraisal was required regardless of whether the transaction was investment or residentialThe appraisal was completed and a copy was provided to the customer on February 6, As an investment property transaction, the appraisal needed to be upgraded to include required investment property elementsThe customer agreed to pay the cost of the appraisal upgrade on February 24, The upgrades were ordered on an expedited basis with Guidance paying the $fee to expediteA copy of the upgraded appraisal was provided to the customer on March 3,2017.The customer states that he was advised that he had to list his current property in order for the transaction to be treated as a residential financingWe do see in Communications that our account executive suggested that the customer list his home for sale if he wanted to finance as a residential transactionThis is not a requirement for a residential transaction to move forwardWe have reviewed the guidelines with our account executive and have addressed the issue with his manager.We do not believe that a refund to the customer of the appraisal fee is warranted based on the above information and the Customer's determination to move forward with the transaction as an investment propertyWe believe our response should bring closure to this Complaint.Best regards,Heidi P

RE: Complaint #***Complainant: *** - Guidance Residential Contract No***Dear *** ***:In response to your correspondence received October 11, 2016, have reviewed *** ***'s ComplaintThe Complaint Concerns fees charged in advance of closing, processing time for her application, the
property value listed in the Completed appraisal report and the change in rate and points due to the appraisa report property value.*** *** Submitted an application for financing with Guidance Residential, LLC ("Guidance") on August 17, On August 18, 2016, we sent an initial disclosure package to her with information about the transaction including the fees, processing time and requirements, *** *** signed and returned the document package to us on August 18, As part of the package, Ms*** provided a signed intention to Proceed with Transaction document confirming that based on the information provided in the package she wanted to proceed with the processing of her application,In the complaint, *** *** states she had never paid a lock fee, appraisal fee or condominium questionnaire fee prior to closing in previous transactions with other financiersThe timing of the payment of these types of fees is not uniform across the industry and there is no regulatory provision requiring these fees to be paid at closingGuidance is not unique in requiring these fees to be paid prior to closingThe initial disclosure package provided to the customer at the time of application provided information about these feesAfter receiving the document package, Ms*** provided her written intent to proceed with the transaction.Regarding the profit rate lock fee and the time to process the application, Guidance provided an informational document about locking the profit rate in the initial disclosure packageThis document informs the customer that the average processing time for a transaction is business daysThis document further explains that Guidance does not charge a fee to lock the profit rate unless the customer opts to lock the profit rate prior to approval of the transaction ("early lock")There is a $fee to early lock that is refunded to the customer at closingCustomers often choose this option to reserve a low rate that may not be available later in the processing of the transactionOn August 24, 2016, Ms*** opted to early lock her transaction with a day lock period and pay the $feeConsidering this lock periodchosen, the transaction needed to close on or about October 8, 2016.Regarding the profit rate lock and the appraisal, *** submitted her application advising an estimated property value of $540,Because the transaction was early locked and the appraisal report had not yet been completed, the estimated value stated by the customer was used to lock the rateFollowing the *** ***'s payment of the appraisal fee on August 24, 2016, the appraisal was ordered from an independent appraiser through an appraisal management Company ("AMC")The lock agreement provided to the customer on August 25, states that if any of the terms or characteristics of the transaction change, then the terms of the lock agreement could change as wellOn October 4, 2016, the Completed appraisal report was reviewed by our underwriting departmentBecause the report listed an appraised value of $499,000, a decrease in the value of $41,Compared to the estimated value reported by the customer, the loan-to-value percent ("TV") of the transaction increased, changing the characteristics of the transactionThis lower property value increased the LTV to 80.65, Because the LTV was now over percent, mortgage insurance needed to be added to the transaction pursuant to federal and investor requirementsThe rate and points needed to be reworked due to the increased LTV and to accommodate the cost of the mortgage insuranceOn October 6, 2016, our account executive reached out to the customer with options for reworking the rate and points that included lender credits to reduce the impact of the increased pointsThe account executive also advised that we were contacting the appraisal management company to have a secondary review to assure there were no errors in the report including the comparable sales used to determine the valueOn October 6, 2016, the customer emailed the account executive rejecting the possible options and requesting the transaction be canceled and the lock deposit refunded.Additionally, *** *** stated in her complaint that the house next door to her sold for $534,which she felt should have caused her house to appraise at a greater valueShe also implied the appraiser worked for GuidanceThe property referenced by *** sold AFTER the appraisal report was completed and provided to Guidance so it was not considered as a comparable sale to determine the value in the report*** *** cancelled the transaction before we could have a secondary review by the AMCThe AMC Selects the appraiser who visits the property and completes the reportAll selected appraisers are vetted by the AMC to make sure there is no relationship with Guidance.While the lower property value that caused the change in rate and points was not within the Control of Guidance, we do understand that the reduced value did significantly affect the transaction and the Customer's willingness to move forwardAs a result, for customer service reasons, we will refund the customer's early lock fee as she originally requestedA check for the $early lock fee will be mailed to the customer within five (5) business days of this letter.We believe our response should bring closure to this complaint.Susan P

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

RE: Revdex.comID#***; Guidance Residential file #***Dear *** ***:We have received and reviewed the customer's response to our March 6, communication on the issues he presented in his original complaintThe Customer had previously determined to move forward with the transaction which is scheduled to go to closing on or about March 31, 2017.The customer originally applied with us for financing of an investment property on January 25, and confirmed his intention to move forward as an investment transaction on January 26, On January 27, 2017, the customer requested to change the transaction from an investment to an owner-occupied residential transactionRegardless of whether the transaction moved forward as an investment or owner-occupied transaction, an appraisal of the property was requiredThe Customer paid $for the appraisa report on February 1, The appraisal was completed and the appraisal report was provided to the customer on February 6, As requested, the transaction was reviewed as an owner-occupied propertyIt was determined that we could not approve the owner-occupied transaction for the reasons detailed in our prior response to you on March 6, The customer was provided the option of moving forward with the transaction as an investment property or as an owneroccupied transaction with the requirement that funds be held in escrow until the customer provided proof of occupancy (i.eutility bills, address change, driver's license change, etc.)Once the occupancy documentation was provided, the escrow funds would be refunded to the customerThe customer informed us he wanted to move forward as an investment transaction on February 18, Two additional appraisal reports ($each) were required to complete the review of investment transaction totaling $The additional cost would be charged to the customer at closing as part of the closing costsThe customer agreed to the additional appraisal costs on February 24, We also asked the appraisal company to expedite the reports at a cost of $which Guidance Residential paid and did not pass on to the customerA copy of the upgraded appraisal was provided to the Customer on March 3, 2017.The customer has stated that we misrepresented our requirements regarding the listing for sale of his current property in order to process the transaction as owner-occupiedOur account executive suggested that the customer list his current home for CGuidance Residential, LLCsale since the customer stated he was going to occupy the new property.** *** *** *** *** ***Reston, WA ** ** **, USA te|| ***) fax *** www.GuidanceResidential.com AS we detailed in our prior response, we have addressed this issue with our account executiveThe customer listed his property as "for sale by owner" at *** rather than list with a real estate agent/brokerFor sale by owner at *** is a free serviceThe listing is totally within the customer's control to maintain at that siteThe customer has the option of acting on or ignoring any inquiries about his propertyIt does not appear that the customer incurred any expenses or harm by utilizing thisfree listingRegardless of whether the Current residence was listed for Sale or not, our underwriting and risk assessment would have the same result as explained aboveWhen presented with the options, the customer determined to move forward as an investment transactionWe do not believe that a refund to the customer of the appraisa fee is warranted based on the above information and the Customer's determination to move forward with the transaction as an investment propertyHowever, we are willing to pay for one of the additional investment property reports equaling $as a good faith measureWe will credit this amount to the customer's costs at closingIf the transaction does not close, we will refund this amount to the customer by checkWe believe our response should bring closure to this complaint.Please contact me if you have additional questions,Heidi P

October 16, 2015Dear *** ***;Thank you for taking the time today to discuss your complaintFirst of all, let me apologize for any inconvenience and your frustration regarding the fees charged in relation to your recent home purchase and your mortgage with Guidance ResidentialI want to assure you that I accept your explanation and will take the appropriate steps to ensure your complaint is voiced to our Human Resources Department and appropriate members of our Executive Management CommitteeSecond, I will have our Accounting Department prepare a check in the amount of $to resolve the misstatement of fees and to bring closure to this matter.We at Guidance Residential appreciate your business and hope that we can assist you again in the future.Best regards, BillBill M.SrVice President

RE: Complaint #***Complainant: ***-Guidance Residential Contract No***Dear Mr***:in response to your correspondence received September 29, 2015, f have reviewed Mr***'s complaintMr*** has presented information regarding delays in the closing of his application with
Guidance Residential, LLC ("Guidance") that resulted in late fees from the sellerHe is asking for reimbursement of the late fees as well as the cost of his property appraisalBased on the following explanation, we do not feel that reimbursement is warranted.Mr*** was the co-applicant on the application submitted to Guidance on June 20, His wife was the primary applicantWhen the application was submitted, the seller of the property indicated that the closing had to occur no later than July 18, which is significantly shorter than our standard day processing timeWe advised the applicants and the seller of our standard processing time and advised that we would do everything possible to close by the July 18" date, which is less than days from the application date.There were several issues that caused the contract not to close on July 18, The primary issue, however, was our inability to verify the employment information as provided by both applicantsIn order for the file to be approved for closing, applicants must be employed on the date of closing with income sufficient to qualify the applicants for the financingThe employment must be verified directly with the employer along with proof of income through paystubsEmployment verifications are generally completed at the beginning of the process and again within days of the closing dateFor employers like the University of ***, employment is verified through the Human Resources/Personnel Department of the employer.The application signed by the applicants on June 20, listed a current employer in Massachusetts for the primary applicant and future employment with the University of *** on July 1, The primary applicant provided a job offer letter from the department chair at the University dated June 8, showing a start date of September 1, 2016, which conflicted with the information contained in the applicationAt the beginning of July, the primary applicant then provided two "corrected" job offer letters also dated June 8, and signed by the same department chairThe first corrected letter listed a start date ofGuidance Residential, LLC** *** *** Road, Suite Reston,VA 2090, USA i.e###-###-#### fax ###-###-#### www.Guidance Residential.com July 1, and the second letter listed a start date of July 15, Guidance made numerous attempts to clarify the information provided about the terms of the applicant's positionApproval of the application was Conditioned on obtaining a verification of employment confirming the start date and income received from the University of *** positionWe attempted to complete a verification of employment with the University of *** Human Resources department on July 15"The University was unable to identify the applicant as an employee based on her social security numberWe then Contacted the department where she was to work and was advised that the primary applicant would be Starting Sometime in AugustOur Chief Credit Officer had a subsequent conversation with the program director in the department where she was to work and he stated that the applicant started to work on July 15, We advised the program director we needed to verify that through the University's Human Resource department and suggested that the program director contact the University's Human Resources Department to have discrepancy corrected in their recordsWe contacted the Human Resources department at least additional times and were advised the primary applicant's start date was September 1, The primary applicant did not provide us with any paycheck stubs showing income received from the University either during the month of July or AugustAs part of research to prepare this response, we did an additional verification of employment with the University which Confirms the start date as September 1, Additionally, there are communications from the primary applicant stating she and the complainant were living in Massachusetts in July and would not be coming to *** until AugustAs a result, we could not verify the employment and income as presented by the applicantWe Could not close before the September start date using the primary applicant's income to qualify for the financing.We received a request from the primary applicant on July 19, asking to qualify the application with just the complainant's (co-applicant's) employment and incomeWe had been advised that the Complainant would remain with the Massachusetts employer until after the transaction closedWe began the process to move forward with the application using only the complainant's employment and incomeOn August 2, 2016, we were forwarded a letter from the complainant's cousin confirming that Complainant was living with him in MassachusettsBased on paystubs from the Massachusetts employer provided for the complainant, we were able to qualify based on his income alone and moved forward with processing the application for closingSubsequently, we also received a job offer letter from a *** employer for the complainant dated July 1, sent to us by the primary applicantThe letter stated that the complainant would start work on August 15, with a *** medical office owned by a relative of the applicantsThis is the first time we had been advised that the complainant had secured employment in ***As part of preparation for closing, we contacted the Massachusetts employer for a verification of employment and were advised that the complainant resigned his position as Supervisor on July 27, In reviewing the employment and income information received from the applicants, we identified a paystub from the medical clinic in *** forwarded to us by the primary applicantThe paystub dated July 22, from the *** medical clinic listed a *** address for the complainant and reflected a pay period of July through July 16, This income was prior to the start date in the offer letter from the medical clinic, prior to the applicant's leaving the supervisory position with the Massachusetts employer and during the time complainant was to be living with his cousin in Massachusetts.Based on the discrepancies regarding the Complainant's employment, we could not go forward with the Complainant as the qualifierWe advised that if the applicants wished to go forward with the transaction, we could not close before September 1, when the primary applicant's *** position was to begin and that we must have paystubs proving employmentThe applicants asked us terminate the transaction on August 29, 2016,It is our position that Guidance Residential attempted to process and close the transaction within the time Constraints initially requested by the applicantsHad we been able to verify the employment and income information as presented by the applicants in the application we believe we may have been able to close proximately to the date requestedWe are required by our investors as well as by federal law to thoroughly vet and verify any discrepancies in employment and employment incomeThe delays in closing the transaction were due to conflicting information provided by the applicants and the time needed to get clarification and confirmation of the information providedWe do not believe that Guidance Residential is required to reimburse the applicants for costs incurred for delays caused by investigating the conflicting information they provided.We believe our response should bring closure to this complaint.Very truly yours,Marsaw h Best regards, Heidi P

September 28,2015Dear *** ***:I have received your complaint, have interviewed MrNabil E**, and have reviewed the disclosure documentation provided with your application and mortgageI find that the early disclosures are consistent with the final charges at settlement.On July 6,at the
time of your pre-qualification, you were provided with an estimate of settlement charges that showed charges totaling $1,for Underwriting, Application, Processing, and Administrative Fees as well as an additional charge of $for an Appraisal Fee, (copy attached)On July 10, at the time of your application, you were provided with a Good Faith Estimate (GFE) indicating your origination charges would be a total of $1,(copy attached)On July 10, at the time of your application,you were provided with a second estimate of settlement charges that showed charges totaling $1,for Underwriting, Application, Processing, and Administrative Fees as for an Appraisal Fee, well as an additional charge of $(copy attached)On September 1, at the time of settlement, you were provided with a Settlement Statement (HUD-1) outlining fees consistent with the prior disclosures; an Underwriting Fee of $a Processing Fee of $390.00, an Administrative Fee of $565.00, of $99.00; at total of $1,This statement also shows that you paid and an Application $outside of Fee the closing for an Appraisal Fee(copy attached)On page one of the Settlement Statement (HUD-1) line number shows that the application fee of $was refunded as agreed upon the successful completion of your transactionOn page two line number shows that you were given a credit of $10.00, the difference between the Appraisal Fee that you paid after authorizing your intent to proceed after application and the actual cost of the appraisal by Evaluation Zone in the amount of $415.00.Also, on page one of the Settlement Statement (HUD-1); line shows that you were given an additional credit of $for timely submission of your underwriting paperwork.It appears that you may have mistaken the agreement to refund the Application Fee upon successful processing of your application with a refund of the Appraisal Feelt also appears that at no time did we disclose any less than $1,in origination fees.We are sorry for any confusion and trust that our explanation and the enclosed documentation help to clarify the details of your transaction.Regards,William MSenior Vice President

[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 as Answered]
? Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:In the response, the agent clearly said that their representative miscommunicated their policyThe timing of this miscommunication is the problemHad it been communicated clearly and according to company guidelines, then I might have not invested more money in the appraisalBut the correct information was given to me after I paid for the appraisal.? I had already paid for an inspection, and two appraisalsOne appraisal paid by my son when he tried to apply for residential financing (note: he was rejected yet they are requiring him to be on the title), and one paid by meSo we were already invested into the property over $1000.Also, me choosing to continue the application doesn't absolve guidance of their negligence in this matterThey clearly have a problem with communicating company policy to their representative.? The fact that they are going to be making over $100,in profit from this business transaction yet they are unwilling to provide some sort of minute concession to address the undue stress that they caused me and my family is indicative of their lack of concern for the consumer.?
Regards,
*** ***

[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 as Answered]
? Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: the business did not admit their incompetency in looking at the ut austin contract which stated clearly that the employment is starting sep 1st and the closing to be july 18thThis is more than required month period of paystub to be provided after closing Which is required by their policyThat lack of communication dears, cost us thousands of dollars in lossesWe presented you with several contracts and you failed to verify them just because they r not enrolled in the payroll yetHow about u pick up the phone today and call both of our employers!! It was not enough for Guidance to put a condtion of 10k in held escrow to prove they r "money" not faith based bank but still just to delay the closing to harm us financiallySo to my dear brothers and sisters AVOID guidance if possible and seek an alternative Islamic Financial Bank? Thank youBest Regards***
Regards,
*** ***

RE: Revdex.comID#***; Guidance Residential file #***Dear *** ***:In response to your correspondence received February 21, 2017, have reviewed the information from the customerThe complaint concerns the financing application of a new property; whether it could be financed as an investment
property or an owner-occupied property; listing of the customer's current residence and the appraisal fee charged to the customer.Since filing the complaint, the customer has advised that he wants to continue with the transaction as an investment propertyThe Customer was fully approved as of March 2, Anticipated closing date is March 16, 2017.The Customer Contacted us in mid-January concerning possible financing for a new home, in his Correspondence to us, the customer stated that he was aware of the differences between the down payment requirements for investment and residential propertiesOn January 25, 2017, the customer filed a full application for an investment property transaction with usOn January 26, 2017, the Customer returned signed disclosures to us including the application and his intent to proceed with the investment transactionThe customer contacted us again on January 27, stating he wanted to change the financing from investment to residential because "putting all that money on closing costs will not leave us any money to do some of the necessary updates and cleaning of the house that will make it livable." The customer listed his home on the same date as "for sale by owner." The property is still listed as of today's date.After review by our underwriting and risk management departments, it was determined that the transaction could only move forward as an investment transactionReasons for this determination include significant reduction in value and square footage between current and proposed properties and the new property was significantly below customer's affordabilityAdditionally, the customer's son submitted an application for the same property in December and was denied in January shortly before the customer contacted Guidance regarding financing for the propertyThe customer was provided the option of moving forward with the transaction as an investment property or as a residential transaction with the requirement that funds be held in escrow until the customer provided Guidance Residential, LEC| *** *** *** *** *** ***? Reston, WA ***? tel *** fax *** www.guidanceresidential.corn? proof of occupancy (i.eutility bills, address change, driver's license change, etc.)Once the occupancy documentation was provided, the escrow funds would be refunded to the customerThe customer informed us he wanted to move forward as an investment property on February 18, 2017.Regarding the appraisal fee, an appraisal was required regardless of whether the transaction was investment or residentialThe appraisal was completed and a copy was provided to the customer on February 6, As an investment property transaction, the appraisal needed to be upgraded to include required investment property elementsThe customer agreed to pay the cost of the appraisal upgrade on February 24, The upgrades were ordered on an expedited basis with Guidance paying the $fee to expediteA copy of the upgraded appraisal was provided to the customer on March 3,2017.The customer states that he was advised that he had to list his current property in order for the transaction to be treated as a residential financingWe do see in Communications that our account executive suggested that the customer list his home for sale if he wanted to finance as a residential transactionThis is not a requirement for a residential transaction to move forwardWe have reviewed the guidelines with our account executive and have addressed the issue with his manager.We do not believe that a refund to the customer of the appraisal fee is warranted based on the above information and the Customer's determination to move forward with the transaction as an investment propertyWe believe our response should bring closure to this Complaint.Best regards,Heidi P

RE: Complaint IED *** Our file ***Dear Mr***:We are responding to the consumer complaint forwarded to us on September 5, The complainant previously raised this issue with Guidance Residential staff and received explanations on November and 10, The complainant is asking
Guidance Residential to refund the appraisal fee paid of $and to reimburse the earnest money he paid to the Seller totaling $We have reviewed the issues raised by the complainant and our response follows.The Complainant contacted us regarding financing to purchase a residential property on or about September 13, The complainant later provided a residential purchase contract and financing addendum with an effective date of September 21, The purchase contract stated that approval of financing included both buyer approval and property approval from the lenderRegarding the Contingency date, the contract stated the Buyer could get a refund of earnest money paid by providing written notice to Seller within days after the effective date of the purchase contract.As part of the pre-approval inquiry, the complainant reported verbal financial informationBased on this information and a single bureau credit report, it was determined that the complainant may not be able to qualify on his ownIt was suggested that a qualified co-signer may assist the complainant in qualifyingThe complainant provided his brother as a co-signer who contacted our Account Executive and verbally provided informationA pre-approval letter was issued on September 27, based om the information provided by the complainant and co-signerAs stated in the Pre-Approval letter, a full application needed to be submitted along with any requested documentation in order to evaluate and verify the application information and to determine if a commitment to finance could be issuedThe complainant submitted an application with a co-signer on September 29, Initial disclosures, including a required documents list and an intent to proceed document, were sent through a secure website the following dayPer federal law, no further processing of the application could take place until we received the complainant's and the co-signer's intention to proceed with the applicationWe received the complainant's signed intent to proceed document on October 1, and the co-signer's on October 5, Required documentation requested from the complainant and co-signer on September 30, was received from the complainant aroundOctober 5, The documentation was reviewed and found to be incomplete Income information for the co-signer was missing and was requested again on October 7, We received illegible income information for the co-signer on October 18, and a legible copy on October 20, The file was immediately sent to our underwriting staffUntil all of the required documentation was received, we could not verify and correctly evaluate the customer's and co-signer's creditworthiness to determine if the financing could be approvedEven though a customer's debt to income ratio may have been high, until full documentation was received and evaluated against our investor's guidelines, a denial of the financing was prematureAfter verification and evaluation, we found that the complainant could not meet the investor requirements concerning debt-to-income ratio with or without a co-signerThe file was denied on October 31, with a letter to the complainant on November 3, 2016.At the time we received all of the information needed to verify the application, the period for the complainant to request a return of his earnest money had passedWe received no request from the customer to withdraw his application nor does it appear the complainant requested an extension of the contingency date from the SellerWe moved forward with evaluation but were unfortunately unable to approve the application for financingHad the income and other documentation been received in a timely manner from the Co-signer, the determination could have been made within the time frame needed for the complainant to receive a refund of the earnest money paid.Regarding the appraisal services, it is our practice and procedure to order the appraisal, with the Consumer's consent, once we receive the consumer's intent to proceed with the transactionThe Complainant provided consent to order the appraisal and paid the upfront appraisal feeWe had no indication from the complainant that he wanted to delay the appraisal orderIn fact, both the Complainant and his realtor were asking about the status of the appraisal order as early as October 3,2016.Based on the information above, we will not be reimbursing the Complainant for the earnest money he paidWe processed the complainant's application as expeditiously as possible in light of when the required documentation was receivedThe complainant did not request to terminate the application due to not having a full approval at the time the contingency period ended nor does it appear he requested an extension of the Contingency dateAlthough we followed our process and procedure concerning the appraisal order, we are willing to refund the appraisal fee paid by the complainant as a good faith gestureWe will be issuing a check for $to the complainant and mail to the address listed in the complaint within business days of this letter.We trust our response will bring closure to this complaint,?