BBB Accredited Business since

Provident Funding Associates, L.P.

Find a Location

Phone: (650) 652-1300 Fax: (650) 652-1350 851 Traeger Ave Ste 100, San Bruno, CA 94066 http://www.providentfunding.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

This company offers mortgage wholesale banking.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Provident Funding Associates, L.P. meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Find a Location


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Provident Funding Associates, L.P. include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 20 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

20 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 4 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 8
Billing/Collection Issues 4
Delivery Issues 4
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 4
Total Closed Complaints 20

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

17 Customer Reviews on Provident Funding Associates, L.P.
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 16
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 1
Total Customer Reviews 17

Additional Information

BBB file opened: March 22, 1996 Business started: 02/01/1992 Business started locally: 02/01/1992 Business incorporated 11/10/1992 in CA
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Department of Business Oversight
1515 K Street Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95814
http://www.dbo.ca.gov/fsd/licensees/default.asp?flag=1&srchtyp=contains&licstatus=active&busname=&id=
Phone Number: (866) 275-2677
Natalie.Rios@dbo.ca.gov
The number is 4150016.

Business Management
Mr. Doug Pica, COO
Contact Information
Principal: Ms. Penny Dunn, Compliance Officer
Number of Employees

50

Business Category

Mortgage Brokers

Alternate Business Names
Provident Portfolio
Additional Information

On November 12, 2015 Provident Funding advised BBB that internet, email and telephone communications have been sent by persons fraudulently using Provident Funding's name and logo. They know some cases involve the offering of small personal loans or other financial services in order to gather personal information such as a consumer's social security number or banking information. Provident Funding has asked that consumers not respond to such offers, and also advises BBB that they do not offer personal loans to consumers.

If you have concerns regarding any offer purporting to be from Provident Funding, please contact them at 1-800-696-8199.


Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Summary

Provident Funding Associates, L.P. has received 0 out of 5 stars based on 0 Customer Reviews and a BBB Rating of A+.

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

Additional Locations

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    100 Radnor Rd Ste 102

    State College, PA 16801

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    10151 Deerwood Park Blvd Bldg 200 Ste 115

    Jacksonville, FL 32256

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    10801 Walker St Ste 230

    Cypress, CA 90630

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    110011 South Centennial Parkway Suite 305

    Sandy, UT 84070

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    11150 W Olympic Blvd Ste 780

    Rancho Park, CA 90064

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    11235 SE 6th St Ste A-20

    Yarrow Point, WA 98004

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    11845 W. Olymoic Blvd. Suite 1270W

    Rancho Park, CA 90064

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    120 S 6th St Ste 1500

    Minneapolis, MN 55402

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1230 Columbia St Ste 640

    San Diego, CA 92101

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1330 N Washington St Ste 5700

    Spokane, WA 99201

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1408 N West Shore Blvd Ste 400

    Tampa, FL 33607

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1575 Delucchi Ln

    Reno, NV 89502

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    16307 Sonoma Park Dr Ste 14

    Edmond, OK 73013

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1839 S Alma School Rd Ste 310

    Mesa, AZ 85210

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1940 S Bonito Way Ste 130

    Meridian, ID 83642

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    201 4th Ave N Ste 1750

    Nashville, TN 37219

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    2020 L St Ste 230

    Sacramento, CA 95811

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    2151 Michelson Dr Ste 135

    Irvine, CA 92612

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    25 E Washington St Ste 1835

    Chicago, IL 60602

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    300 Radecenter Dr., Ste 7610

    Woburn, MA 01801

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    333 W San Carlos St Ste 1680

    San Jose, CA 95110

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    3750 Robertson Blvd Ste 102

    Culver City, CA 90232

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    401 Route 73 North, 40 Lake Center Suite 110

    Marlton, NJ 08053

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    433 S Main St

    Hartford, CT 06110

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    4380 SW Macadam Ave Ste 320

    Portland, OR 97239

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    500 Seneca St Ste 505

    Buffalo, NY 14204

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    518 17th St Ste 600

    Denver, CO 80202

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    677 Ala Moana Blvd Ste 306

    Honolulu, HI 96813

  • 851 Traeger Ave Ste 100

    San Bruno, CA 94066 (650) 652-1300

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    875 Greentree Rd. Seven Parkway Center Suite 220

    Pittsburgh, PA 15220

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    8900 Keystone Xing Ste 510

    Indianapolis, IN 46240

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    9301 Oakdale Ave Ste 100

    Chatsworth, CA 91311

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    4030 Smith Rd Ste 250

    Cincinnati, OH 45209

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    526 Superior Ave E Ste 250

    Cleveland, OH 44114

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    3390 Peachtree Rd NE Ste 300

    Atlanta, GA 30326

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    121 W Trade St Ste 2000

    Charlotte, NC 28202

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    406 Blackwell St Ste 180

    Durham, NC 27701

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    707 E Main St Ste 210

    Richmond, VA 23219

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    1501 E Woodfield Rd Ste 204N

    Schaumburg, IL 60173

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    221 N La Salle St Ste 1030

    Chicago, IL 60601

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    801 W 47th St Ste 208

    Kansas City, MO 64112

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    812 San Antonio St Ste T-20

    Austin, TX 78701

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    4131 N Central Expy Ste 445

    Dallas, TX 75204

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    677 W Palmdon Dr Ste 209

    Fresno, CA 93704

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

4/9/2016 Delivery Issues
3/29/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues
1/15/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Provident Funding Deceptive Practice Not Releasing PMI I have been trying to work with them and it goes no where. See correspondences since June 2015 below. Case XXXXXXX 6/6/2015 12:11:36 PM Customer Created Hello, I am still paying for MI as of current. My home's value now is up about the same price I purchased in 2007. It's about $xxxK Plus. The balance I owed is less than 80%. I am asking for the mortgage insurance to be lifted out and removed for the next payment onward. Thanks, Customer 6/8/2015 1:56:00 PM Trace Resolved Thank you for being our customer. Based upon investor guidelines, your loan to value ratio based on the original value of your home must be 80% or lower to request early removal of the mortgage insurance. Currently, our records indicate your LTV is below 80% and you are eligible to request early cancellation of the PMI. However, to verify that the current value of your property, at a minimum, supports the required loan-to value ratio, we would need to order a Broker's Price Opinion (BPO), or appraisal, at your expense. This fee is estimated to be $105.00. I have sent out a PMI Cancellation letter to you which explains in greater detail the removal process and which you would return along with your payment for the fee if you decide to pursue removal of the mortgage insurance. This letter should be available for viewing under the "Letters" section of your web account. You would need to select option A on the provided form. If you choose not to proceed with the removal request, your mortgage insurance is scheduled to automatically be removed in November of 2015 with no new BPO or appraisal required. Provident Funding thanks you for your business, have a great day! ***************************** XXXXX-XXXX Fax (XXX) XXX-XXXX, 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM PT Mon-Fri Case XXXXXXX 8/18/2015 8:53:27 PM Customer Created Hello, I requested to terminate my PMI a couple months ago once and I received the letter for the instruction and request. That letter was expired. I'd like to request again. My original home value when I bought in Sep 2007 is $xxx,xxx. My current balance is $xxx,xxx.xx. The principal balance of my loan is 80% or less of the original value of the property. I am qualified to have PMI removed. Since I am qualified according to this criteria (#a - according to the instruction), I don't think I need Brokers opinions of value and shouldn't have to pay for the fee. Please send me the letter again as of this request. Thanks, Customer 8/19/2015 6:58:08 PM Hello, I have put the PMI cancellation form and the check in the mail today. I have a copy of the form and check scanned on the file and would like to attach to this for speedy response. How can I do that on here? There's no 'file attachment' function. Also, once you get the scanned version, can you have the analyst call me to schedule a viewing for BPO? Thanks - Customer 8/19/2015 7:08:48 PM I found a place where I uploaded the PMI cancellation form with my signature and check up in "upload document" section. when you see this, could you start the process? My goal is to have it all done early next week so we can start the PMI removal on the month of September 1 payment. Thanks Customer 8/20/2015 10:46:59 AM ******** Owned The case was assigned to ******** 8/20/2015 11:14:10 AM ******** Reply Thank you for being our customer. At this time we have received your request to remove the PMI from your account. Once the BPO fee has been received we can then be able to proceed with PMI cancellation request. We will keep this case open until the fee has been received. Thank you and Provident Funding appreciates your business. Have a great day! www.provident.com ***************************** XXXXX-XXXX Phone (XXX) XXX-XXXX - Fax (XXX) XXX-XXXX, 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM PT Mon-Fri Send Payment to our Processing Vendor: P.O. Box 51

Desired Settlement: I want my PMI to be stopped at Nov 2015 and I need my refund $105 for their mistake of advising me to do BPO fee knowing that I was not going to qualified - which confused me. When I read the PMI removal application, it seems indicated that I was qualified. It's either their PMI department practices deceptive dealings or I need to hire the lawyer to dispute the language they put in that contract.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/12/08) */ Provident Funding is responding to the complaint you filed with the Better Business Bureau. To begin with, in accordance with the loan documents you executed at the closing of this loan and based on your updated amortization schedule, your Private Mortgage Insurance ("PMI") has been automatically dropped and, effective with your January 1, 2016 installment, your monthly payment has been updated to $1,873.17. A complete review of this matter is provided below. Provident Funding is required to service your loan in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject, which include but is not limited to the federal Homeowners Protection Act. Pursuant to the federal Homeowners Protection Act, the automatic PMI termination date for an adjustable rate mortgage is based solely on the amortization schedule currently in effect for that mortgage. As you know, your interest rate was adjusted effective with your November 1, 2015 installment and, in compliance with the Homeowners Protection Act, your automatic PMI termination date changed accordingly based on your updated amortization schedule; a copy of your current amortization table is enclosed for your reference. As a result of your loan reaching 78% of the $360,000 property value that was obtained as part of the origination of the loan and based on your updated amortization schedule, your Private Mortgage Insurance ("PMI") has been automatically dropped effective with your January 1, 2016 installment. In regards to your concerns about borrower requested termination, we bring your attention to the enclosed copy of the Notice Concerning Private Mortgage Insurance - Adjustable Rate Mortgages Owner Occupied Primary Residence or Second Home Only document that you executed at the closing of this loan. Pursuant to the terms of that document, you have the right to request that PMI be cancelled prior to the automatic termination date, but PMI will only be cancelled if certain conditions are satisfied, including receiving satisfactory evidence that the current value of the property meets the required loan-to-value ratio. We note that the PMI cancellation request form we sent to you outlined that you may eligible for borrower requested termination based on the original home value, but that a Brokers Price Opinion ("BPO") would be required in order to determine your eligibility, that the cost of the BPO was $105.00, and that a current loan-to-value ratio of 80% or below was required in order to approve borrower requested PMI termination; a copy of the referenced form has been enclosed. We have no record of our representatives providing you with conflicting information or guaranteeing that you would qualify for borrower requested termination. Conversely, as reflected on the correspondence you provided with your complaint, our representatives consistently relayed that a BPO would be required in order to evidence that the current value of the property meet the required loan-to-value ratio. Pursuant to your request, a BPO was completed on August 28, 2015 and it was determined that the current value of the property did not meet the required guidelines. Specifically, your current loan-to-value ratio was determined to be 88.11% ($281,943.27 principal balance at the time of request ÷ $320,000 determined property value = 88.11%). Based on the information and documents above, we have determined no errors occurred on our part in relation to this matter. Therefore, we are unable to accommodate your request to refund the BPO fee. It should once again be noted that your PMI has been automatically dropped and that your payments have been updated accordingly. As of the date of this letter, your loan is next due for the January 1, 2016 installment in the amount of $1,873.17, and a no-cost automatic draft in the amount of $1,873.17 is currently scheduled to be drafted from your designated bank account on January 5, 2016. I may be contacted by telephone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ************* Consumer Compliance Enclosures Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2015/12/10) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) There is no point to work with this company. I understand the figures detailed out on *******'s response. The reason I filed the complaint was because I was advised a few times as written by your company's representatives first to go ahead and do the BPO. Had I not listened to them, it would have been automatically dropped off later and I wouldn't have to pay $105 fee which is the amount I want to have it refunded. Secondly, by *** S., from her responses, that the PMI will be automatically dropped off once after November payment, I asked her to confirm (written in there as well) and she still did confirm second time for the November dropped off. I unexpectedly had to pay another $138 for this December PMI. Tell me if you were a customer to a loan company, what your expectation and your reaction would be after already deceived to pay $105 with negative result. It is the company's responsibilities to pay for their own mistakes but this company isn't so. They let customers pay for it. Google and you will see other customers' complaints that aren't officially filed. Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 15, 2015/12/17) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) *******, Please confirm that you take no responsibilities in misleading customer providing incomplete information that led customer to pay extra fund for BPO. Even if I have the record of *** S.'s responses in our cases for her confirmation of PMI dropped off in November, it's still not her fault nor the company's fault. Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2015/12/29) */ Provident Funding is responding to the second rebuttal you filed with the Better Business Bureau. While we are once again sorry to see that you found our previous correspondences to be insufficient, we note that you have not provided any new or materially different information for our review. We can only reiterate that that we have no record of our representatives providing you with misleading information, that our representatives consistently advised you of your currently scheduled automatic PMI termination date and that a BPO was required to be ordered at your expense in order to verify that you met the requirements for borrower requested termination. As outlined in our previous responses, based on your updated amortization schedule, your PMI have been automatically dropped and your monthly mortgage payments have been updated effective with your January 1, 2016 installment. If you have any further questions I may be contacted by telephone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com.

8/10/2015 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Completely unorganized company. Told me the process was simple I've never given so much information in my life and have simply gotten nowhere. I have to now try to salvage the property as we are 2 weeks past our settlement date and they just sent me a list of 12 things they still need or don't need they don't know. Just go to your local broker trust me it's much easier in person than to deal with someone like ************** who doesn't return calls/emails and tells you after settlement date that you still have days of pointless running around to do. A+ seriously steer clear. Product_Or_Service: Mortgage

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation) Refund $600 paid to appraisal property since we can't seem to gather the unlimited information we won't be needing the appraisal as we know it's worth what we're paying.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/06) */ I must begin by stating that Provident Funding takes pride in the quality of the loans we originate. While we apologize for any unintentional frustration you may have experienced during your mortgage loan application process, Provident Funding does not purposefully delay mortgage loan applications and our turn time for processing residential mortgage loan applications is well below the industry average. We have investigated your concerns and have confirmed the conditions added to your application were added in accordance with our lending guidelines and are considered standard to the residential mortgage loan industry. We have also confirmed you were able to view the outstanding conditions since your application was initially underwritten on May 6, 2015. As you know, the Loan Commitment and Condition Log, which outlined all outstanding conditions on your application, was available through your www.provident.com account 24 hours per day. For your records, our representatives evaluate all mortgage loan applications solely on the documentation provided and in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject to. Whether or not a mortgage loan application is approved is dependent on obtaining all documentation necessary to make a final non-conditional approval, verifying the applicant's financial resources and ability to repay conform to our guidelines, and ensuring we are able to lend on a subject property. Please bear in mind that after an applicant's supporting documentation is reviewed we may need additional documentation based on the information discovered in that supporting documentation. As such, additional conditions based on the information discovered in the most recently provided supporting documentation may be added throughout an application to ensure we can make a final non-conditional approval. While our representatives would have been more than happy to proceed with your application and have been attempting to contact you to determine your intentions, due to the documentation required to proceed with your application not being received and as a result of your intentions not being relayed to us, your application was closed for incompleteness on June 30, 2015. In regards to your request for a refund of the $600.00 appraisal deposit, were remind you that, as is standard in the residential mortgage loan industry, Provident Funding and its investors require an appraisal report in order to make a final non-conditional approval of a mortgage loan application. Among other purposes, appraisal reports are required to ensure a lender is able to lend on a subject property. Our records reflect you were properly notified the appraisal fee deposit would not be refunded if your mortgage loan application was not approved. I bring your attention to the enclosed copy of the Appraisal Deposit Agreement disclosure which was mailed to you on April 16, 2015. Additionally, Provident Funding has confirmed you acknowledged and agreed to our appraisal deposit refund policy on April 22, 2015 when you submitted your $600.00 appraisal deposit online; prior to an applicant successfully submitting their deposit online, they must acknowledge our appraisal deposit refund policy. I also bring your attention to the enclosed copy of the Appraisal Deposit Agreement disclosure you executed and agreed to on April 22, 2015. The appraiser provided a competent and complete report, and deserves to be compensated for the work performed. Therefore, we are unable to grant your request for a refund of the $600.00 appraisal deposit. It should be noted that the total appraisal fee was $700.00, and that Provident Funding paid the additional $100.00 for your appraisal report at our own expense. If you would like to have your appraisal report transferred to another lender to utilize in a new mortgage loan application, please notify me using the contact information below as we would be happy to work with your new lender to do so. If you have any further questions I may be reached by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com. Sincerely, ************* Consumer Compliance Enclosures Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/07/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Mr *****, I received your letter. The reason I want a refund is because the person working on my loan was substandard. I called for days without any reply of what was needed to complete my loan application without response. Then on the day before settlement he sent a list of stuff still needed as long as my arm. We got a new settlement date and worked on the list when we got it done or should I say almost done my realtor said he would help get a letter saying nobody could subdivide the lot next door because of the restrictions a house 7ft wide would have to be built. Your company wanted that from the title company which said that wasn't their job. Mr ******* was asking the impossible. My Realtor called and talked to ****** ******* and asked if thats all was needed turns out he had another list as long as my arm of stuff again he needed. We needed to settle on the property so we purchased out of pocket. I had a previous loan with Provident and couldn't believe the company could've regressed this much. As we had to purchase out of pocket and were already pretty sure the place was worth well over what we paid we didn't need to "overpay" somebody to tell us and since your company did not work as economically as was needed I am demanding this refund. I had no time to write my story on BBB but when I do I will as well as every other public forum. The way business was done was ridicules and nobody should be subject to that. My Realtor, the title company and myself as well as hundreds of others seem to think this reading through your complaints online. I am down $600 and because I told your representative he was terrible at his job he held up and made my application impossible and I almost lost the property. Regards **** ** ******** Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2015/07/27) */ I have referred your most recent correspondence to senior management and have obtained approval to refund the entire $600.00 appraisal deposit from this application as a gesture of good faith and in consideration of any inconvenience you may have experienced. A check in the amount of $600.00 will be sent to you under separate cover shortly. You may contact me by phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ****************** Consumer Compliance

5/15/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Sent me a letter about a problem that did not exist, instead of one telling me what the problem really was. Customer service guy just said no, no no. I received a letter asking to provide proof of hazard insurance because they did not have it on file. It threatened they would contract and charge me for insurance if I didn't provide this info. When I went online as the letter suggested, I saw that the information was already there. I thought perhaps the letter crossed in the mail so I called to verify. It turns out that wasn't the problem. The problem (which was not stated in the letter) was that they didn't consider the insurance coverage sufficient. When asked why the letter didn't state that this was the problem, I was told that they probably didn't have a form letter for that. When asked if they could delay them from contracting for insurance on my behalf because the letter gave me 10 days and it took 5 days in the mail to get there) I was told no he couldn't do anything. When asked if I could speak to a manager I was told no, a manager couldn't do anything. When asked if I could have the coverage amount adjusted (as my coverage amount for the previous 5 years had never been a problem for previous carriers of my loan) I was told no and that nobody could do anything.

Desired Settlement: I would like to speak with someone who can help me resolve this. I do not want to be charged for gap insurance. I would like the amount required to be adjusted. (Home owners insurance is supposed to cover replacement value of the home. I live in an area where the land is very expensive so the cost of my property is vastly higher than the replacement home value. I shouldn't have to have higher coverage.) I would like them to adjust their "form letters" so they correctly inform customers of the problem. I almost didn't call because their warning letter talked about a problem that didn't exist. I did have coverage. It didn't say anything about what the real problem was. Saying that they don't have a form letter for a certain problem is ridiculous. It would have been much simpler to say "There's a problem with your insurance coverage, please call us."

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/04/28) */ Provident Funding is responding to the complaint you filed with the Better Business Bureau. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. We would once again like to apologize for the confusion you have experienced in relation to this matter as your experience is not in line with the service we strive to provide each of our valued customers. As discussed during our phone conversation, the April 6, 2015 letter was inadvertently sent to you in error and you may disregard that notice. Rest assured that your account reflects your current homeowners insurance through Farmers Insurance Group is active, that your current coverage amount is sufficient, and that no fees were or will be assessed in relation to this matter. In response to your concerns we have taken steps to ensure a similar error does not occur in the future and are confident that we will provide a superior servicing experience. If you have any further questions I may be reached by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com. Sincerely, ************* Consumer Compliance

3/17/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Shortfall in mortgage escrow account caused by early payment of county taxes and or insurance by lender causing penalty to borrower. After receiving my latest annual escrow analysis statement, I noticed the statement indicated I had an escrow account shortage of almost $900. I understand escrow amounts can fluctuate due to increases/decreases in taxes and insurance amounts. I am on a fixed mortgage so principal and interest would not factor into this situation. I contacted the mortgage company to inquire about this shortage and I was informed there were basically three reasons contributing this escrow shortage... 1. Homeowners Insurance - Increased by $150 resulting in more money being used to pay that bill than anticipated (I acknowledge this; no problem here). 2. County Taxes - Increased by $92.78 resulting in more money dispersed than anticipated (I acknowledge this; no problem here). 3. County Taxes - This is where I have a problem with accepting. I was told my county taxes were paid "too early" thus creating an escrow account shortage. My taxes must be paid by January 5th every year. The mortgage company paid them in November 2013 and then in October 2014 and by paying early it created a shortage in escrow account. If paying early creates a shortage, why then did this company pay early? Their answer to me on that was, "so your taxes get there on time." My taxes were processed on time in 2011 and 2012 with no problem. From my point of view, this company mismanaged my account by paying my tax bill a little too early, thus creating a shortage, yet, they could have paid in December without problem for anyone. The shortage is not my fault; therefore, I should not be required to pay it. I acknowledge I am responsible for whatever shortage exists due to increased taxes and insurance. Below is my latest e-mail to them. I am still awaiting there response... After going back and looking at the numbers, I can see that actual payments above what was anticipated were dispersed for homeowner's insurance and county taxes. Homeowner's insurance was anticipated for $938, but actual payment was $1,187 (though I did upload the declaration page in April 2014 showing the $1,037 amount, which was my actual insurance amount, but your company failed to adjust accordingly). Likewise, county taxes were anticipated at $3,501.90, but actual payment was $3,594.68. Together, they represent an actual payment of $341.78 more than the anticipated amount. I acknowledge this $341.78 is a shortage to be made good. My escrow payment going forward should be $414.46 (insurance $1,037/12 = $86.42 + county taxes $3,594.68/12 = $299.56 + outstanding $341.78/12 = $28.48). Reference the escrow shortage caused by paying county taxes to early...this should not be my responsibility. I cannot help to think my account is being mismanaged. Over the years, you have paid my county taxes as follows: 14 Dec 2011, Dec 2012, 7 Nov 2013 (shortage of $103.85) and finally 21 Oct 2014 (shortage of $815.61). My latest escrow analysis statement reflects you anticipate paying my county taxes in December 2015. If paying my county taxes too early, creates a shortage in my escrow account, why then did you take that action? Was my best interest looked after? Barring an increase in insurance or taxes, will a tax payment in December 2015 result in another escrow shortage? If the answer to that is no, then why were the payments made so early in 2013 and 2014? You have already demonstrated a December payment of taxes (XXXX) will arrive on time and you plan to disperse again in December 2015. Why did the company create this penalty for me, by paying taxes too early in November 2013, and especially early in October 2014? This shortage caused by early payment of county taxes should not be my responsibility. What's to say this will not happen again? There is a sentence in your reply to me that states, ''The rest of the shortage comes from paying your taxes and insurance a little early.'' What does that equate to in dollars? ______________ Hopefully this can be resolved quickly. ADDITIONAL DETAILS: Case is being handled by another organization: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Desired Settlement: I am seeking to have the escrow amount shortage caused by early payment of taxes to be covered by the mortgage company, because they caused the problem by paying the taxes too early. They knew by paying too early would cause this problem, yet they did it anyway. I talked to my county tax office and I was informed payment has to be received by January 5th to be considered on time. It doesn't matter if it takes the tax office a month to actually take action on the received payment.....it just needs to arrive on time.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/02/06) */ We apologize if our representatives have been unable to fully address your concerns regarding the $89.28 increase to your monthly escrow payment which is currently scheduled to go into effect with your March 1, 2015 installment. Please rest assured that the funds in your escrow account are administered by us, on your behalf. They are maintained in a trust account and remain your funds, to be used to pay obligations connected with your property. However, pursuant to Section 3 of your Deed of Trust, which I have enclosed for your reference, it remains your responsibility to pay any deficiency or shortage and to ensure the account is properly funded. As you may already know, the purpose of an escrow analysis is to ensure that sufficient funds are collected monthly to pay future tax and insurance bills as they become due. We are required, pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), to perform this analysis at least annually. We are permitted by RESPA to maintain a cushion not to exceed an amount equal to twice the monthly escrow deposit (to provide for any increases or delay in receipt of monthly payments) and we are required to ensure that, at one point during the analysis year, the lowest anticipated balance on hand does not exceed that cushion (to ensure that we are not over-collecting funds). We calculate the anticipated amounts needed to minimize future shortages, and any surplus funds after the actual amounts of the payments are determined will be made available to you at the next analysis. Copies of the escrow account analyses that have been performed on your loan are enclosed for your reference. As you know, the current analysis has disclosed an underfunding in the amount of $879.48. This underfunding is comprised of five components: A $249.00 increase in your insurance premium which was paid in April 2014 and has not been adjusted for until this point in time. It should be noted that our $1,187.00 disbursement on April 24, 2014 was based on the outstanding premium that your chosen homeowners insurance company, USAA, electronically reported to us at that time. Although we subsequently updated the amount of your annual homeowners insurance premium to $1,037.00 through our January 22, 2015 escrow analysis, which was performed pursuant to your request, the additional $150.00 in funds that we disbursed to USAA are now contributing to your total shortage. We have no record of receiving any refund from your insurance company after our April 24, 2014 disbursement, and we suggest contacting your insurance agent to determine how these additional funds were processed. A $92.78 increase in your annual property taxes which was paid in October 2014 and has not been adjusted for until this point in time. A $31.97 increase in the cushion in your escrow account between the January 2014 and January 2015 annual escrow analyses. A shortage of $103.84 which was disclosed in the January 2014 analysis but for which no payment adjustment was made. Please note that when the total amount of the shortage is less than the amount of one monthly escrow deposit, we choose not to mandate an adjustment to the monthly payment. The adjustment to the expected payment date for the tax installment payable for your property, the effect of which was a one-time shortfall equal to $385.98, or one month's unadjusted escrow payment. By way of clarification, the adjustment to our most recent analysis was made to reflect our actual anticipated tax payment practice in the state of North Carolina. As you know the delinquency date is early in the month (January 5th) and our December anticipated disbursement date is scheduled to ensure payment is timely posted and to avoid any risk that it will appear in the county records as past due. We note that as evidenced on the enclosed payment history and as you stated in Provident Funding Case #XXXXXXX, we have never waited until January to disburse funds for your property tax payments. To further clarify, the unadjusted escrow payment in the amount of $385.98 reflected on the January 22, 2015 analysis is calculated based on the anticipated annual payments. Based on your most recent annual taxes ($3,594.68) and homeowners insurance premium ($1,037.00), your unadjusted escrow payments are $385.98 monthly. Per RESPA, Provident Funding is allowed to maintain a cushion in the amount of two months' worth of unadjusted escrow payments, or $771.96 ($385.98 * 2 = $771.96). However, as reflected on the January 22, 2015 analysis, your loan is anticipated to fall under the cushion multiple times, with its lowest point being after the $3,594.68 anticipated tax payment in December 2015. Your escrow balance is anticipated to be at -$107.53 in December 2015, but it should not fall below the cushion reflected on the January 22, 2015 analysis of $771.95; therefore, the difference between the two values is the shortage amount of $879.48. We provide three options for addressing the shortage: You may pay over twelve months. This option is reflected in the $2,014.75 new monthly payment shown on the January 22, 2015 analysis, which is effective with your March 1, 2015 installment. You may pay in full and we will adjust your payment accordingly, upon receipt of the remittance slip enclosed with the January 22, 2015 analysis. If you choose this option and pay the total shortage in full, your escrow account may be reanalyzed so your total monthly payments will be updated to only account for your unadjusted escrow payment. You may choose to discontinue your escrow account and become responsible for the timely payment of your property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums. If you would like to choose this option, please formally request that by opening a new case using the Contact Us link through your www.provident.com online account. We once again apologize for any confusion you have experienced, but must ask that you continue to fund your escrow account in accordance with the terms of your Deed of Trust. As of the date of this letter, your next payment due is the March 1, 2015 installment in the amount of $2,014.75. Unless we hear differently, an ACH payment in the amount of $2,014.75 is scheduled to draft from your checking account on March 5, 2015. I would be more than happy to go over these figures on the phone with you once you have had a chance to review the content of this letter and have determined how you would like to address the shortage. Feel free to contact me by phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/02/11) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I do not accept the business response; however, I consider the dispute closed, because I closed escrow account with them; therefore, the issue of escrow shortage is no longer present due to no escrow account. I do believe someone needs to look into the practice of paying taxes and insurance early by these companies. The company acknowledged to me that the $103.94 shortage would not have existed if they simply waited one month to pay my county taxes. If they had waited until December 2013 to pay county taxes, instead of paying in November 2013, an additional month of escrow would have accumulated in my escrow account and there would have been a sufficient amount to pay the taxes without the account going short. The same scenario can be applied to 2014; they paid taxes in October for a bill that wasn't due until January. If they would have paid it in December of that year, additional months of escrow would have accumulated sufficient to offset shortage. Paying a bill when there isn't enough money in the account is negligent, when they know funds will be deposited in time to prevent shortage and payment of the bill on time. Over and over again, the business told me they paid the taxes early - even though they knew at the time of payment a shortage would occur - so that my taxes were received on time at my county tax office. So with that reasoning, they executed payment in October of 2014, so that the payment would be received at my tax office by 5 January 2015. That is way too early; it doesn't take 3-months for payment to arrive. My tax office accepts payment online, electronically, by check, etc. If the company paid by check and mailed it...according to my tax office payment is considered received by the postmark of the envelope. They paid early, creating shortfall in my account, resulting in higher monthly payment for me to the business. In my opinion, negligent action on their part and this practice should be looked at. With the above stated....I closed my escrow account with the business and no longer have a dispute at the moment regarding this issue. Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/02/13) */ As indicated in your rebuttal, this matter was resolved on February 9, 2015 after your escrow account was deleted pursuant to your written request, the remaining funds in your escrow account were sent to you in the form of check #XXXXXXX in the amount of $664.35, and you became personally responsible for the timely payment of your property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums. While your rebuttal verifies this matter has been resolved, we must note that we have reconfirmed the January 22, 2015 escrow analysis provided you with the most accurate information available to us at that time, and that we are confident your escrow account was serviced by Provident Funding in compliance with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. As of the date of this letter, your next payment due is the March 1, 2015 installment in the amount of $1,555.48, and an automatic payment in the amount of $1,555.48 is scheduled to draft from your checking account on March 5, 2015. I can be contacted by phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 18, 2015/03/03) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Provident didn't answer a single question posed in the consumer's 02/07/2015 response. As provident noted, I did close my escrow account as a result of this dispute. Provident keeps going back and pointing to the escrow analysis as being accurate, but my contention is that masks the real problem. Yes, the analysis will be right based on the numbers, but my point is and always as been.....paying the taxes too early put the account in a shortage. They essentially wrote a check on my account that wasn't funded to cash it. That is irresponsible on Provident. Provident's only answer to why they wrote that check early as been, "so your taxes arrive on time." Totally irresponsible and unnecessary to pay county in mid-October 2014 that aren't due until early January 2015. I think Provident should answer the questions posed by the consumer on the 02/07/2015.

3/5/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We were overseas 12/31/14-1/17/15 and tried to make payment on provident.com but was unable to. We paid we came back but with late fee. The provident funding website doesn't load. Not sure if it's because of firewall or software issues or other reasons. But we made payment right away when we came back and I called customer service to hope for a one time courtesy refund because it was the 1st time late in 3 years and I don't believe it's our fault when Provident online website doesn't load.

Desired Settlement: Refund of the late fee we paid with our January 2015 mortgage payment. Loan #XXXXXXXXXX

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/02/13) */ I have been asked to respond to the complaint you filed with the Better Business Bureau. Firstly, I would like to assure you that we strive to provide the best possible service to all of our valued customers. That being said, we do adhere very strictly to a policy of waiving late charges only when we have made an error. Due to a high scrutiny banks and lenders face, we are left with no latitude to make exceptions and we want to ensure we have a fair application of policy relating to waiving of late charges. We have researched this matter and have confirmed that your January 1, 2015 installment was not received until you successfully completed a one-time online payment on January 20, 2015. Please review the enclosed payment history which reflects the date your January 1, 2015 installment was received. It should be noted that we have no record of having website functionality issues during the month of January. Additionally, our Customer Service Representatives are available Monday through Friday 5 AM PT to 5PM PT and are more than happy to assist you with logging into our website or completing a payment, including taking a payment by phone. We have no record of you or your wife speaking to a Customer Service Representative regarding this matter until you called our Customer Service Department on January 30, 2015. According to the terms of the enclosed copy of the Promissory Note that you and your wife executed at the closing of this loan, payments are due on the 1st of the month. If a payment is not successfully received by the end of the 15th calendar day after the due date, a late charge will be assessed. It is the responsibility of the borrower to ensure payments are received in accordance with the terms of the Note on the 1st of the month and within the grace period to avoid the assessment of a late charge. As we did not successfully receive a payment for your January 1, 2015 installment in a timely manner a late charge in the amount of $65.21, which was paid on January 20, 2015, was properly assessed and we are unable to accommodate your request to refund this charge. For your records, since your January 1, 2015 installment was successfully received within the same month it was due, no 30 day late has been or will be reported to the credit bureaus and this matter will not negatively affect your credit score. We are pleased to see that you have recently enrolled in our payment drafting service, this free service will automatically draft your payments from your designated bank account on the fifth day of each month and will ensure that your payment is received each month in a timely manner, providing that the draft is accepted by the financial institution. At this time, your loan is next due for the March 1, 2015 installment in the amount of $1,304.18 and a free automatic draft in the amount of $1,304.18 is currently scheduled to be drafted on March 5, 2015. I may be reached by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******* ***** Consumer Compliance Enclosures

3/5/2015 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On September 30, 2014 ***** ******** Owner and mortgage broker for Radiant Financial Group received what we believed to be a fully executed purchase agreement for a property we wished to purchase in ******** *** ***** was recommended to us by our realtor, her husband ***** ******* Phoenix Property Group. ***** was handling the transaction as a duel agent.We believed we had a legal purchase agreement and began the lending process. ***** and ***** knew that the purchase agreement that had been signed by a personal representative to the estate was not legal as the court had not appointed the seller to that role. This information was concealed from us and we continued on through the process. ***** engaged Provident Funding as the lender and turned over the purchase agreement and all information to them, but we were still not told the agreement was not legally signed.Provident ordered the appraisal and made it mandatory to use their sister company LenderVend and demanded $505 for the appraisal. We also had to get the inspection to keep the process moving at a cost of $385. Provident, *****, and ***** all received a copy of the preliminary title from First American Title, we did not get a copy, and they all knew that the purchase agreement had not been legally signed but no one told us, they just kept moving the lending process forward. With the review period for the title work almost up and 6 days from closing we demanded a copy of the preliminary title and found the issue ourselves. We ended the agreement at a loss that financially damaged my family for the cost of the inspection, appraisal, and loss of our rental causing us to have to return to ******** Account_Number: Appraisal,purchase c

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation) I would like everyone to know about the disreputable business practices of Provident Funding Associates, *************, Radiant Financial Group, ***** ******, Phoenix Property Group, and ***********, First American Title.I would also like my $890 returned to me.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/01/16) */ I must begin by stating that Provident Funding takes pride in the quality of the loans that we originate and that we are proud of our good name and reputation. We have investigated your concerns and there seems to be a lack of communication on the part of your mortgage broker, Radiant Financial Group LLC. For your records, Radiant Financial Group LLC is independent from, and not an affiliate of, Provident Funding. Furthermore, Radiant Financial Group LLC is not an agent of Provident Funding and is prohibited from representing to third parties that it is acting as an agent for Provident Funding. As reflected on the enclosed copy of the Loan Commitment and Condition Log from this application, which your mortgage broker had 24 hour access to via our website, our representatives added a prior-to-document ("PTD") condition requesting evidence the executor of the purchase contract had the legal right to sign on behalf of the owner on title during our October 6, 2014 initial underwrite of your mortgage loan application. That evidence was provided to us on October 17, 2014 in the form of a document that was filed by the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the county of ********, which stated ******** ******** (executor of the purchase contract) was appointed as Personal Representative of the Estate of ******* J. ******** (owner on title) without restriction, and our prior-to-document condition was cleared that same day; a copy of that document is enclosed for your reference. Your mortgage broker subsequently completed the loan document order process on October 20, 2014, and our representatives sent loan documents to title that same day. Our representatives would have been happy to proceed with your mortgage loan application, and there was more than enough time to fund your loan by the October 29, 2014 expiration of your interest rate lock. However, your mortgage broker sent an email to us on October 24, 2014 which stated you did not wish to proceed with your application, and your application was therefore withdrawn from our system as Approved Not Accepted that same day. In regards to your concerns over the appraisal report that was obtained in connection with this mortgage loan application, we have confirmed that the appraisal report was ordered by Radiant Financial Group LLC on October 8, 2014 in compliance with Appraiser Independence Requirements through an appraisal management company and was completed by a state of Arizona licensed appraiser; this process is intended to restrict communication and thus ensure there will be no undue influence by a lender on the independence of a licensed appraiser. It should be noted that per the Appraisal Order Terms & Conditions your mortgage broker agreed to prior to ordering your report: Payment of the appraisal fee is not contingent on the appraiser reaching a 'pre-determined' value or the closing of the loan for which the appraisal report was completed. Provident Funding has confirmed that this mortgage loan application was processed in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject. We have also confirmed the appraisal report from this mortgage loan application was not defective, tainted or flawed. The appraiser provided a competent and complete report and should be compensated for the work performed. Taking all of this into consideration, Provident Funding is unable to grant your desired resolution. As you were the client of Radiant Financial Group LLC, our policies and procedures did not allow us to communicate directly with you during the processing of your application and all communication concerning the application was sent directly to Radiant Financial Group LLC. Therefore, any issues involving the service provided by Radiant Financial Group LLC or the information relayed to you must be addressed directly with that company. Provident Funding denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing on its part in connection with this mortgage loan application. I can be contacted by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, *********** ******* Consumer Compliance Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/01/25) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Response BBB Case # XXXXXXXX I have the following questions for Provident Funding Associates: 1. Were you made aware by ***** *******, Broker Radiant Financial Group that borrowers Donald and ****** ***** had not been informed upon entering into the purchase agreement and generating application#XXXXXXXXX that the executor of the purchase contract did not have legal right to sign on behalf of the owner on title? 2. Was Provident Funding Associates aware that their requests for evidence that the executor of the purchase contract had legal right were never shared with the borrowers or that ***** ******* from Radiant Financial and realtor Jason Poyner whom she has listed as a partner on her mortgage brokers website blocked the borrowers receipt of the preliminary title so that they were not informed of the legal question? 3. Was Provident Funding aware that First American Title escrow officer Dana Mahler withheld the preliminary title report from borrowers, Don and ****** *****? The preliminary title was withheld until the *****'s demanded a copy and had to get it from another employee of First American Title 10/16/14. 4. Did ***** *******, Radiant Financial Group LLC order the appraisal on behalf of Provident Funding or was ***** ******* and Radiant Financial acting independently in ordering the appraisal? 5. Please explain how you, Provident Funding can declare that the appraisal is done by an independent appraiser when ***** *******, Radiant Financial told us that we had no other choice but to use an appraiser employed by Lend Vend, a subsidiary company of Provident Funding? 6. Why in your response regarding funding the loan was the date 10/29/14 and the rate lock window the targeted date and not our 10/24/14 closing date? 7. After having reviewed and answered the above questions does Provident Funding still believe that our loan application was processed by ***** ******* and Radiant Financial in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal and state regulations? Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/01/30) */ We have reviewed the additional concerns outlined in your rebuttal and have determined that they are predominately in relation to the service provided and/or the information relayed to you by your mortgage broker, Radiant Financial Group LLC. I must remind you that you were the client of Radiant Financial Group LLC, and that Radiant Financial Group LLC is independent from, and not an affiliate of, Provident Funding. While we believe your concerns should be directed to Radiant Financial Group LLC instead of Provident Funding, the seven itemized concerns listed on your rebuttal are addressed below: 1. Provident Funding was not privy to all of the steps taken by Radiant Financial Group LLC on your behalf or to all of the information provided to you by Radiant Financial Group LLC and the sellers(s) of xxxx, and we have no such record. As outlined on our January 16, 2015 response, during the underwriting process of your application and as is customary to purchase transactions when the owner of title is not the same as the entity executing a sales contract, Provident Funding received documented evidence that the executor of the purchase contract had the legal right to sign on behalf of the owner on title. Closing documents were sent to title on October 20, 2014, and Provident Funding was prepared to proceed with your mortgage loan application. It wasn't until we received an email from your mortgage broker on October 24, 2014 that we were formally alerted you did not wish to proceed with your application. 2. Provident Funding was not privy to all of the steps taken by Radiant Financial Group LLC on your behalf or to all of the information provided to you by Radiant Financial Group LLC, and we have no such record. 3. Provident Funding was not privy to all of the steps taken by Radiant Financial Group LLC on your behalf, including and not limited to the closing agent they selected, or how or what information was provided to you by either of those entities or its representatives, and we have no such record. 4. Provident Funding and its investors require an appraisal report in order to make a final non-conditional approval of a mortgage loan application. Among other purposes, appraisal reports are required in order to establish a loan-to-value ratio and to ensure a lender is able to lend on a subject property. During the initial underwrite of your mortgage loan application on October 6, 2014, our representatives added a condition for the appropriate appraisal report, and your mortgage broker elected to order the appraisal report on October 8, 2014. We have reconfirmed that your appraisal report was ordered by Radiant Financial Group LLC on October 8, 2014 in compliance with Appraiser Independence Requirements through an appraisal management company (LenderVend) and was completed by a state of Arizona licensed appraiser. 5. In compliance with Appraiser Independence Requirements and as stated on the enclosed copy of the Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure Statement we emailed to you on October 3, 2014 (or prior to your mortgage broker electing to order the appraisal report), Provident Funding requires applicants to use the services of our affiliated appraisal management company, LenderVend, to order a real estate appraisal. As your mortgage broker is fully aware, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and our company policy, any party other than the appraisal management company, including and not limited to Provident Funding, your broker and yourself, is prohibited from contacting the appraiser directly. This requirement is once again intended to restrict communication and thus ensure there will be no undue influence by any other party on the independence of a licensed appraiser. Rest assured that your appraisal report was completed by a licensed real estate appraiser who is independent of Provident Funding, and that Provident Funding did not participate in the preparation of your appraisal report. 6. In accordance with our standard procedures and as your mortgage broker is fully aware, an application must fund on or before the original interest rate lock expiration date or it will be subject to worse-case pricing. In the case of your application, your original interest rate lock expiration date was October 29, 2014. Therefore, your application needed to fund no later than October 29, 2014 in order to fund within the original rate lock period and avoid being subject to worse-case pricing. 7. Provident Funding's records evidence this mortgage loan application was processed by its representatives in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject. Radiant Financial Group LLC is once again independent from, and not an affiliate of, Provident Funding, and we are therefore unable to speak on their behalf. Provident Funding once again denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing on its part in connection with this mortgage loan application. We suggest that you contact Radiant Financial Group LLC if you have any further concerns regarding this matter. You may contact me by phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com. Sincerely, *********** ******* Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/02/10) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) In your response to question 6 you mention 10/29/14 as my rate lock expiration. Do you have some documentation that the rate would expire that day? We filled out an initial application and returned it to ***** and Radiant Financial on 10/2 so that she could give us a quote but we were still involved with another lender at the time. After reviewing the rates and other cost quotes from ***** and after ***** convinced us she could close on 10/24/14 we chose to go with Radiant Financial but we did not ever receive a rate lock notice from ***** and we were still in discussions about rates, locking them in, and other costs after 10/5. How did our rate lock get done if we were not informed? Rate locks last 30 days do you have any documents that tell us we were locked in 9/30?

1/28/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Denied our loan the week of closing, only explanation was they didn't like the appraisal/comps used. Home appraised well over price. Credit scores were perfect, 20% down, more than enough income. They charged us for the appraisal. Home appraised for over $10,000 more than purchase price. Then, the week of closing, they decided they didn't "like" the appraisal and pulled our loan? We could request different comps used (no guarantee), but conveniently for them, it pushes us beyond our rate lock, and because of Christmas, closing into the New Year. We're out $490 for an appraisal, and delayed in closing until who knows when, and they won't do anything. Not sure how they can legally do this, but they did. Company needs to be shut down. We were locked at a very good rate, and believe they decided they didn't want to do the loan at such a low rate anymore. No other explanation makes sense. It seemed like toward the end they were looking for reasons to get out, or delay us in closing for our rate lock to expire - and we provided everything they needed immediately - request, after request (most of which were just ridiculous - example - contract wasn't "dark" enough).

Desired Settlement: Refund for appraisal they won't use.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/12/31) */ I must first clarify the timeline of this application, as there seems to be a lack of communication on the part of your mortgage broker, Port City Mortgage, LLC. While you indicate in your complaint that you were expecting to close by Friday, December 19, 2014 at the latest, this mortgage loan application was never released for loan documents ("closing") by Provident Funding. As reflected on the enclosed copy of the Loan Commitment and Condition Log from this application, which your mortgage broker had 24 hour access to via our website, one prior-to-document ("PTD") condition from the initial December 5, 2014 underwrite of your file was never satisfied and two PTD conditions that were added less than a week after the initial underwrite of your file remained outstanding when your application was denied. We bring your attention to the fact that your application was denied on December 18, 2014, which was just 14 days after your mortgage broker delivered your loan file to us for underwriting. In order to best address your concerns, I would first like to outline the timeline and details surrounding the appraisal report. The history of this mortgage loan application reflects the appraisal report was ordered by Port City Mortgage, LLC on December 2, 2014 in compliance with Appraiser Independence Requirements through an appraisal management company (LenderVend) and was completed by a state of North Carolina licensed appraiser; this process is intended to restrict communication and thus ensure there will be no undue influence by a lender on the independence of a licensed appraiser. For your records, per the Appraisal Order Terms & Conditions your mortgage broker agreed to prior to ordering your report: Payment of the appraisal fee is not contingent on the appraiser reaching a 'pre-determined' value or the closing of the loan for which the appraisal report was completed. After the property inspection was completed on December 8, 2014, the appraisal report was completed on December 11, 2014, and our Appraisal Department's review of the report was completed the following business day on December 12, 2014. Once our review of the appraisal report was completed, our Appraisal Department determined that the subject property was ineligible for financing with Provident Funding due to insufficient recent and proximate comparable market activity. After this December 12, 2014 determination was relayed to your mortgage broker, we received a formal dispute from your mortgage broker on December 17, 2014 in which they provided additional sales for our review. However, the additional sales your mortgage broker provided could not be utilized because they were not similar to the subject property than the sales utilized on the report. After thoroughly reviewing the appraisal report, multiple third party data sources and your mortgage broker's formal dispute, our Appraisal Department verified the best available comparable sales were utilized on the appraisal report and there weren't any available comparable sales that were recently sold in the subject property's new subdivision or more than one comparable sale that was sold within the last 12 months. It was then once again determined that there was insufficient recent and proximate comparable market activity for Provident Funding to lend on the subject property, and your mortgage loan application was subsequently denied on December 18, 2014 due to insufficient data to support the appraised value. Our loan denial is based solely on this reason and is not a reflection in any way on your personal creditworthiness. This denial was not and will not be reported to any credit agencies, and will not affect your credit score in any way. For your clarification, even though an independent licensed appraiser completes an appraisal report to the best of their abilities with what is available in the market at the time of the report, the appraisal report may not meet our lending guidelines due to the limited availability of acceptable comparable sales. In regards to your request for a refund of the appraisal fee, please review the enclosed copy of the Right to Receive a Copy of Appraisals disclosure that Provident Funding emailed to you on December 2, 2014 which notified you the appraisal fee would not be refunded to you if your mortgage application was not approved. Provident Funding has confirmed that this mortgage loan application was properly processed and denied in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject. We have also confirmed the appraisal report from this mortgage loan application was not defective, tainted or flawed. The appraiser provided a competent and complete report and should be compensated for the work performed. Taking all of this into consideration, Provident Funding is unable to refund the $490.00 appraisal fee. It should be noted that as you were the client of Port City Mortgage, LLC, our policies and procedures did not allow us to communicate directly with you during the processing of your application and all communication concerning the application was sent directly to Port City Mortgage, LLC. Therefore, any issues involving the service provided by Port City Mortgage, LLC or the information relayed to you must be addressed directly with that company. We would be happy to work with your mortgage broker to transfer your appraisal report to a new lender if you wish. If you would like to pursue that option, please ask your mortgage broker to submit that formal request to us. I can be contacted by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/01/06) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) There may have been a lack of communication between our mortgage broker and Provident Funding about our closing date. Our rate lock was expiring on Dec 22, so it seems that it would be obvious to the lender we were planning to close before then. However, this really has nothing to do with the complaint. As was stated in the response "The appraiser provided a competent and complete report and should be compensated for the work performed." If this is the case that it's complete and competent, and has the home appraised well over purchase price, how can Provident choose not to use the appraisal? What's the point of even having appraisals completed if lenders can pick and choose which ones they will use. This gives the lender the ability to deny a loan for ANY reason, AFTER making the borrower pay for an appraisal. How can that be fair or legal to a consumer in any way? Also, when speaking with Provident on the phone after receiving this response I was told that they do not make any money off the appraisals, that it was between the appraisal management company and the appraiser. I had found out through research that the appraisal management company (LenderVend) and Provident Funding were somehow connected. Turns out they are owned by the same group. Of course Provident didn't volunteer this information, they admitted it after I questioned them. Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/01/09) */ To begin with, as outlined on our December 31, 2014 letter, we would be happy to work with your mortgage broker to transfer your appraisal report to a new lender if you wish. If you would like to pursue that option, please ask your mortgage broker to submit that formal request to us. In regards to your concerns over the affiliation between Provident Funding and LenderVend, we have confirmed that you were promptly notified of that business relationship once your mortgage broker submitted your mortgage loan request to us. I bring your attention to the enclosed copy of the Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure Statement which was emailed to you on December 2, 2014 and notified you that Provident Funding and LenderVend had ownership in common. We have reconfirmed that your appraisal report was ordered by Port City Mortgage, LLC on December 2, 2014 in compliance with Appraiser Independence Requirements through an appraisal management company (LenderVend) and was completed by a state of North Carolina licensed appraiser; this process is once again intended to restrict communication and thus ensure there will be no undue influence by a lender on the independence of a licensed appraiser. In regards to your additional concerns about our decision to not proceed with your mortgage loan application due to insufficient recent and proximate comparable market activity, I must clarify that our representatives evaluate all mortgage loan applications solely on the documentation provided and in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject. Whether or not a mortgage loan application is approved is dependent on obtaining all documentation necessary to make a final non-conditional approval, verifying that the applicant's financial resources and ability to repay conform to our guidelines, and ensuring that we are able to lend on a subject property. As outlined on our December 31, 2014 letter, even though an independent licensed appraiser completes an appraisal report to the best of their abilities with what is available in the market at the time of the report, the appraisal report may not meet our lending guidelines due to the limited availability of acceptable comparable sales. Additionally, ordering an appraisal report does not guarantee a mortgage loan application will be approved as a lender must review a completed report to determine if they are able to lend on a subject property; that determination cannot be made until the completed report is provided to the lender. To further clarify, we were unable to proceed with your application due to there being insufficient comparable sales from both within and outside of the subject property's subdivision. As noted on Page #5, Section 1 of the enclosed copy of your appraisal report, only four homes had been built in the subject property's subdivision of 110 planned lots at the time of the report, and comparable sale #1 is the only property within the subdivision to have sold in the past 12 months. Moreover, the comparable sales utilized on your appraisal report were not considered sufficient to lend on due to the following: Comparable Sale #1: On the market for over three years before being sold, and per Page #15 of your appraisal report the typical exposure time for the area is three to six months. Comparable Sale #2: Built in 2005 and located in an established neighborhood unlike the subject property which is in a developing subdivision. Site size is well over double than that of the subject property. Comparable Sale #3: Approximately seven miles southeast of subject property in a different town. Property is more proximate to ********** and the ocean. Comparable Sale #4: Just a listing rather than a closed sale. Property is over 13 miles southeast of the subject property in a different town. Property is more proximate to ********** and the ocean. As you know, your mortgage broker was also unable to locate any additional comparable sales that would have allowed us to proceed with your application. After our Appraisal Department determined the best available comparable sales were utilized on the appraisal report and that those comparable sales were not sufficient to lend on, your application was denied due to insufficient data to support the appraised value. Our denial of your mortgage loan application was once again just 14 days after your mortgage broker delivered your loan file to us for underwriting. Provident Funding has confirmed that this mortgage loan application was properly processed and denied in compliance with Provident Funding guidelines and all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject. We have also confirmed the appraisal report from this mortgage loan application was not defective, tainted or flawed. The appraiser provided a competent and complete report and should be compensated for the work performed. Taking all of this into consideration, Provident Funding is once again unable to refund the $490.00 appraisal fee. As previously relayed to you, we would be happy to work with your mortgage broker to transfer your appraisal report to a new lender if you wish. I have asked one of our supervisors to contact your mortgage broker to remind them of this option. You may contact me by phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/01/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The 1st comparable was actually the home the builder was using to show - and then building. Someone came in and wanted to purchase right away cash. There was actually another offer on the home we purchased the same day as we made offer. Another home sold in the neighborhood in 2014, it was never on MLS because it was custom - I assume this is why it isn't showing up? Regardless, what we're being told is basically that we'd have never been able to get the loan in the first place because it isn't an established neighborhood (despite large down payment, perfect credit, more than adequate income, and enough cash on hand to pay the next 5+ yrs of house payments.) Why would a lender fail to tell us all this before we pay for the appraiser? Had we known that 1 - The lender wouldn't use normal/reasonable comps AT ALL and 2 - Won't lend money for a home that is not in an "established" neighborhood, we would have never wasted $500 for an appraisal - seems like this major information should be given to borrowers in the beginning. Provident has never explained how our loan was a risk for them at all, just that not enough homes have sold to compare. There is no question that they could sell our home immediately for more than what our loan was going to be for. Like I've already told Provident numerous times before we don't want the appraisal. They left us scrambling the week of closing (the week before Christmas) and the same week we sold our other home to figure it out. They would not work with us at all for a solution. We went with someone else that didn't require an appraisal and closed quickly. My complaint may not get any resolution for us, but I hope that Providant will eventually be shut down for their abusive practice and another innocent family. $500 may be pocket change to them, but for the average family they're taking advantage of, it is a lot of money. All over the internet they have horrible, horrible reviews and have taken advantage of many people. The least they could have done for us was to refund the money they made off the appraisal or have tried to work with us instead of just flat our denying our loan and refusing to use ANY other comp nearby. They could couldn't less.

5/14/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Has withheld $2,475.20 plus 6% interest on both the withheld amount ,as well as, the same amount required to pay out-of-pocket to contractor. During the month of July 2012, Provident received a insurance claim check in the amount of $17,475.20 as a result of roof damage to our home. they have withheld $2,475.20 to date and demand a $40 inspection fee to determine if the roof was actually repaired regardless of the following copies: insurance adjuster summary, signed contractor agreement with $1,000 out-of-pocket down payment, copies of all building permits (required by the county of Alachua, florida, signed statement of satisfaction and authorization from contractor, as well as, signed release upon final payment from contractor. Provident Funding would not provided the escrow number for withheld funds and further indicated the funds were not in an escrow account. Provident has withheld the $2,475.20 for over a year and one-half.

Desired Settlement: Return of $2,4750.20 plus 6% interest on both amount withheld and same amount paid out-of-pocket to contractor for a period of 18 months.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/20) */ Provident Funding responding to the complaint you filed with the Better Business Bureau. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter that was sent to you on August 2, 2013 in response to the complaint you filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As stated in Mr. Nielsen's letter and as further clarified in the email I sent to you on March 17, 2014, a copy of which has been enclosed, we received a loss draft check in the amount of $17,475.20 on August 14, 2012 and in accordance with our standard procedures, check #XXXXXXX in the amount of $15,000.00 was promptly sent to you on August 21, 2012. The remaining loss draft funds in the amount of $2,475.20 have been placed into your loss draft account, which is separate from your escrow account, pending an inspection of the completed work. As previously explained, because your loss draft claim exceeded $15,000.00, in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage you executed and agreed to at the closing of this loan and our standard procedures, a property inspection is required to be completed at your expense to ensure the work on the property has been satisfactorily completed. I would also like to bring your attention to the enclosed copy of Section 5 (Property Insurance) of the Mortgage you executed and agreed to at the closing of this loan, which states: Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such property to ensure the work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction. As previously clarified, in accordance with investor guidelines, the loss draft funds currently being held on your behalf have been accruing interest since November 12, 2012. The current interest rate on your loss draft account is 0.01%; this rate is based on the average passbook rate of three major financial institutions. Provident Funding has re-confirmed that since we received your loss draft check, we have accurately and consistently relayed to you that an inspection was required to release the remaining loss draft funds and that the inspection cost is $40.00. We would be more than happy to remit all loss draft funds currently being held on your behalf plus the interest earned once the required inspection has been performed which evidences the work has been satisfactorily completed. Please contact our Customer Service Department at (XXX) XXX-XXXX to order the inspection at your earliest convenience. I may be reached at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******* ***** Consumer Compliance Enclosures Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/03/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Provident Funding was sent copies of 3 building inspections issued by the Alachua Co. Building Inspection Department, Gainesville, fl. the first inspection was at the onset of the roofing project. second was midway through construction and the final inspection and sign-off was at the completion of the reroof. i personally met the inspector and discussed the construction each of the 3 times he was at my home additionally, copies of all building materials & itemized costs was provident by the roofing contractor to provident funding. lastly, a copy of my statement of satisfaction was provided to Provident as was a release by the contractor to Provident indicating they were paid in full. This project was closely supervised by the Alachus Co. building department and required specific permits for the construction approval. Any verification of work done and done correctly has been provided through copies of all necessary permits/inspections by the county building department. simple contact with that department will confirm the process. lastly, to suggest an interest rate of .01 is worse than stealing. a basic 6 month CD paid 2.5. to badger me with a inspection fee of an amount to be determined by Provident, when all evidence of permits and inspections were provided is a gross means to generate $40. then to suggest an interest rate of .01 is added insult. having garnished other complaints against Provident Funding, this is just one of many pertaining to withholding of funds. i have made my dissatisfaction very clear to the company that sold me this mortage and have posted a detailed explanation to that effect. Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/03/27) */ Provident Funding is responding to the rebuttal you filed with the Better Business Bureau, and the complaint you filed with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter that Mr. ***** sent to you on March 20, 2014, which contained copies of our previous letters to you regarding this matter. While we appreciate that you have provided us with a large amount of documentation regarding your loss draft claim, in accordance with investor guidelines, we must obtain a final inspection which evidences the work on the property has been satisfactorily completed before we can release the remaining loss draft funds in your account. In accordance with the terms of the Mortgage you and your wife executed at the closing of this loan and our standard procedures, the final property inspection is required to be completed at your expense. As you know, the cost of the final inspection is $40.00. The remaining loss draft funds in your account will stay in that account until your loan is paid in full or you proceed with the required final inspection and we receive satisfactory evidence that the work on the property has been completed. If you would like us to deduct $40.00 from your loss draft account for the required property inspection, please send a written request to my attention and I will be happy to do so and coordinate the required property inspection. As previously clarified, in accordance with investor guidelines, the remaining loss draft funds in your account have been accruing interest at a rate of 0.01% since November 12, 2012, and this rate is based on the average passbook rate of three major financial institutions. It should be noted that, as reflected on their respective websites, the interest rate for a basic savings account with JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo is 0.01%. Provident Funding will continue to service your loan in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations to which we are subject, and in accordance with the loan documents you and your wife executed at the closing of this loan and our standard procedures. As of this date, your next payment due is the April 1, 2014 installment in the amount of $1,869.37. You may reach me by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2014/04/02) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) 3 separate inspections were required and done by the Alachua County building department Gainesville, Fl.. the reroofing of our home was a permited process and highly regulated by the code enforcement department. all copies of the inspections/permits were given to Provident Funding. although, the mortage contract has a buried clause indicating a necessary inspection, 3 were done, at my expense, by the county. there is also no specific amount defined by Provident Funding for an inspection, allowing them to define whatever amount they want to access. There is absolutely no indication of a specific rate of interest or what that rate is based upon. in fact, i initally asked Provident several times for the account number and the interest rate being generated and they would never supply that information. I am sure Provident was earning more than .01%. .01% was hardly the rate of interest i would have earned november of 2012. After 18 months of rainy weather in Florida our roof is in excellent condition, as it should be considering it is a new roof with multiple documents from the contractor, county building inspectors office and my cancelled checks to the contractor indicating such. Provident Funding is not interested in determining if the roof was replaced because they have always had ample proof of the necessary construction. they simply want to garnish $40 and give me as little as possible in earned interest on the funds they withheld. i have always wanted, nothing more than the balance of my insurance claim. at this time, a 6% rate of interest on the withheld funds and that same amount which i had to pay out-of-pocket are my expectations for resolve.

3/7/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Multiple changes of addresses, intentional late receipt of payments, inflating late charges, harassment, retaliation Obtained a fixed rate loan from Provident Funding. Monthly mortgage payments have been made through Fidelity Billpay and later Wells Fargo. Fidelity Billpay was proven to be very reliable. Every month, 40-50 payments were sent and had few problems. Only Provident funding repeatedly claimed that payment were received late. Before 2008, the lender even reported to credit bureaus multiple lates, resulting lowered credit scores and loss of opportunities obtaining loans, etc. I sued Provident Funding in California small claims court in or about 2008, seeking compensation for damages including but not limited to loss due to loan rejections. Right before the trial, Provident Funding quietly corrected reporting in credit bureaus and stopped sending mails demanding late charges. During small claim court trial, Provident official stated to the judge that the company took steps removing erroneous credit reports from credit bureaus AND granted curtsey waivers for alleged late payments as good will. As result, the Court did not grant my request for recovery of damages caused by Provident Funding's practice. Immediately after the Court ruling, Provident Funding re-started the alleged late payment in September 2008, stating that the payment of the month was not received on or before September 15, 2008. Since then, Provident Funding periodically sent us late charge notice of $119.95. Since Fidelity Billpay service guaranteed delivery of Billpay payments on dates scheduled by its customers, I requested Fidelity Billpay service to investigate. It turned out Fidelity sent Provident Funding the mortgage payment on September 11, 2008 but was returned by Provident Funding stating "payment address and the account number were incorrect". It could not explain why the payments such as August and October 2008 sent to the exact same address were received without problems. It was very clear that Provident Funding retaliated against me since I disputed its unethical and potentially illegal business practice. We have multiple loans and equity lines. Monthly payments to most if not all accounts were made via Billpay or electronic payments. All but Provident Funding have no problem at all. In addition, there was no other institution kept changing mortgage payment address like Provident Funding did. I recalled some (but certainly not all) change of address, some without proper and timely notice. For example, *************************** XXXXX-XXXX; PO Box XXXXX, *************** XXXXX-XXXX; PO Box ****************** XXXXX-XXXX; and ************************** XXXXX-XXXX. It is quite possible that this company tried such improper business practice to charge customers unnecessary late charges and fees. Since September 2008, the company kept periodically sending late fee reminder citing September 2008 late charge of $119.95. After quite a while, at one point, as the company still cited late payment in September 2008, Provident Funding inflated this late fee from $119.95 to 599.75 and has made demand for $599.75 since. Beside periodic harassment with this inflated late fee matter, the company had conveniently not received insurance notices several times while all other lenders had no problems, and tried to issue forced policies. Most likely another form of retaliation and harassment. We have been dealing with multiple lenders including Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage, EastWest Bank, and US Bank. There has been none acted like Provident Funding that may committed systematic misconduct. Serious investigation and review of company record on such activities may be warranted. ADDITIONAL DETAILS: Case is being handled by another organization: Federal Reserve

Desired Settlement: Remove unjustified "late" charges

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/02/04) */ Provident Funding continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing in connection with your loan. Small Claims Case #XX-XXXX-XXXXXXXX-SC-SC-HLH was heard by the Orange County Superior Court of California in September 2008. The Court ruled in favor of Provident Funding and determined that Provident Funding did not owe any money to you as the Plaintiff in the case. The matters that you are currently raising generally occurred in 2007 and 2008 and were previously ruled on by the Court. We are pleased to see that, since that time, your payments have been received within the grace period. For your records, I have enclosed a copy of the unpaid late charges letter we sent to you on June 23, 2008 which notified you a total of four (4) late charges, each in the amount of $119.95, were outstanding on your loan at that time, and a copy of the delinquent notice letter we sent to you on September 16, 2008 which notified you another late charge in the amount of $119.95 had been assessed, for a total of $599.75. Provident Funding did perform a credit correction with respect to your July 2007 payment and, as a gesture of good faith, we have again submitted corrections to the credit bureaus to ensure no adverse information will be reported for your March 2005 - January 2014 payments; no 30 day late payments will be reported for those payments. Provident Funding reflects your current hazard insurance policy with First American Specialty Insurance Company expires on March 3, 2014. Please ensure we receive an acceptable renewal hazard insurance policy in a timely manner, and please ensure your chosen hazard insurance company has the following mortgagee information on record: Provident Funding Associates LP Its Successors and/or Assigns *********** ************** XXXXX Loan #XXXXXXXXXX Please be advised that future renewal hazard insurance policies may be uploaded through your online account on www.provident.com. We note that you have incurred no expense in connection with any Lender Placed coverage that has been ordered. As of this date, your February 1, 2014 installment in the amount of $2,398.98 is currently due. You may reach me by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******************* Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2014/02/23) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) This company is dishonest. Now they are retracting what they promised the Court during previous Court proceeding. Such promises lead the Court to rule against Customer's claim. That was exactly why there have been absolutely no late fee notice or demand from this company for ALL previously demanded late fees occurring before the Court trial. The only late notices that Provident provided was the incident occurring AFTER the Court trial. Customer can provide evidence clearing demonstrating that Provident returned the payment citing incorrect address in turn charged late fee. Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/02/18) */ This letter is intended to address the points made in your most recent posting with the Better Business Bureau. We bring to your attention the following: We note that since October 2008 your payment has been received each month within the grace period, no late charges have been assessed and your loan has been reported as paid current to the credit reporting agencies. Since 2008, our records reflect that approximately thirty accrued late charge billing statements have been mailed to your property address. Nothing has been returned by the Post Office and we conclude that this mail was received and not contested. In 2008 we attempted to correct on your behalf the mailing address you used with your payment vendor but were refused and told that they would only accept instructions from you. We cannot accept the statements that you make. We are pleased to have received your payments in a timely manner for the past five years. Your comments reference a matter that litigated five years ago, at which time no documented fault was found with the handling of your account. You may reach me by e-mail at *****@provident.com but please call me directly at XXX-XXX-XXXX if you would like to discuss your concerns in more detail. Sincerely, PROVIDENT FUNDING ***** **** Consumer Compliance

2/13/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: No payment coupons sent to indicate new monthly payment amount. Loan #: XXXXXXXXXX On 7/16/2013, Provident Funding issued a Delinquent Notice indicating the mortgage payment due on July 1, 2013 had not been received and that a late fee would be charged. However, the mortgage payment HAD been received by Provident Funding on 6/27/2013. All previous (and subsequent) mortgage payments are guaranteed received by Provident Funding BEFORE the due date. This is because we use a scheduled billpay service provided by our bank (Wells Fargo). Unfortunately, the 6/27/2013 payment was $95.94 short due to an adjusted escrow payment. This was a surprise to us, because NO PAYMENT COUPONS WERE SENT TO INDICATE THE NEW MONTHLY PAYMENT AMOUNT. It is a reasonable expectation that new payment coupons would be sent if the monthly payment amount changed. I tried to resolve this directly with Provident Funding, contacting ***** ******** on July 19, 2013 and Harrison Fletcher on Oct 1, 2013. They were both sympathetic, but unable to waive the fee due to "company policy". As described to me, "company policy" did not authorize them to waive any fee associated with a shortage in excess of $50.

Desired Settlement: Waive and reimburse the $38.45 late fee.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/02/05) */ I have been asked to respond to the complaint you filed with the Better Business Bureau. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter we sent to you on December 31, 2012 which notified you coupon books would no longer be sent to you since you were using a third party service to make your monthly mortgage payments, and the enclosed copy of the escrow analysis letter we sent to you on May 23, 2013 which notified you your monthly payments had been updated to $1,291.84 beginning with your July 1, 2013 installment. Although we believe it is apparent you were properly notified you would no longer receive coupon books and your payment had been updated beginning with your July 1, 2013 installment, as a gesture of good faith, the July 2013 late charge in the amount of $38.45 has been waived. We encourage you to sign up for our email notification service, as this free service will allow you to monitor the timely receipt of your payments and information regarding your account. We would also like to recommend our payment drafting service, which is available at no cost. This option, which would draft your payment from your designated bank account on the fifth day of each month, is explained in more detail on our website, www.provident.com, where you can also enroll if you choose. Enrollment in this service will ensure your payment is received each month in a timely manner, providing the draft is accepted by your financial institution. As of this date, your next payment due is the March 1, 2014 installment in the amount of $1,291.84. I may be reached by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******* ***** Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 12, 2014/02/13) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Received a letter from Provident stating that as a one-time courtesy they will waive the $38.45 late fee. I consider this issue resolved. Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2014/02/11) */ Provident Funding is responding to the rebuttal you have submitted with the Better Business Bureau. We apologize for any confusion you have experienced in relation to this matter. It is important to note that the coupon books are not a form of monthly mortgage statement but are intended to facilitate payment processing for borrowers who elect to pay via personal check. As you have chosen to submit your monthly mortgage payment through a 3rd party bill payment vendor who does not include a payment coupon with their remittance, in accordance with our standard policies and procedures, we have discontinued sending coupon books. We are pleased to see that you created an online account on June 1, 2012; your account information, including copies of the escrow analysis letters, is available on your online account 24/7. Additionally, Provident Funding offers free email notifications which notify you every time we process a payment and whenever important information regarding your account is available. I would be happy to enroll you in this service if you so choose or you may enroll through your online account. I may be reached via telephone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******* ***** Consumer Compliance

2/12/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have a history of early payments, but I was charged 20.23 for a pmnt they received on 12/13/2013 which was $2.1short-no call from them until 1/18/14 They have charged me approximately 134% late fee for a check with transposed numbers resulting in a $2.70 short payment. Then, even though I stated on the stub that it was the monthly payment only, the rep said it was applied to the principal, which may mean I would have to send them another 408.50+20.23 late fee! This should be usury, at the very least! I have paid at least 2 weeks early since this loan inception of several years (10+) except for a payment I believe was lost at their office (I filed with the post office in case of lost letter). ADDITIONAL DETAILS: Case is being handled by another organization: I complained to the CFPB

Desired Settlement: Remove the late fee of 20.23 and start a business practice of: 1. notifying payees of discrepancies in their payments within 5 days of a problem, and/or 5 days of normal payment receipt re no payment received, and 2. change late fees to be relevant to the amount unpaid.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/01/24) */ Provident Funding has investigated this matter and although we have confirmed an e-mail was promptly sent to you on December 13, 2013 which notified you the funds from check #**** had been applied to additional principal only in accordance with the terms of the Security Instrument you executed at the closing of this loan, the January 2014 late charge in the amount of $20.43 has been waived as a gesture of good faith. A copy of the e-mail that we sent to you on December 13, 2013 and a payment history which evidences there is currently not a late charge balance on your account have been enclosed for your reference. For your clarification, late fees are assessed in accordance with the terms of the Promissory Note that is executed at the closing of each loan. In the case of your loan, in accordance with the terms of the Promissory Note you executed at closing, the amount of a late charge is 5% of the overdue payment of principal and interest ($408.50 Principal and Interest Payment x 5% = $20.43). In regards to your concerns about the January 2012 late charge in the amount of $20.43 that you paid on February 21, 2012, we have confirmed that your January 1, 2012 installment was not successfully received until a payment was made through our phone payment service on January 19, 2012. Therefore, the January 2012 late charge was properly assessed and will not be reimbursed. For your records, our policies and procedures require that all complete payments be processed as of the day they are received, under no circumstances are such payments held for future day processing, and we maintain tracking to be certain that all payments received on a given day are posted of the date they are received. We encourage you to continue to utilize the e-mail payment notification service that you have been signed up for since May 18, 2012, as this free service will allow you to monitor the timely receipt of your payments and information regarding your account. We would also like to recommend our payment drafting service, which is available at no cost. This option, which would draft your payment from your designated bank account on the fifth day of each month is explained in more detail on our website, www.provident.com, where you can also enroll if you choose. Enrollment in this service will ensure that your payment is received each month in a timely manner, providing that the draft is accepted by your financial institution, and will also save you mailing expenses. As of this date, your January 1, 2014 installment in the amount of $408.50 remains outstanding. Please ensure that a complete payment for this installment is successfully received on or before January 31, 2014 to avoid a 30 day late being reported to the credit agencies. You may reach me by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ********@provident.com if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, *********** ********Consumer Compliance

2/4/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Provident Funding charged us late fee because their website did not work. Their representative is rude. We were with Provident Funding for 4 years. It was the first time we were late. We were late for 2 days. We tried their website to pay the monthly mortgage twice before the deadline, and both time their website did not work. We tried to solve this over phone. But their representative have been really rude. One of the representative kept us hanging on the phone for 20 minutes without getting back to us. ADDITIONAL DETAILS: Case is being handled by another organization: California Department of Corporations

Desired Settlement: Refund of the late fee. Apology of the superviser (***). Discpline with customer representative who kept us on phone for over 20 minutes.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/01/17) */ Provident Funding is responding to the complaints you filed with the Better Business Bureau and the ******** Commissioner of Financial Regulation. We have investigated this matter and have verified that your December 1, 2013 installment was not successfully received until you completed a one-time online payment through our website on December 17, 2013. A payment history which accurately reflects the date that your December 1, 2013 installment was received is enclosed for your reference. Our records reflect that you logged into your online account on December 2, 2013 at approximately 7:56 PM PST and 8:11 PM PST, and again on December 3, 2013 at approximately 10:19 AM PST, but that you did not complete an online payment on any of those occasions. It should be noted that we have no record of our website experiencing functionality issues on either December 2, 2013 or December 3, 2013. Our records also reflect that you called one of our customer service representatives on December 4, 2013 to discuss the escrow analysis that was performed on your loan on October 23, 2013, and that after our representative addressed your questions regarding that escrow analysis and asked you if she could help you with anything else, you stated that you did not need anything else and expressed your thanks for her help; you made no mention of having experienced difficulties completing a one-time online payment through our website. Our Customer Service Representatives are available from 5 AM PST to 5 PM PST Monday through Friday and are more than happy to assist our customers in ensuring their payments are received in a timely manner using the multiple options that we provide for our customers to submit their payments, but after you contacted us on December 4, 2013, we have no record of you contacting us again until December 17, 2013. Additionally, after you logged into your online account on December 3, 2013, our records reflect the next time you logged into your online account was on December 17, 2013 at approximately 1:54 PM PST, and that a one-time online payment was then successfully submitted at approximately 1:56 PM PST. According to the terms of the enclosed copy of the Promissory Note that you executed at the closing of this loan, payments are due on the 1st of the month. If a payment is not successfully received by the end of the 15th calendar day after the due date, a late fee will be assessed. It is the responsibility of the borrower to ensure payments are received in accordance with the terms of the Note on the 1st of the month and within the grace period to avoid the assessment of a late fee. We have verified that the December 2013 late charge in the amount of $46.37, which was paid on December 31, 2013, was properly assessed as we did not receive your December 1, 2013 installment on or before December 16, 2013. Therefore, the December 2013 late charge will not be reimbursed. As your December 1, 2013 installment was successfully received within the same month it was due, no 30 day late has been or will be reported to the credit bureaus and the late payment will not negatively affect your credit score. While we have no record of any of our Customer Service Representatives or Supervisors treating you in a less than professional manner, we do understand that you were put on hold while you waited for a Supervisor to become available on December 26, 2013 and we apologize for the unusually long hold time you experienced. We encourage you to continue to utilize the email notification service you have been signed up for since May 4, 2013, as this free service will allow you to monitor the timely receipt of your payments and information regarding your account. We would also like to recommend our payment drafting service, which is available at no cost. This option, which would draft your payment from your designated bank account on the fifth day of each month is explained in more detail on our website, www.provident.com, where you can also enroll if you choose. Enrollment in this service will ensure that your payment is received each month in a timely manner, providing that the draft is accepted by your financial institution. As of this date, your loan is next due for the February 1, 2014 installment in the amount of $1,346.77. I can be reached by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via e-mail at ******@provident.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******* ***** Consumer Compliance

1/30/2014 Problems with Product/Service
1/6/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Late fees charges have not been adjusted as loan payment was delayed because of Columbus day holiday Customer Service is awful and they do not have a supervisor to forward to where i could explain my situation and provide evidence.

Desired Settlement: Due a bank holiday, the loan payment was delayed and hence the account has been provided with late charges. I called a couple times requesting refund but the customer service is awful; They do not forward the call to a supervisor and have no customer service what so ever. Very bad experience.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/12/19) */ Provident Funding is responding to the complaint you have filed with the Better Business Bureau. We have researched this matter and have confirmed that your October 1, 2013 installment was not received until we successfully received a 3rd party electronic bill payment on October 17, 2013. According to the terms of the enclosed copy of the Promissory Note that you executed at the closing of this loan, payments are due on the 1st of the month. If a payment is not successfully received by the end of the 15th calendar day after the due date, a late fee will be assessed. The time between the due date and a late fee being assessed is sufficient time for payments to reach us, even if there is an issue with mail or 3rd party delays due to a holiday. For your clarification, if the 15th calendar day after the due date falls on a weekend or a holiday the last day of the grace period will be extended to the next business day. As Columbus Day occurred on Monday, October 14, 2013 and the last day of the grace period was Wednesday, October 16, 2013, the grace period was not extended. It should be noted that our customer service representatives would have been happy to assist you with making your October 2013 payment in a timely manner through our online or phone payment services, and that we have no record of our customer service representatives providing a poor level of service. It is the responsibility of the borrower to ensure payments are received in accordance with the terms of the Note on the 1st of the month and within the grace period to avoid the assessment of a late fee. Provident Funding has confirmed that the October 2013 late fee in the amount of $57.37 was properly assessed. Therefore, it will not be waived. As your October 1, 2013 installment was successfully received within the same month it was due, no 30 day late has been or will be reported to the credit bureaus and the late payment will not negatively affect your credit score. We encourage you to continue to utilize our email notification service, which you have been enrolled in since November 12, 2012, as this free service will allow you to monitor the timely receipt of your payments and information regarding your account. We would like to recommend our payment drafting service, which is available at no cost. This option, which would draft your payment from your designated bank account on the fifth day of each month is explained in more detail on our website, www.*********.com, where you can also enroll if you choose. Enrollment in this service will ensure that your payment is received each month in a timely manner, providing that the draft is accepted by your financial institution. Your loan is next due for the January 1, 2014 installment in the amount of $1,147.49. You may reach me by phone at 800-***-**** or via email at ******@*********.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ******* ***** Consumer Compliance

10/23/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Mortgage company is fraudulent and prey upon their customers. I refinanced with Integrity First in 2011. The loan was sold to Provident Funding readily, and this has been nothing but a disaster. Provident has successfully trapped me in this loan making it impossible for me to refinance with a company with more integrity or prove the actual value in my home. A few months into our loan with Provident my significant other assumed payment of the home mortgage via automatic withdrawal from his account. It was later discovered that he was a victim of identity theft and the mortgage payments were being interceded and not reaching Provident. We were not aware of this for a few months because Provident did not adequately notify us despite having all of our contact information. Now Provident is reporting that they sent us 13 letters, but I do not believe this. How would 13 letters get lost in the mail? Why would they not try my phone or email since they have all my contact information? Once I was made aware of this, actually by Integrity First, I phoned Provident immediately and paid in full any payments they had not received. However, Provident had notified credit bureaus of the delinquencies which has dinged my credit rating. Because of this I am unable to refinance with another company that I hope to find more honest. We have been disputing this issue with Provident now for 2 years but they will not resend the credit reports. We even employed an attorney to send them correspondence. Provident simply does not respond. If Provident would have notified me of the stolen payments appropriately, I would not have this credit In April of this year, Provident added PMI to my home mortgage payment due to one low value on our home due to the recession. We have completed multiple home improvements now and our home is worth enough value that the PMI would not be required. However, Provident will not allow me to prove this with a new appraisal or their ''realtor evaluation'' because of the late dings in my payment history. So you can see they again have me trapped in order to acquire more money from me. If one takes the time to read reviews on Provident Funding, you will find hundreds of similar complaints against this company. This company is not an honest entity and preys upon their customers to acquire more funds for them.

Desired Settlement: I desire for this company to remedy/remove the dings to my credit rating, which are inappropriate. So that I may prove the actual value of my home. It is not at all appropriate for me to be paying PMI on my home when I have less than 70% loan to value. I desire a refund or credit on my loan amount for PMI I have inappropriately paid for 5 months.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/09/03) */ Please review the enclosed copies of the multiple responses that Provident Funding has sent to you in regards to the information that we are reporting to the credit agencies for this loan. Although we have clearly explained what documentation was needed from you, *** xxxx, and/or your financial institution to evidence your October and November 2011 payments were not received in a timely manner due to identity theft or credit fraud, we have not been provided with that documentation. Therefore, we have been unable to reverse the information that we are reporting to the credit agencies for your loan. In regards to your request for cancellation of private mortgage insurance (''PMI''), please review the enclosed copy of the Private Mortgage Insurance Disclosure Adjustable Rate Mortgage document that you executed at the closing of this loan. Specifically, please review the portion which states that you must have a good payment history to be eligible for PMI cancellation prior to the automatic termination date, and that a good payment history means you have not made a mortgage payment that was 60 or more days past due in the last 24 months. As you know, your October 2011 payment was not successfully received until December 15, 2011. Therefore, you are currently ineligible for PMI cancellation. As previously clarified by our representatives, you may request cancellation of PMI after your October 1, 2013 installment is received. A copy of the PMI Requirement letter that we sent to you on July 26, 2013 has also been enclosed for your reference. We look forward to receiving your PMI cancellation request after your October 2013 payment is received. As of this date, your next payment due is the September 1, 2013 installment in the amount of $1,357.87, and your interest rate is currently fixed at 2.750%. As reflected on the enclosed copy of the Promissory Note that you executed at the closing of this loan, the first rate change for your Adjustable Rate Mortgage will be effective with your August 2016 payment. You may reach me by phone at ***-***-**** or via e-mail at ********@*********.com if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2013/10/06) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) n September 25, 2013, the business provided the following information: Please read our responses indicated by letter A-E. Provident Funding is proud of its good name and reputation and we are sorry if your experience has been a frustrating one. In the event we receive documentation evidencing one of our borrowers was a victim of identity theft or credit fraud, pursuant to our standard procedures, the appropriate credit corrections will be submitted to the credit bureaus. The documentation has been provided. A) Many, many of your customers have similar complaints of poor customer service, denoting a certain pattern of behavior. Although you continue to claim your October and November 2011 payments were not received in a timely manner because an individual who is not a borrower on this loan was a victim of identity theft, you have failed to provide a police report that supports your claim; the only police report you have provided is an incident/investigation report made in January 2011 (six months before your loan was closed) that was closed in March 2011 (four months before your loan was closed). B)The reasons we continue to claim that the October and November payments were part of ID theft is because *** ****** had proof that this started way before the payments were due. Yes the police report was before the late payments but that shows that we had a problem before the payments were late. That particular case was closed but the continued ID theft investigation stayed open, as stated on the report provided - please read thoroughly. As referenced in your rebuttal and our previous responses, *** **** had a conference call with *** xxxx and his financial institution to clarify what documentation could be provided to evidence identify theft or credit fraud; however, the documentation received from *** xxxx's financial institution did not suggest that the failure to make payments in October or November 2011 was due to identity theft or credit fraud. C)*** **** did have a conference call that was set up by *** ****** and she had everyone available to answer all questions regarding the ID Fraud cases which you have a copy of 6 cases that were filed for fraud. This again shows that there was a pattern before and after the late payments. *** **** had Chase Bank at her disposal to ask the questions needed to clarify what happen. At no time did she indicate the information was insufficient. Provident Funding has re-confirmed that, as required by law, your loan is being accurately reported to the credit bureaus. Provident Funding denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing on its part in connection with your loan, and we are once again closing our file on this matter. D)Provident continues to deny wrong doing but they still haven't answer questions we have. 1) Why didn't Provident Funding call me at my work or my cell, both which were on the application from Integrity First? 2) Why haven't you provided proof that you sent 13 letters to my address? In the last year you have sent all communications by overnight mail. Why didn't you do this to notify me of the late payment? As of this date, your next payment due is the October 1, 2013 installment in the amount of $1,357.87. I can be reached by phone at ***-***-**** or via e-mail at ********@*********.com. E) As of this date we continue to question your actions and your business practices. We can and will continue to supply you with proof that you ask for. I feel you only stand to gain by not being fair to us. BBB please make sure you document this in your file for other consumers to read. We will continue to document this with various entities including the Attorney Generals office of Colorado. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2013/09/25) */ Provident Funding is proud of its good name and reputation and we are sorry if your experience has been a frustrating one. In the event we receive documentation evidencing one of our borrowers was a victim of identity theft or credit fraud, pursuant to our standard procedures, the appropriate credit corrections will be submitted to the credit bureaus. Although you continue to claim your October and November 2011 payments were not received in a timely manner because an individual who is not a borrower on this loan was a victim of identity theft, you have failed to provide a police report that supports your claim; the only police report you have provided is an incident/investigation report made in January 2011 (six months before your loan was closed) that was closed in March 2011 (four months before your loan was closed). As referenced in your rebuttal and our previous responses, *** **** had a conference call with *** xxxx and his financial institution to clarify what documentation could be provided to evidence identify theft or credit fraud; however, the documentation received from *** xxxx's financial institution did not suggest that the failure to make payments in October or November 2011 was due to identity theft or credit fraud. Provident Funding has re-confirmed that, as required by law, your loan is being accurately reported to the credit bureaus. Provident Funding denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing on its part in connection with your loan, and we are once again closing our file on this matter. As of this date, your next payment due is the October 1, 2013 installment in the amount of $1,357.87. I can be reached by phone at ***-***-**** or via e-mail at ********@*********.com. Sincerely, ********** ******* Consumer Compliance

10/8/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Excessive late fee charged due to a change in the way the lender processes electronic funds transfers. Lender charged a late fee of over $72.79 due to a change in the way they process electronic funds transfers. Now instead of 1 day, it's 2 days to process electronic payment. Charging a late fee the first month they implemented a change is completely unfair and they are taking advantage of homeowners. They considered my payment 1 day late due to this recent change and charged me over $70.00. This fee is excessive, abusive and unreasonable. I called customer service and asked to have the fee waived but I was told by Manager named Katie that it was against their policy

Desired Settlement: Reversal of late fee charged.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/09/20) */ Please review the enclosed payment history which reflects the September 2013 late fee in the amount of $72.79 has been waived; there is currently not a late fee balance on your account. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced in relation to this matter. For your records, since your September 1, 2013 installment was successfully received within the same month it was due, no 30 day late has been or will be reported to the credit bureaus and your credit score will not be negatively affected in relation to this matter. I can be reached by phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or via email at ******@provident.com if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, ***** Consumer Compliance

9/30/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Provident recently changed its policy regarding on-line payments, and I feel it did not give me adeqaute notice of the impact of the change. I have been a customer of Provident for many years, having borrowed and paid off four previous home mortage loans. My current loan number is ******. I have always paid the loans on time and have a strong credit rating. Typically, I find it more convenient these days to pay on-line, and have done so many times. For the September, 2013 payment, which was due on 9/1/13, there is a standard 15 day grace period which ran through 9/16/13. On 9/16/13 at 8:57 AM PST, I sent payment online, as I have done on numerous times. However, I was assessed a $54.05 late charge, even though I executed the online payment on the due date. I contacted the customer service line and spoke with a young man named *****. who indicated that the online payment policy had changed and that the late charge would be removed, even though I was clearly unaware of the change in policy. I don't recall receiving any written notice of the change in policy; nor do I recall seeing any "pop up" notice which he said I should should have seen. Having been a very loyal customer for all these years, and having a solid payment record over four loans, I asked if the late charge could be taken off this one time, and he would not even consider it. I then spoke to his supervisor, a young man named ***** from Serving and he took the same position. I honestly feel that the change in policy should have been better disclosed and that it was handled in an unfair and deceptive manner, which took advantage of me. Morever, I feel that good customer relations in any such business requires some kind of leeway in a situation like this, where I have a perfect track record of payment, relied on the manner of payment that I had used in the past, and obviously misunderstood that there was a change in policy. Is this how to treat a loyal customer? I think not. My mortgage payment was credited one day late, and I had to pay the $54.05. I am requesting that the $54.05 late charge be rescinded and that such amount be credited towards my next mortage loan payment for October, 2013. I feel I'm being reasonable, and would ask you to do the same.

Desired Settlement: I am requesting that the $54.05 late charge be rescinded and that such amount be credited towards my next mortage loan payment for October, 2013. I feel I'm being reasonable, and would ask you to do the same.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/09/27) */ Please review the enclosed payment history which reflects the September 2013 late fee in the amount of $54.05 has been waived and reimbursed; check #***** in the amount of $54.05 has been sent to you under separate cover. There is currently not a late fee balance on your account. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced in relation to this matter. For your records, since your September 1, 2013 installment was successfully received within the same month it was due, no 30 day late has been or will be reported to the credit bureaus and your credit score will not be negatively affected in relation to this matter. I can be reached by phone at***** or via email at *****if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, *****Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 7, 2013/09/30) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Thank you for your quick response and refund of the late fee which was charged to me, which resolves the problem. That is all I asked ******. of the Servicing Dept. and his supervisor *****. to do in the first place. So again please accept my thanks. I appreciate your efforts.

9/27/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The company failed to provide proper service when I attempted to refinance under the HARP 2.0 program. We attempted to refinance a mortgage using the HARP 2.0 program. The company is the servicer on the mortgage. They are failing to enable us to refinance the mortgage due to their inability to properly communicate (obtain the correct property value) with the mortgage owner (******), forcing us to use an outside mortgage company. This outside mortgage company is able to obtain proper information and is willing and able to help in the refinance process. However, due to them not being the original servicer the process will cost more time/money than it should.

Desired Settlement: I would like for them to establish better communication practices with the mortgage owner. I would love to be able to refinance through my original mortgage servicer without getting the run around. In short I would like better customer service and actual results instead of the phrase "sorry, we can not help you".

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2013/09/04) */ Provident Funding is in receipt of the complaint you have filed with the ******. Based on the information provided in your complaint, we are unable to connect your complaint with a Provident Funding loan or application. We would be more than happy to research this matter further if you could provide us with an appropriate loan number or property address. You may contact me with the information via phone at******or by email at ***** Sincerely, ****** Consumer Compliance Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 8, 2013/09/10) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The loan number is ***** Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2013/09/13) */ I have been asked to respond to the complaint that you, as an authorized person on the referenced account, have filed with the ******. Provident Funding has reviewed this matter and, as previously clarified by our representatives, condominiums in the state of Florida are currently ineligible for financing with Provident Funding. We are therefore unable to accept a refinance application at this time. We are sorry that we were not able to meet your mortgage needs. If you have any additional questions, I can be reached at ****** or via email at *******. Sincerely, ****** Consumer Compliance


Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

17 Customer Reviews on Provident Funding Associates, L.P.
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Fusion Chart
Fusion Chart