Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/03/2023

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On October 20th, 2023 I submitted a loan application for two properties **** & ************************************************************* to SWH Funding via their website. They didn't respond back to me until October 27th with an approval for funding on **** ************* (their website boasts approvals in 24 business hours, not business days). I then reminded them that I submitted requests for two properties that same day. I then followed up with them on Monday the 30th and reminded them that my closing date for the properties was November 3rd, they indicated that they were still waiting on underwriting for the 2nd property. (well over 24 business hours). I then had to follow up with them on Wednesday, November 1st to get an update. They responded back Thursday, November 2nd at 8:30am saying they needed to know what my intent for the two properties was even though I already stated it in the application. I gave them the answers they needed 15 minutes later. At 2pm, November 2nd, the afternoon before I am scheduled to close on both properties, they inform me that they are "going to pass on funding BOTH properties". They did this even after I informed them on three separate occasions that I needed funding on November 3rd! I asked them twice on October 30th and November 1st to let me know asap so I could secure funding for the 2nd property if it got denied even though they had approved the one. The property they approved me for was an identical match to the one they had already approved, leaving me with 3 hours to secure funding elsewhere for both properties. Now, I am going to lose the contracts on both properties.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/30/2023

  
  First of all, thank you for opening the file backup for us.  We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the complaint.
  
   
  
  SWH Funding is an asset based hard money lender that provides loans for investors purchasing investment properties.  SWH Funding is a licensed bank in the state of AZ and therefore has strict regulatory requirements that must be followed on each loan.  SWH also has underwriting guidelines that must be followed to protect funding source investors. 
  
   
  
  On Friday 10/20/23 towards the end of the business day SWH received the loan request via email.  The loan request only had ONE property included in the request **** W *****.  On Monday morning (10/23) the loan was sent to underwriting. The loan was approved on the morning of Friday 10/27/23.  The Loan Approval for the ONE property was sent via email to the borrower. The borrower responded to the email later that afternoon stating the loan request was for a "package deal" of two properties.  The borrower supplied the second address and the two properties were then sent back to underwriting that Friday afternoon just prior to the close of business for the weekend.
  
   
  
  The two properties are immediately adjacent to each other and are similar in value.  The borrower requested, more than twice, the approved loan amount that was given to him on the one property.  Underwriting sent a representative out to the two properties to evaluate the houses and neighborhood. Underwriting asked the borrower for more detail about the intended use for the properties on 11/2 at 8:34am.  The borrower responded shortly thereafter with the additional information requested.  
  
   
  
  Underwriting determined that having two properties side by side increased the risk exposure significantly.  In addition, the borrower was requesting more than twice the loan amount approved on one property.   Given all of the new information, underwriting determined that the loans did NOT fit its underwriting guidelines.  The borrower was told on the afternoon of 11/2 that SWH would not be able to do the loan.
  
   
  
  In summary, the initial loan request submitted by the borrower was only for one property.  Please see the attached email as proof.  The initial loan was in fact approved.  Unfortunately, the unique request for two residential properties side by side did not fit SWH's underwriting guidelines.  Additional time was required to underwrite such a unique request.  SWH's goal was to provide the funds for the loans but could not make the loans work within its guidelines. 
  
   
  
  Thank you again for the opportunity to respond.  Please feel free to reach out with any questions you may have.
  
  
  
  ***********************