I've searched for this, and it appears the posted responses are not consistent. Please give me you thoughts: On construction loans (a clear pattern on about 20 loans) the inspection fee was consistently not included in the finance charge or APR. The finance charge is clearly out of legal tolerance (more than $100), but all APRs are within legal tolerance (irregular transaction - understated by not more than 1/4 of one percent). The reason for the difference between what should have been disclosed and what was disclosed for both the APR and FC are the same thing: the failure to include the inspection fee. Clearly we have a FC violation, but must we reimburse? My thought is that since the APR is within legal tolerance (even though the finance charge is not), we do not need to.