Mortgage -- Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage -- Complaint #16531164

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 16531164

Company: Hope Bancorp, INC.

Product: Mortgage

Sub-Product: Conventional home mortgage

Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Sub-Issue: Delays in the application process

State: Washington

ZIP Code: 98034

Date Received: 2025-10-12T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2025-10-12T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

Formal Complaint - Bank of Hope ( XXXX Branch - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WA, XXXX XXXX ) I am filing a formal complaint against Bank of Hope for misrepresentation, negligent handling, and repeated failure to act in good faith during my mortgage application process. The banks conduct caused missed contractual deadlines, internal confusion, and measurable financial harm. Summary : Bank of Hopes XXXX branch mishandled my mortgage application for a {$2.00} XXXX home purchase, repeatedly missing its own commitments and issuing an invalid DRAFT rejection letter on my contingency deadline, which left me at risk of losing my earnest money and forced me to obtain a higher-rate loan elsewhere. Details : At the outset, I provided all required documentation, including full disclosure of my immigration and visa status for the loan program qualification. After reviewing my information, Bank of Hope confirmed my eligibility and issued a pre-qualification letter. Relying on this representation, I entered into a {$2.00} XXXX home purchase contract and deposited earnest money in good faith. At the bankers specific request, I agreed to a XXXX financial contingency period ( longer than the standard 21 days ), yet the bank still repeatedly failed to meet its own commitments. On the final day of the financial contingency ( XX/XX/XXXX ), the seller required a lender decision by XXXXXXXX XXXX. The bank did not respond until XXXX XXXX., stating they needed more time for approval but could issue a rejection letter if I chose not to wait. The reason cited for the delay was that the underwriter questioned my visa eligibility, despite my having already disclosed this information and received a pre-qualification confirming eligibility. At XXXXXXXX XXXX they sent a rejection letter, but it was marked DRAFT with no valid date, rendering it unusable. I immediately requested a corrected version, but by XXXX XXXX no update was provided ( and the bank never followed up with an updated, valid letter thereafter ). With the deadline approaching and no valid letter, I was forced to send the DRAFT version to the seller, aware it might not hold legal weight. The seller had already warned they would not return my earnest money if financing failed, citing the XXXX extension already granted. Bank of Hopes late response placed me in an extreme, time-critical position, forcing a decision within minutes under threat of losing my deposit or pursuing legal action. Lacking a reliable letter, I had no choice but to seek another lender to protect myself. On XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of Hope reversed its stance, claiming my visa was no longer an issue after an internal exception was approved. They requested additional information, which I provided immediately - including more bank statements, transaction details, verification of deposits, and participation in a live video session for live account balance verification. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX assured me that the matter was now straightforward and that final loan approval was expected by XX/XX/XXXX. Instead, on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX, I was told that the underwriter required another live video verification for additional accounts, even though the first operator ( XXXX ) had waived that requirement after confirming I had supplied Verification-of-Deposit forms them. The banker wrote, Without this additional verification, they can not make a decision. Whether you agree or not, they will decide tomorrow. I complied and completed the verification early on XX/XX/XXXX, yet that late afternoon I was told underwriting was still reviewing '' and unable to decide. On XX/XX/XXXX, only XXXX days before the closing day, the underwriter again requested more documentation, including items already provided. For example, they demanded an email from my insurance agent confirming no loss payee on my current property, even though the Evidence of Insurance ( EOI ) showing that had been submitted weeks earlier. When I asked my agent, the agent simply resent the same EOI because no clarification was needed. The banker again said, If all of these are provided today, we can close on time. As of that date, I still had not received clear-to-close ( CTC ). These same assurances had been made multiple times, yet the pattern of delay persisted. Throughout the process, the underwriting was consistently disorganized. Documents were requested piecemeal, XXXX small batch at a time, despite repeated assurances that the file was complete. Each review cycle consumed at least a day, with new requests only surfacing late in the afternoon, compounding delay and stress. When I expressed my frustration on XX/XX/XXXX, my banker ( XXXX ) connected me to the loan XXXX, XXXX. During the call, XXXX claimed she was not aware of my visa status before when explaining what had happened on the financial contingency date, and that she was not aware of any missed deadlines regarding the subsequent delays. She also told me that I should have contacted her directly, even though XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, had been my only contacts and had said they coordinated directly with XXXX, the processors, and underwriting. This exchange revealed a complete breakdown in internal communication and accountability. By then, escrow was pressing for a final lender decision, warning : If we cant get an answer, there is a good chance closing will be delayed. With no confidence in Bank of Hopes reliability, I was forced to close through another lender at a significantly higher interest rate to meet the deadline and avoid losing the property. Impact and Harm Bank of Hopes repeated misrepresentations and disorganization caused contractual risk, potential forfeiture of earnest money, and quantifiable financial loss through higher loan costs. Had I known the bank would fail to meet its commitments, I might not have entered into this contract or proceeded with this purchase under these terms or would have pursued financing elsewhere from the beginning. I am in the process of filing related complaints with the FDIC, the Washington State DFI, and the California DFPI, and I request that CFPB coordinate with these agencies to ensure consistent oversight and corrective action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Hope Bancorp, INC. Company Profile
• Mortgage Complaints
• Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage Complaints
• Washington Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints