Sign in

iFreedom Direct Corporation

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about iFreedom Direct Corporation? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews iFreedom Direct Corporation

iFreedom Direct Corporation Reviews (21)

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , Sincerely, [redacted] The appraiser that came ot our home was just hired by the VA in Nov Didnt show us any VA appraiser proof The certificate was from the State of Ohio, div of real estate.?? Veterans 1st would have been the owner of our home no, if the loan had gone thru? I dont understand how the seller pays for the appraisal.?? I am yrs old, things have changed in the mortgage dept Cant afford another $for court Just wont deal with this company again!

iFreedom Direct Corporation (sometimes operating under the assumed business name Veterans First Mortgage) has received the complaint filed by [redacted] ***iFreedom takes complaints seriouslyThe Company has investigated the facts and wishes to respond [redacted] spoke with a loan officer at iFreedom about getting a home loan mortgageMr [redacted] indicated that he is marriedMr [redacted] gave iFreedom permission to pull his credit to see if he might qualify for a loanThat credit pull revealed that Mr [redacted] would not currently qualify for a mortgage from iFreedomOnce iFreedom had such information, the company was bound by two federal laws, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, to deliver the notices it sent to Mrand Mrs***Those laws are intended to give consumers more information about why they were denied for a loanThe notice(s) is/are not intended to hurt applicants or harm their ability to get a loan, to the contrary, they are designed to helpiFreedom understands that it may be concerning for Mrs [redacted] to receive a credit denial when, from her perspective, she never inquired about a loan (let alone talked with iFreedom)Nevertheless, iFreedom sent the disclosure as the company understood Mr [redacted] to be inquiring about a home loan for both Mrand Mrs***Because of this, iFreedom believes it had a duty to inform Mrs [redacted] of the company's determinationAs an aside, it is important for Mrs [redacted] to know that no loan could have been closed for both her and her husband without her knowledge and consent, and in fact without having first received and agreed to various disclosuresiFreedom also wants to acknowledge that the company did not make its determination on the basis of Mrs***'s credit profile, and the notice she received has not been shared with anyone but those persons necessary to create, process, and deliver the noticeNothing will be reported by the company to any credit reporting agency Therefore, Mrs*** would not suffer any negative credit consequences

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted]

iFreedom Direct Corporation (doing business as Veterans First Mortgage) (“iFreedom”) has received Mr [redacted] ’s complaintiFreedom takes complaints seriously, including Mr [redacted] ’s, and has investigated the matter to prepare this response.To summarize Mr [redacted] ’s complaint, Mr [redacted] began talking with iFreedom about getting a mortgage loan with the companyAs part of that inquiry about a loan, iFreedom’s loan officer, Keilan W [redacted] pulled Mr [redacted] ’s credit report with Mr [redacted] 's permissionMr [redacted] believed that the inquiry would be a ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’ inquiry.Unfortunately, iFreedom, when pulling credit, can only legally make a ‘hard’ inquiry (except in very limited circumstances that do not apply here, e.gwhen making firm offers of credit)As part of its investigation into this complaint, iFreedom’s management spoke with MrW [redacted] and he does not believe that he stated that the pull would be a soft pullIndicating that a credit pull is a ‘soft’ pull would be against iFreedom policy and practiceTo prevent confusion in the future, iFreedom has provided additional training to MrW [redacted] specifically, and will reiterate company policy to its other loan officers.iFreedom sincerely regrets this confusion and Mr [redacted] ’s frustrationBut, the company had a valid reason to pull Mr [redacted] ’s credit report and could only do so with Mr [redacted] providing necessary information (e.ghis social security number)iFreedom cannot remove the credit inquiry as it was a valid credit pull associated with Mr [redacted] 's interest in a loanIf it is any consolation, the information that iFreedom has learned from the credit reporting agencies is that hard credit inquiries have small and relatively short-lived impact on a person’s credit score, and that multiple credit inquiries in a relatively short window are not treated separately as the agencies understand that consumers may be shopping between different providers

iFreedom Direct Corporation (“iFreedom”) received a complaint on August 10th, 2015 from the RevDex.com made by [redacted] . Mr. [redacted] had applied for a mortgage loan with iFreedom in June, 2015. Mr. [redacted] ’s complaint alleges several issues with how iFreedom handled... his application. Mr. [redacted] alleged the following: iFreedom indicated that Mr. [redacted] would be approved for a loan but there were substantial difficulties and obstacles in getting that approval, iFreedom lost paperwork or dropped the ball with Mr. [redacted] ’s application, iFreedom’s loan officer inappropriately requested access to private information, iFreedom inappropriately accessed Mr. [redacted] ’s bank account information, and iFreedom did not closing on the date they promised. iFreedom takes complaints seriously, and has investigated Mr. [redacted] ’s application and would like to respond. Mr. [redacted] began discussing a loan with iFreedom in June, 2015. On June 17th, iFreedom provided Mr. [redacted] with a prequalification letter. That letter stated that, based on what he told iFreedom, Mr. [redacted] would likely qualify for a purchase loan up to a certain amount. The letter also listed a number of conditions that Mr. [redacted] would need to satisfy to get approved for a loan, including “verification of employment, income, assets, credit” and “underwriter’s review and approval, with all underwriting conditions satisfied”. Stephanie T***, Mr. [redacted] ’s loan officer, explained that there was still much to do, but that, based on the information he had provided, his application looked promising. Ms. T [redacted] explained that issues could arise, and that iFreedom may encounter problems verifying information, but most problems could usually be addressed. She never told Mr. [redacted] that he was approved, or that there would be no issues in getting approval. Ms. T [redacted] is an experienced loan officer and has helped hundreds of customers at iFreedom. She knows that issues can arise, and would not and did not promise that Mr. [redacted] would be approved without issue or by a specific date. Immediately after receiving Mr. [redacted] ’s application, Ms. T [redacted] and iFreedom began processing the application, requesting information, and attempting to verify income and other material. In determining what amount the company could prequalify Mr. [redacted] for, iFreedom relied on Mr. [redacted] ’s stated child support income. When iFreedom processed Mr. [redacted] ’s application, iFreedom requested evidence to show that Mr. [redacted] received the stated amount of child support. The initial evidence iFreedom received showed inconsistent and irregular payments over a 3 month period smaller than the amount Mr. [redacted] had first told iFreedom. Ms. T [redacted] knew this would make using that income in qualifying difficult, and worked with Mr. [redacted] to get more information about the child support income that might show more regular, consistent payments, and over a longer period of time. Ms. T [redacted] knew underwriting would require a longer history of payment, particularly since the 3 month history showed inconsistent payments. Ms. T [redacted] offered that, with Mr. [redacted] ’s permission, she could log into the Texas Child Support Services website to see if that site could provide a history longer than 3 months. Mr. [redacted] did not want to allow Ms. T [redacted] access to the site, so Ms. T [redacted] dropped the idea and said they would try to address the issue in other ways. Ms. T [redacted] talked with underwriters, including the head of iFreedom’s Underwriting Department to see what iFreedom would need to be able to consider that income in qualifying Mr. [redacted] . Ultimately, iFreedom could not verify consistent, regular child support income, and so the company could not use that income in qualifying Mr. [redacted] according to company policy. This made qualifying Mr. [redacted] more difficult, but Ms. T [redacted] still thought that was possible. Ms. T [redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] of the setback, but they agreed to move forward. iFreedom had also learned that Mr. [redacted] was using a credit counseling service. iFreedom’s underwriting standards require documentation of 12 months payment history when a borrower uses such a service. Ms. T [redacted] requested that information, and when Mr. [redacted] provided it, it showed late and missing payments. Mr. [redacted] disputed that he had any late or missing payments, so iFreedom requested a letter of explanation. Mr. [redacted] provided one, but it was not sufficient for iFreedom’s needs, so Ms. T [redacted] asked for an updated and expanded version. Mr. [redacted] provided the new letter. iFreedom did not lose that paperwork or any of Mr. [redacted] ’s documents or information, and Ms. T [redacted] never stated that she had lost anything. Additionally, to address the late or missing payments, iFreedom requested an updated credit report that removed the derogatory information. That took about a week. Ms. T [redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] of what was taking place and that the changes were delaying his application from going into underwriting. The resulting delay prevented iFreedom from completing its work by the target closing date. Mr. [redacted] ’s complaint also states that Ms. T [redacted] requested all the same paperwork Mr. [redacted] had previously supplied because it had been “lost somewhere”. This is untrue. iFreedom did not lose Mr. [redacted] ’s paperwork and requested new or updated paperwork as necessary to process his application. iFreedom and Ms. T [redacted] did make two errors in processing Mr. [redacted] ’s application for which they apologized and attempted to resolve. Mr. [redacted] identified the first error in his complaint. Ms. T [redacted] contacted Mr. [redacted] in August stating that she was waiting for the appraisal to come back. Yet, the appraisal had already been completed in July, and iFreedom had provided Mr. [redacted] with a copy soon thereafter. Ms. T [redacted] thought that the appraisal was not done because there was a miscommunication between her and the loan processor. When the processor received Mr. [redacted] ’s appraisal, she sent a copy to Mr. [redacted] , and uploaded the document to iFreedom’s electronic document storage, but did not tag the appraisal as completed at that time. Ms. T [redacted] accessed the storage system to see if the appraisal had been completed, but did not see it and assumed it was still outstanding. This was an honest error, but Mr. [redacted] was not disadvantaged. Mr. [redacted] received a timely copy of the appraisal, and Ms. T***’s statement about needing the appraisal did not slow down Mr. [redacted] ’s application in any way. The appraisal was not lost on someone’s desk, as alleged. The second error concerned Mr. [redacted] ’s income. Ms. T***, when calculating income, made an error that, in effect, double counted certain pay. When Mr. [redacted] ’s application went to underwriting, iFreedom discovered this error. Because the actual income was lower, Mr. [redacted] would have more difficulty qualifying for the loan. iFreedom went to great lengths to try to resolve this mistake (including lowering Mr. [redacted] ’s interest rate) and help qualify Mr. [redacted] for the loan. Mr. [redacted] ’s complaint has identified one such attempt. In South Carolina, a homeowner’s property tax depends on whether the home is owner-occupied. If a home is owner-occupied the tax rate is 4%; otherwise it is 6%. iFreedom’s practice is to qualify borrowers at the 6% rate. This is because borrowers have to apply with the state after the loan is closed to get the 4% rate, and have to provide proof that they’ve moved into the home (i.e. change car registration and driver’s license information). iFreedom cannot compel a borrower make that application or take the other necessary steps, particularly after the loan is closed. Since iFreedom cannot control whether a borrower makes the application, the company takes the conservative approach and qualifies borrowers at the 6% rate. In Mr. [redacted] ’s case, Ms. T [redacted] attempted to get an underwriting exception and qualify Mr. [redacted] at the 4% rate. Meanwhile, iFreedom contacted the South Carolina tax assessor to try and get an exact calculation of what the Mr. [redacted] ’s property tax would be. iFreedom uses South Carolina tool to get estimated property tax amounts. But, iFreedom thought the exact figure might be lower, and contacted the appropriate South Carolina tax assessor to see if that was true in the hope that that would help Mr. [redacted] qualify for the loan. After considerable time and work, iFreedom received helpful news that Mr. [redacted] ’s property tax would be lower than originally expected. Ms. T [redacted] was still trying to help Mr. [redacted] qualify in other ways as well. She worked out and suggested options whereby Mr. [redacted] would be able to qualify for a loan even without the underwriting exception on the tax rate. The options were 1) Mr. [redacted] could pay off an auto loan, or 2) he could pay off three debts totaling just less than four thousand dollars. iFreedom, consistent with company policy, offered to lower Mr. [redacted] ’s interest rate by 0.5% (a rate reduction which would save Mr. [redacted] thousands of dollars over the life of the loan). This would help Mr. [redacted] qualify and mitigate the effects of Ms. T***’s income error. Ms. T [redacted] also believed that iFreedom would likely be able to provide Mr. [redacted] with a lender credit (i.e. money to cover certain loan expenses) that would offset Mr. [redacted] ’s payment of other loans. Ms. T [redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] about the likely lender credit, but couldn’t get an exact figure until the loan numbers were finalized. Mr. [redacted] was initially receptive to the second option, but later said he couldn’t afford to pay off the loans, and wanted to withdraw his application. Ms. T [redacted] talked with Mr. [redacted] and mentioned the bank statements Mr. [redacted] had provided showed he had enough money to pay off the loans. Mr. [redacted] ’s complaint states that he never gave Ms. T [redacted] permission to look at his bank statements. This is untrue; Mr. [redacted] provided iFreedom with bank statements to determine if he could qualify for the loan. Mr. [redacted] said that he didn’t want to take that option, and wanted to go with another lender. He requested that iFreedom transfer his VA case number and appraisal to a new lender, which iFreedom did. Lastly, Mr. [redacted] states that Ms. T [redacted] promised that his loan would close without a doubt by August 3rd. This is untrue. iFreedom never promises that the company can close by a specific date. The August 3rd date Mr. [redacted] mentions is the target closing date in his real estate purchase contract. iFreedom was not a party to that agreement, but worked hard to meet that target date. But because the company knows that problems can arise, some of which are out of iFreedom’s control, the company never promises to meet a closing date. In this case, had iFreedom been able to verify Mr. [redacted] ’s child support income, or had there not been erroneous information on his credit report, the company likely could have met that target date. Mr. [redacted] ’s complaint asks for money to pay back for a lease break fee, an extra month’s rent, loss of earnest money, and a cancellation fee with his moving company and carpet installers. iFreedom believes that had Mr. [redacted] continued with his application with iFreedom he wouldn’t have incurred such fees, assuming Mr. [redacted] incurred them (iFreedom has no such information). Mr. [redacted] decided to withdraw his application before iFreedom could make a final determination. Additionally, Ms. T [redacted] went to great lengths to minimize disruption and cost for Mr. [redacted] . Ms. T [redacted] discussed with Mr. [redacted] ’s real estate agent the option of Mr. [redacted] moving into the home before the loan was complete. The real estate agent believed that the seller would be amenable to this option, but before this could be finalized, Mr. [redacted] withdrew his application. iFreedom sincerely regrets that the company could not make a loan to Mr. [redacted] . Ms. T [redacted] and many other personnel spent considerable time and effort to process Mr. [redacted] ’s application. iFreedom took responsibility for its errors and tried to prevent any harm or cost. Had Mr. [redacted] not withdrawn his application and gone with another lender, iFreedom would likely have been able to make Mr. [redacted] a favorable loan, and minimize or eliminate his costs.

On August 25th, iFreedom Direct Corporation (“iFreedom”) first received information about a complaint filed by Pam O [redacted] with the Revdex.comThe RevDex.com indicates that MsO [redacted] filed her complaint on July 13th, 2015; however, iFreedom has no record of this complaint until nowRegardless of this discrepancy, iFreedom would like to respond MsO [redacted] is not a customer of iFreedom; rather, she sold a home to an iFreedom customer in July, As part of that sale, iFreedom originated a loan to allow the customer to purchase the homeThat loan has closedAs various federal and state laws prohibit iFreedom from sharing non-public personal information about its customers (and because iFreedom takes these obligations seriously), iFreedom cannot and will not use such information to rebut MsO***’ claimsiFreedom contests Ms O***’ version of eventsAn accurate reporting of the facts would show her claims to be unfounded iFreedom has no reason to complicate loan transactions needlesslyIn this case, the iFreedom closed the loan when the company could do so in compliance with law, and the company’s established underwriting and policy standards

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted] ***

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
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because the response states that an investigation was conducted and that my complaints were found to be false. Nobody from iFreedom Direct ever talked to me to attempted to address the complaints with me at all, even before I submitted a complaint to the Revdex.com. I had asked MsT*** if I could speak to someone over her a number of times and was given non-existing numbers or I left voicemail messages that still to this day have went unreturned. The response states that MsT*** "explained that issues could arise, and that iFreedom may encounter
problems verifying information, but most problems could usually be addressedShe
never told Mr*** that he was approved, or that there would be no issues in
getting approvalMsT*** is an experienced loan officer and has helped
hundreds of customers at iFreedom." This was never explained, her exact words were, "there will be no issues getting you qualified, I approved you for more that what the house goes for." MsT*** continuously led me to believe that there were no issues with my application and that taking care of my final approval would be easy and nothing more than "minor paperwork." I understand that MsT*** may have helped hundreds of customers in the past, but that tells me nothing in regards to my complaint with her actions and one that nobody from the company ever took the time to address with me before calling me a liar. Regarding the child support income, I had no issues with it not being used if the underwriter had an issue, which my current company did not and saw no issue as long as the income was coming in. MsT*** asked to access information provided by a Court of Law. I feel that even suggesting to have someone's username and password is unprofessional and something that could cause herself as well as the company a lawsuit. MsT*** also never informed me of any "setback" regarding this. In fact, it was quite the opposite with her stating that this would not be an issue at all and I should still be able to qualify it. I never heard anything else about it until the day before closing, so her explaining this as an issue would be false. "iFreedom did not lose that paperwork or any of
Mr***’s documents or information, and MsT*** never stated that she had lost
anythingAdditionally, to address the late or missing payments, iFreedom requested
an updated credit report that removed the derogatory informationThat took about
a weekMsT*** informed Mr*** of what was taking place and that the
changes were delaying his application from going into underwritingThe resulting
delay prevented iFreedom from completing its work by the target closing date." The above paragraph is falseMy appraisal was lost to the point of having to reorder another one. I faxed MsT*** a copy that I was mailed and hours later she stated that the original had been setting on someone's desk and they must have missed it due to vacation. MsT*** stated that she "messed up" and would "own the mistake" of "losing my paperwork" these being her exact words. My agent was also aware of the error on MsT***'s behalf. MsT*** also never informed me that the updated credit report was delaying my application in fact her words were "we just have to order a new credit report, it will be easy and not cause any hold ups." Therefore, the defense to this action is and one that was only investigated on one side. In fact, the paragraph two down from this defense contradicts the above statement. In regards to the 4% tax rate, I understand that due to legal action taken against the company iFreedom changed their policy according to MsT***. I understand this precaution and would have been fine with it had I known this from the start and not a day before closing. I completely understand the business protecting their investments, but I feel that had I known this we would never be in a complain process, I could have taken my business elsewhere to someone who could have qualified me at 4%This was an error on the companies part and one that was no communicated to me by MsT***. "iFreedom
believes that had Mr*** continued with his application with iFreedom he
wouldn’t have incurred such fees, assuming Mr*** incurred them (iFreedom
has no such information)Mr*** decided to withdraw his application before
iFreedom could make a final determinationAdditionally, MsT*** went to
great lengths to minimize disruption and cost for Mr***MsT*** discussed
with Mr***’s real estate agent the option of Mr*** moving into the
home before the loan was completeThe real estate agent believed that the
seller would be amenable to this option, but before this could be finalized,
Mr*** withdrew his application."The entirety of this paragraph is falseMsT*** contacted me stating that I was approved under the condition that I pay my car note off which was over $9,or pay off over $5,of personal loans. I incurred fees not due to withdrawing an application but due to a closing date being pushed back due to poor communication and errors on the part of an iFreedom Direct employee. I had explained to MsT*** that these options were not financially feasible for me to which she stated "yes they are, I looked at your bank account yesterday, you have the money." I understand that when applying that I gave iFreedom Direct my account information as well as bank statements that they had access to personal information. I did not give them permission to look into my bank account as they pleased and was unaware that MsT*** was doing so. I understand that iFreedom Direct is not going to refund me a penny of the charges incurred due to this. I would love to see the company take responsibility for their mistakes, mainly Stephanie T*** and at a minimum admit fault and apologize whether in some form or fashion. I would like a small refund for my costs incurred but I am not expecting one. As a company that supposedly caters to veterans, I feel that I was put in a situation to be a statistic of a homeless veteran as opposed to one who owns a home. I feel that the practices of MsT*** should not be exposed to other veterans trying to do the right thing by their families as I am. I would like to be a part of any "investigation" conducted and talk to someone in the company who will hear my side and maybe give me some closure to this awful experience. I am not doing this for money or to see someone fired. I am doing it to protect others who have served with dignity and deserve a home. I hope to hear from someone from iFreedom Direct and resolve this complaint the right way instead of doing a one way investigation making the veteran look like a liar at the expense of protecting an employee. Sincerely,
*** ***

A representative from iFreedom Direct
Corporation contacted Mr*** last week, and spoke with him about his complaint,
and the issues he had raisediFreedom's representative listened to Mr
***'s description of events, and discussed the matter from iFreedom's
perspectiveBy that end of this conversation, Mr*** indicated that he believed
that his perspective had been heard, and that iFreedom had adequately
resolved his complaintiFreedom wishes to express disappointment that Mr
*** was not satisfied at the time of his transaction, but appreciates his
feedback and willingness to consider his complaint addressed and closed at this
time

iFreedom Direct Corporation (“iFreedom”) has receive a complaint from *** *** through the Revdex.comiFreedom takes complaints seriously and has investigated Mr***’s complaint and loan file and would like to respondWhen iFreedom (a company doing business under the name
Veterans First Mortgage) learned of the complaint, the company’s Legal Department conducted a review of the loan file, emails and electronic notes, and discussed the matter with relevant Production Department employeesBased on that investigation, the company has learned the following iFreedom contacted Mr*** in early February The ***s had indicated with a lead partner of iFreedom that they were interested in a refinance loan to get cash out of their propertyiFreedom’s loan officer Danielle Hbegan working with the ***s’ on their applicationThe ***s were interested in a loan but did not want to formally apply and have their credit run until MarchIn early March, Danielle spoke with the ***s and they decided to pursue the loaniFreedom collected documents and information necessary for the underwriting process and ordered an appraisalSince the ***s applied for a VA loan, iFreedom ordered the appraisal through the Department of Veterans Affairs’ designated processiFreedom did not (and could not) select the appraiser, nor could the company, by law, influence the appraiser’s independent valuation of the propertyUnfortunately, the appraiser’s valuation came in too low for iFreedom to make the cash-out loan the ***s had hoped to getHad this valuation been higher, it looks likely that iFreedom could have closed the loanThis was certainly disappointing for the ***s, but also for iFreedom which had hoped to be able to make a refinance loan iFreedom did not promise the ***s a loan, and could not promise that the appraiser would come to any particular conclusion as to the value of the propertyThe appraisal is a necessary step for cash-out loans, and is the ultimate determination of value for underwritingAs part of the process, iFreedom obtained the payment for the appraisal from the ***s, as that cost is their responsibility. In email communications, the ***s have claimed that iFreedom is the buyer of the property and thus obligated to pay for the cost of the appraisalThis is not trueiFreedom has not bought the homeInstead, iFreedom merely collected the money for the appraisal from the ***s explaining that the appraisal is their obligation iFreedom sincerely regrets that the loan did not work out, and understands that the ***s are frustratediFreedom is disappointed as wellBut, iFreedom cannot influence the independent judgment of a VA appraiser, and could not make the loan because of that appraiser’s evaluation of the home’s value iFreedom spent resources to make the ***s a loan and regrets that it did not work out for both parties

I am satisfied and I withdrawn my complaintI am sorry about the name mix upHis name was Ben M***The policy did change in the middle of that transaction according to Mr m***, however, with Chris W*** and this new transaction we made it through itChris was very quick with responding to me and he was good at keeping me in the loop with everything going onI am satisfied and I would like to withdraw my complaintThanks, Dr***
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
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted],  
Sincerely,
[redacted]    The appraiser that came ot our home was just hired by the VA in Nov 2016.  Didnt show us any VA appraiser proof.  The certificate  was from the State of Ohio, div of real estate.?? Veterans 1st would have been the owner of our  home no, if the loan had gone thru?   I dont understand how the seller pays for the appraisal.??                         I am 79 yrs old,  things have changed in the mortgage dept.     Cant afford another $75 for court.    Just wont deal with this company again!

iFreedom Direct Corporation (sometimes operating under the assumed business name Veterans First Mortgage) has received the complaint filed by [redacted]. iFreedom takes complaints seriously. The Company has investigated the facts and wishes to respond. [redacted] spoke with a loan officer at...

iFreedom about getting a home loan mortgage. Mr. [redacted] indicated that he is married. Mr. [redacted] gave iFreedom permission to pull his credit to see if he might qualify for a loan. That credit pull revealed that Mr. [redacted] would not currently qualify for a mortgage from iFreedom. Once iFreedom had such information, the company was bound by two federal laws, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, to deliver the notices it sent to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. Those laws are intended to give consumers more information about why they were denied for a loan. The notice(s) is/are not intended to hurt applicants or harm their ability to get a loan, to the contrary, they are designed to help. iFreedom understands that it may be concerning for Mrs. [redacted] to receive a credit denial when, from her perspective, she never inquired about a loan (let alone talked with iFreedom). Nevertheless, iFreedom sent the disclosure as the company understood Mr. [redacted] to be inquiring about a home loan for both Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. Because of this, iFreedom believes it had a duty to inform Mrs. [redacted] of the company's determination. As an aside, it is important for Mrs. [redacted] to know that no loan could have been closed for both her and her husband without her knowledge and consent, and in fact without having first received and agreed to various disclosures. iFreedom also wants to acknowledge that the company did not make its determination on the basis of Mrs. [redacted]'s credit profile, and the notice she received has not been shared with anyone but those persons necessary to create, process, and deliver the notice. Nothing will be reported by the company to any credit reporting agency.  Therefore, Mrs. [redacted] would not suffer any negative credit consequences.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Veterans First Mortgage, an assumed business name of iFreedom Direct Corporation, takes any complaint by a consumer very seriously and is pleased to respond.  It has since approved the loan application and closed with the consumer on a mortgage loan.  In fact, that...

loan was scheduled for closing when the complaint was received.  It appears that the complaint -- which relates to communications last spring -- may have arisen out of a misunderstanding that was not brought to the company's attention until now.  Among other things, the company does not have a loan officer named L[redacted] (however, its address is on Charles Lindbergh Drive), and the company did not change its policy in May, as the consumer came to understand.  The company's representative could undoubtedly have communicated more effectively.  It is most important to note, however, that the company and the consumer continued to work together to get a loan done.  And they succeeded.  In a conference with a manager, in which the complaint was discussed, the consumer advised that he is SATISFIED, and that he would contact the Revdex.com to withdraw the complaint. If that is not accurate, Veterans First reserves the opportunity to offer more detailed information in response to the Complaint.

iFreedom Direct Corporation (doing business as Veterans First Mortgage) (“iFreedom”) has received Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. iFreedom takes complaints seriously, including Mr. [redacted]’s, and has investigated the matter to prepare this response.To summarize Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, Mr. [redacted] began...

talking with iFreedom about getting a mortgage loan with the company. As part of that inquiry about a loan, iFreedom’s loan officer, Keilan W[redacted] pulled Mr. [redacted]’s credit report with Mr. [redacted]'s permission. Mr. [redacted] believed that the inquiry would be a ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’ inquiry.Unfortunately, iFreedom, when pulling credit, can only legally make a ‘hard’ inquiry (except in very limited circumstances that do not apply here, e.g. when making firm offers of credit). As part of its investigation into this complaint, iFreedom’s management spoke with Mr. W[redacted] and he does not believe that he stated that the pull would be a soft pull. Indicating that a credit pull is a ‘soft’ pull would be against iFreedom policy and practice. To prevent confusion in the future, iFreedom has provided additional training to Mr. W[redacted] specifically, and will reiterate company policy to its other loan officers.iFreedom sincerely regrets this confusion and Mr. [redacted]’s frustration. But, the company had a valid reason to pull Mr. [redacted]’s credit report and could only do so with Mr. [redacted] providing necessary information (e.g. his social security number). iFreedom cannot remove the credit inquiry as it was a valid credit pull associated with Mr. [redacted]'s interest in a loan. If it is any consolation, the information that iFreedom has learned from the credit reporting agencies is that hard credit inquiries have small and relatively short-lived impact on a person’s credit score, and that multiple credit inquiries in a relatively short window are not treated separately as the agencies understand that consumers may be shopping between different providers.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

iFreedom Direct Corporation takes complaints seriously, including Ms. [redacted]'s.  iFreedom, a lender, appreciates Ms. [redacted]'s desire for loan approval, to close on the purchase.  While it cannot discuss Ms. [redacted]'s private information here, it can say...

that it has been processing the [redacted] loan application toward final approval.  Some information must be obtained from third parties.  Until it has all information it needs, iFreedom cannot make an underwriting decision on a loan.  It now has all it needs.  iFreedom has contacted Ms. [redacted] and, it believes, explained what was holding the loan up.  It believes that her concerns have been favorably resolved.  In fact, Ms. [redacted]'s loan closed yesterday.

iFreedom Direct Corporation
(“iFreedom”) received a complaint on August 10th, 2015  from the Revdex.com made by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] had applied for a mortgage loan with iFreedom in June, 2015.
Mr. [redacted]’s complaint alleges several issues with how iFreedom handled...

his
application. Mr. [redacted] alleged the following: iFreedom indicated that Mr. [redacted]
would be approved for a loan but there were substantial difficulties and
obstacles in getting that approval, iFreedom lost paperwork or dropped the ball
with Mr. [redacted]’s application, iFreedom’s loan officer inappropriately
requested access to private information, iFreedom inappropriately accessed Mr.
[redacted]’s bank account information, and iFreedom did not closing on the date
they promised. iFreedom takes complaints seriously, and has investigated Mr. [redacted]’s
application and would like to respond.
                Mr.
[redacted] began discussing a loan with iFreedom in June, 2015. On June 17th,
iFreedom provided Mr. [redacted] with a prequalification letter. That letter stated
that, based on what he told iFreedom, Mr. [redacted] would likely qualify for a
purchase loan up to a certain amount. The letter also listed a number of
conditions that Mr. [redacted] would need to satisfy to get approved for a loan,
including “verification of employment, income, assets, credit” and “underwriter’s
review and approval, with all underwriting conditions satisfied”. Stephanie T[redacted],
Mr. [redacted]’s loan officer, explained that there was still much to do, but that,
based on the information he had provided, his application looked promising. Ms.
T[redacted] explained that issues could arise, and that iFreedom may encounter
problems verifying information, but most problems could usually be addressed. She
never told Mr. [redacted] that he was approved, or that there would be no issues in
getting approval. Ms. T[redacted] is an experienced loan officer and has helped
hundreds of customers at iFreedom. She knows that issues can arise, and would
not and did not promise that Mr. [redacted] would be approved without issue or by a
specific date.
                Immediately
after receiving Mr. [redacted]’s application, Ms. T[redacted] and iFreedom began processing
the application, requesting information, and attempting to verify income and
other material. In determining what amount the company could prequalify Mr.
[redacted] for, iFreedom relied on Mr. [redacted]’s stated child support income. When
iFreedom processed Mr. [redacted]’s application, iFreedom requested evidence to show
that Mr. [redacted] received the stated amount of child support. The initial evidence
iFreedom received showed inconsistent and irregular payments over a 3 month
period smaller than the amount Mr. [redacted] had first told iFreedom. Ms. T[redacted]
knew this would make using that income in qualifying difficult, and worked with
Mr. [redacted] to get more information about the child support income that might
show more regular, consistent payments, and over a longer period of time. Ms. T[redacted]
knew underwriting would require a longer history of payment, particularly since
the 3 month history showed inconsistent payments. Ms. T[redacted] offered that, with
Mr. [redacted]’s permission, she could log into the Texas Child Support Services
website to see if that site could provide a history longer than 3 months. Mr.
[redacted] did not want to allow Ms. T[redacted] access to the site, so Ms. T[redacted] dropped
the idea and said they would try to address the issue in other ways.  Ms. T[redacted] talked with underwriters, including
the head of iFreedom’s Underwriting Department to see what iFreedom would need to
be able to consider that income in qualifying Mr. [redacted]. Ultimately, iFreedom
could not verify consistent, regular child support income, and so the company could
not use that income in qualifying Mr. [redacted] according to company policy. This
made qualifying Mr. [redacted] more difficult, but Ms. T[redacted] still thought that was
possible. Ms. T[redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] of the setback, but they agreed to move
forward.
                iFreedom
had also learned that Mr. [redacted] was using a credit counseling service.
iFreedom’s underwriting standards require documentation of 12 months payment history
when a borrower uses such a service. Ms. T[redacted] requested that information, and
when Mr. [redacted] provided it, it showed late and missing payments. Mr. [redacted]
disputed that he had any late or missing payments, so iFreedom requested a
letter of explanation. Mr. [redacted] provided one, but it was not sufficient for
iFreedom’s needs, so Ms. T[redacted] asked for an updated and expanded version. Mr.
[redacted] provided the new letter. iFreedom did not lose that paperwork or any of
Mr. [redacted]’s documents or information, and Ms. T[redacted] never stated that she had lost
anything. Additionally, to address the late or missing payments, iFreedom requested
an updated credit report that removed the derogatory information. That took about
a week. Ms. T[redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] of what was taking place and that the
changes were delaying his application from going into underwriting. The resulting
delay prevented iFreedom from completing its work by the target closing date.  
Mr. [redacted]’s complaint also states
that Ms. T[redacted] requested all the same paperwork Mr. [redacted] had previously
supplied because it had been “lost somewhere”. This is untrue. iFreedom did not
lose Mr. [redacted]’s paperwork and requested new or updated paperwork as necessary
to process his application.
                iFreedom
and Ms. T[redacted] did make two errors in processing Mr. [redacted]’s application for
which they apologized and attempted to resolve. Mr. [redacted] identified the first
error in his complaint. Ms. T[redacted] contacted Mr. [redacted] in August stating that
she was waiting for the appraisal to come back. Yet, the appraisal had already
been completed in July, and iFreedom had provided Mr. [redacted] with a copy soon
thereafter. Ms. T[redacted] thought that the appraisal was not done because there was
a miscommunication between her and the loan processor. When the processor
received Mr. [redacted]’s appraisal, she sent a copy to Mr. [redacted], and uploaded the
document to iFreedom’s electronic document storage, but did not tag the
appraisal as completed at that time. Ms. T[redacted] accessed the storage system to
see if the appraisal had been completed, but did not see it and assumed it was
still outstanding. This was an honest error, but Mr. [redacted] was not
disadvantaged. Mr. [redacted] received a timely copy of the appraisal, and Ms.
T[redacted]’s statement about needing the appraisal did not slow down Mr. [redacted]’s
application in any way. The appraisal was not lost on someone’s desk, as
alleged. The second error concerned Mr. [redacted]’s income. Ms. T[redacted], when
calculating income, made an error that, in effect, double counted certain pay.
When Mr. [redacted]’s application went to underwriting, iFreedom discovered this
error. Because the actual income was lower, Mr. [redacted] would have more difficulty
qualifying for the loan. iFreedom went to great lengths to try to resolve this
mistake (including lowering Mr. [redacted]’s interest rate) and help qualify Mr.
[redacted] for the loan.
                Mr.
[redacted]’s complaint has identified one such attempt. In South Carolina, a
homeowner’s property tax depends on whether the home is owner-occupied. If a
home is owner-occupied the tax rate is 4%; otherwise it is 6%. iFreedom’s
practice is to qualify borrowers at the 6% rate. This is because borrowers have
to apply with the state after the loan is closed to get the 4% rate, and have
to provide proof that they’ve moved into the home (i.e. change car registration
and driver’s license information). iFreedom cannot compel a borrower make that
application or take the other necessary steps, particularly after the loan is
closed. Since iFreedom cannot control whether a borrower makes the application,
the company takes the conservative approach and qualifies borrowers at the 6%
rate. In Mr. [redacted]’s case, Ms. T[redacted] attempted to get an underwriting
exception and qualify Mr. [redacted] at the 4% rate. Meanwhile, iFreedom contacted
the South Carolina tax assessor to try and get an exact calculation of what the
Mr. [redacted]’s property tax would be. iFreedom uses South Carolina tool to get
estimated property tax amounts. But, iFreedom thought the exact figure might be
lower, and contacted the appropriate South Carolina tax assessor to see if that
was true in the hope that that would help Mr. [redacted] qualify for the loan. After
considerable time and work, iFreedom received helpful news that Mr. [redacted]’s
property tax would be lower than originally expected.
Ms. T[redacted] was still trying to help
Mr. [redacted] qualify in other ways as well. She worked out and suggested options
whereby Mr. [redacted] would be able to qualify for a loan even without the
underwriting exception on the tax rate. The options were 1) Mr. [redacted] could
pay off an auto loan, or 2) he could pay off three debts totaling just less
than four thousand dollars. iFreedom, consistent with company policy, offered
to lower Mr. [redacted]’s interest rate by 0.5% (a rate reduction which would save
Mr. [redacted] thousands of dollars over the life of the loan). This would help Mr.
[redacted] qualify and mitigate the effects of Ms. T[redacted]’s income error. Ms. T[redacted]
also believed that iFreedom would likely be able to provide Mr. [redacted] with a
lender credit (i.e. money to cover certain loan expenses) that would offset Mr.
[redacted]’s payment of other loans. Ms. T[redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] about the likely
lender credit, but couldn’t get an exact figure until the loan numbers were
finalized. Mr. [redacted] was initially receptive to the second option, but later said
he couldn’t afford to pay off the loans, and wanted to withdraw his
application. Ms. T[redacted] talked with Mr. [redacted] and mentioned the bank statements
Mr. [redacted] had provided showed he had enough money to pay off the loans. Mr.
[redacted]’s complaint states that he never gave Ms. T[redacted] permission to look at
his bank statements. This is untrue; Mr. [redacted] provided iFreedom with bank
statements to determine if he could qualify for the loan. Mr. [redacted] said that
he didn’t want to take that option, and wanted to go with another lender. He
requested that iFreedom transfer his VA case number and appraisal to a new
lender, which iFreedom did.
                Lastly,
Mr. [redacted] states that Ms. T[redacted] promised that his loan would close without a
doubt by August 3rd. This is untrue. iFreedom never promises that
the company can close by a specific date. The August 3rd date Mr.
[redacted] mentions is the target closing date in his real estate purchase
contract. iFreedom was not a party to that agreement, but worked hard to meet
that target date. But because the company knows that problems can arise, some
of which are out of iFreedom’s control, the company never promises to meet a closing
date. In this case, had iFreedom been able to verify Mr. [redacted]’s child support
income, or had there not been erroneous information on his credit report, the
company likely could have met that target date.
Mr. [redacted]’s complaint asks for money
to pay back for a lease break fee, an extra month’s rent, loss of earnest money,
and a cancellation fee with his moving company and carpet installers. iFreedom
believes that had Mr. [redacted] continued with his application with iFreedom he
wouldn’t have incurred such fees, assuming Mr. [redacted] incurred them (iFreedom
has no such information). Mr. [redacted] decided to withdraw his application before
iFreedom could make a final determination. Additionally, Ms. T[redacted] went to
great lengths to minimize disruption and cost for Mr. [redacted]. Ms. T[redacted] discussed
with Mr. [redacted]’s real estate agent the option of Mr. [redacted] moving into the
home before the loan was complete. The real estate agent believed that the
seller would be amenable to this option, but before this could be finalized,
Mr. [redacted] withdrew his application.
iFreedom sincerely regrets that the
company could not make a loan to Mr. [redacted]. Ms. T[redacted] and many other personnel
spent considerable time and effort to process Mr. [redacted]’s application. iFreedom
took responsibility for its errors and tried to prevent any harm or cost.  Had Mr. [redacted] not withdrawn his application
and gone with another lender, iFreedom would likely have been able to make Mr.
[redacted] a favorable loan, and minimize or eliminate his costs.

Check fields!

Write a review of iFreedom Direct Corporation

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

iFreedom Direct Corporation Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 840 5th Ave #300, San Diego, California, United States, 92121

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with iFreedom Direct Corporation.



Add contact information for iFreedom Direct Corporation

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated