Not really, you only have to give contact information. If they actually physically provide the service in that area through a branch office, it should be OK. They can contact and set up the most convenient location for them. That is different then them having to travel to the specific one you listed as only a contact source.

Thanks for having my back, Randy. I couldn't get my brain to formulate the response as well as you did.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess part of it depends on what is considered reasonable. What if the nearest branch office is still 3-4 hours away? What is the duty of the lender if the property is in a relatively remote or sparsely populated area of the state?

I think you're nit-picking it too much, Justin.
If it's remote or sparsely populated it's not likely to have a title company office close by either, is it?
The applicant came to your bank to apply for the loan.
It's not unreasonable to think that they'd be willing to come back to the bank or the title company down the block for the closing.

Just to throw another what if out there.
You use the title company up the block because they can do the work. It's 3-4 hours away from your remote property. But the closer goes to the borrower for the closing as a convenience. There are lots of variables in this concept of 'reasonable'.

I agree, but the issue as I see it, is that I am sure there would be a title company office a lot closer to the property location or borrower current address than the blanket one we use to cover the state. Some of the areas I am talking about are decently populated and I just think it is not meeting the requirement of the Reg/Preamble to show some office that is 4 hours away.

Let me put in my 2 cents. If my borrower's property is only 2 counties over, I give them a provider in their county...not ours.

And I'm going back to Randy's answer above. If it's a state wide provider, it really doesn't matter which office you give the contact information on. There are bigger fish to fry in the world of TRID.

State wide does not exist in my part of the world. This is not a one-size-fit's-all situation!

As I have said before - it goes back to availability of the service provider on your list. As the CFPB put it:

"Accordingly, the Bureau believes that if the creditor permits a consumer to shop for a settlement service, it is appropriate to require creditors to provide consumers with a written list that identifies available providers of that service. The Bureau recognizes that a creditor originating a loan in a geographical area with which it is unfamiliar may have less familiarity with the mortgage market in that area, but the Bureau believes that the creditor nonetheless has better access to information than the consumer about settlement service providers in the geographical area."

We list two providers. One is what you might call our primary provider. They provide services for our county and most of the contiguous counties. For the counties they do not cover we list a provided that provides services state wide and we list their primary contact (home location) information.

We have done this since 2010 when the RESPA changes went into effect.

Sounds like the expectation is for the provider to be in the "geographical area" of the property location. That is the rub. What is the definition of "geographical area?" Comes down to interpretation.

19(e)(1)(vi) Shopping for settlement service providers. - Comment 4

Similarly, a creditor does not comply with the availability requirement in § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) if it provides a written list consisting of only settlement service providers that are no longer in business or that do not provide services where the consumer or property is located.

[quote][/quote] Dan, you don't put the one that can't do the work on the same list as the other, correct? It is my understanding that if the provider can't do the work, they shouldn't be on the list. Or am I getting that wrong?

The list is supposed to include providers available to perform the service. A strict reading of that requirement would disallow listing multiple providers with disclaimers of service area. For example, listing AAA Provider and indicating "serving the Metro Podunk area" and BBB Provider with "serving areas outside Metro Podunk" instead of tailoring the list to the location of the property and/or applicant.

@Randy - What if they provide the service where the consumer or property is located, but it is a 4 hour drive to get to the provider?

Not Randy but that is unreasonable in my very humble opinion. I'm quite sure any regulator worth their salt would look upon that as a given that the borrower will choose another provider and thus take you out of any tolerance worries on the loans that fit that category.

I tend to agree RR, but that's a hard drink to sell.

This was a great thread . . . Another question arises, that I think was discussed before, is if you have a written provider with a particular address and they use the same provider company, but at a different address, does the 10% tolerance apply. I believe the consensus is "Yes," but then how would the creditor account for if the different location was in a more "expensive" area, for instance and certain fees were more?

You would eat the fees if they were over tolerance.