Total complaints
1
Filed since An a
2026 data Public-data reference. official source
and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient
1 consumer complaints recorded in the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, with breakdowns by product, state, and complaint year.
1 consumer complaints filed with the CFPB
This profile shows and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient's complaint history from CFPB public records. 1 consumers have filed complaints since An a. The company has a 0% timely response rate and has provided relief in 0% of cases.
1
Total Complaints
0%
Timely Response
0%
Disputed
0%
Relief Provided
1
States Active
An a
Since
Timely response
0%
CFPB-tracked response window
Relief rate
0%
Closed with monetary or non-monetary relief
Timely response rate 0.0%
Federal benchmark
CFPB benchmark: response within 15 calendar days of filing.
Relief rate 0.0%
Industry median
Share closed with monetary or non-monetary relief.
and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient complaint mix by product
- omission 1 100.0% – 0% relief
How and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient's 1 complaints split across CFPB product categories. Resolution rate badge = % closed with monetary or non-monetary relief.
Complaints by Product
| Product | Complaints |
|---|---|
| omission | 1 |
Top States
| State | Complaints |
|---|---|
| harmful | 1 |
Top Issues
| Issue | Complaints |
|---|---|
| they did not indicate that we would need to be double-insured with a specific HO6 policy covering items for which we were already insured. The requirements to establish an act or practice is unfair under section 5 of the FTC act is when it ( 1 ) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury ( usually monetary ) to consumers | 1 |
Source: CFPB Consumer Complaint Database CFPB Consumer Complaint Database
What the CFPB Record Shows About and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient
and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient has accumulated 1 consumer complaint in the CFPB public database, with filings active across 1 U.S. state. Of those submissions, 1 includes a consumer narrative — the verbatim description of the reported problem that the CFPB collects alongside each filing. The earliest complaint on file dates back to An a, and the most recent logged activity is An act or , giving this record a multi-year window of observable consumer sentiment.
Looking at response behavior, and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient reports a 0% timely-response rate and has closed 0% of cases with a written explanation to the consumer. 0% of complaints were closed with monetary or non-monetary relief — an outcome signal that tracks how often consumers walked away with some form of remediation. A further 0% of responses were formally disputed by the consumer after the company replied, a useful marker of resolution quality independent of sheer volume. The most-reported product category for this record is "omission", and the single most common underlying issue is "they did not indicate that we would need to be double-insured with a specific HO6 policy covering items for which we were already insured. The requirements to establish an act or practice is unfair under section 5 of the FTC act is when it ( 1 ) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury ( usually monetary ) to consumers".
Complaint volume is heavily influenced by company size, customer base, and market footprint — larger financial institutions routinely carry more filings purely because they serve more consumers. A complaint is a consumer-reported allegation, not proven wrongdoing, and a timely or relief-flagged closure does not by itself confirm fault. Use this page as one input among many when evaluating and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient: cross-check against the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database directly, review your own contract terms, and consult a licensed professional for financial, legal, or regulatory advice. This page is informational only.
Consumer Guides
Learn more about your rights and how to interpret complaint data.
Related Data
Explore additional financial data about companies, lenders, and institutions on our partner portals.
PlainBankData
Bank financial data — deposits, assets, branches, and regulatory filings for FDIC-insured institutions.
PlainAdvisorCheck
Financial advisor records — SEC and FINRA registration, disclosures, and disciplinary history.
PlainCU
Credit union data — financial performance, membership, rates, and NCUA regulatory information.
PlainInsurer
Insurance company data — financial strength, complaint ratios, market share, and state licensing.
PlainLender
Mortgage lender data — HMDA loan originations, approval rates, interest rates, and lending patterns.
Disclaimer: This data is from CFPB public records. PlainComplaint does not provide financial advice. A complaint does not indicate that a company has violated any law or regulation. Complaint volumes are influenced by company size, customer base, and market presence. Use this data as one of many inputs when evaluating a company.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many CFPB complaints does and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient have?
and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient has received 1 consumer complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Does and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient respond to complaints on time?
and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient has a 0% timely response rate to CFPB complaints.
What is the most common complaint about and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient?
The most common issue reported against and close to our contractual closing date. This practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. It is not in anyones interest except this particular lenders interest for us to be double-insured. It causes harm to us individually and does nothing to protect the mortgage company since they were already covered under our original policies and the insurance company directly offered to add them as an insured party on that policy. Requiring us to be double-insured and purchase a specific policy with components we did not need is inefficient is "they did not indicate that we would need to be double-insured with a specific HO6 policy covering items for which we were already insured. The requirements to establish an act or practice is unfair under section 5 of the FTC act is when it ( 1 ) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury ( usually monetary ) to consumers" in the "omission" product category.
Read our methodology — how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Related
