Compiled from Public Data by FairShake
The US government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) collects complaints against financial companies.
In 2016, the CFPB received 979 complaints against USAA. USAA ranked Number 28 among all financial companies for the most complaints.
Date of Complaint: June 30, 2016
Company Official Name: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: IL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-Product: VA mortgage
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker
Full Complaint:
On XXXX XXXX 2016, I joined USAA as an automobile insurance customer. On XXXX XXXX, I used USAA ‘s online mortgage application tool for a VA loan. On XXXX XXXX, I was pre-qualified for $ XXXX. USAA ‘s website instructed me to ” go out and place an offer ” on a property. I was searching for a condominium in XXXX and although the number of VA qualified condos are very few, I did find a XXXX bedroom and asked my USAA representative, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX, ext. XXXX ) to provide my real estate agent an XXXX pre-qualification form to attach to my offer. She did so ( attachment XXXX ). Unfortunately, I was not the high bidder and lost the sale. Over the succeeding months, other acceptable VA properties came on the market. Each time, XXXX XXXX ” ran the numbers ” and produced ever increasing pre-qualification documents. ( Attachments XXXX ). My bids for these properties were not successful. On XXXX XXXX I called XXXX XXXX to see if it was possible for me to purchase a XXXX bedroom condo in the same VA approved building as the XXXX bedrooms I bid on earlier. XXXX XXXX was not in the office, but I did speak to her colleagues, XXXX and XXXX, who assured me I could purchase a higher priced condo if I paid the difference between the purchase price and the now $ XXXX USAA pre-qualified amount. Luckily, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX was back in the office and replied to my email inquiry about the higher priced unit. To my surprise she not only agreed to the higher price, but offered that I ” may only be required to pay 25 % of the difference and not the full difference ” ( email : Tuesday, XXXX XXXX, 2016 XXXX. ). My successful XXXX XXXX offer of $ XXXX ( attachment XXXX ) included a 15-day due diligence clause allowing me to visit the property. XXXX XXXX contacted me frequently, urging me to sign the sales contract and get the mortgage process started. I had seen many of the XXXX bedroom units in the condo building and had seen photos and videos and recommendations from my real estate agent of the XXXX-bedroom unit, but not the actual condo. I decided to see the unit in person. I flew from XXXX to XXXX on XXXX XXXX and returned the next day. I called XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX and gave her the good news that I would go ahead with the sale. She said she had some questions for me and I answered each of them. Some of the questions were the same as in the initial online process back six months ago, but none of my conditions or my answers changed. She then said that something was wrong and that a ” mistake ” was made and that the required down payment was not 25 % of $ XXXX, or even $ XXXX, but now $ XXXX! I could not believe what I was hearing. How could multiple people ” rerunning the numbers ” multiple times be so far off? I asked to speak to XXXX XXXX ‘s supervisor. ” XXXX ” came on the phone and his reply was ” my hands are tied ”. I asked to speak to his supervisor and was given ” XXXX ” ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) who forwarded me to XXXX XXXX in the executive office ( XXXX, ext. XXXX ). I told XXXX XXXX that I was astounded at the ” mistake ” a company like USAA could make on a loan they ‘ve made XXXX of time before. She concurred and admitted that this type of mistake had happened in the past and that USAA was working on correcting it. I also told her of my {0.00} out-of-pocket travel expense. She asked for receipts which I sent to her email address. XXXX XXXX said she would have one of her senior loan officers review my case and contact me on XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX I did receive a call from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX ). She said she would review the numbers.
Complaint Tags: Older American
Response Type: Closed with monetary relief
Public Response:
Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers
FairShake accessed this complaint from the public archives of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). You can file your own complaint with the CFPB here.