If we did not include a provider on the shopping provider list, do we put this under B - Did not shop or C - Did Shop for. The issues we are having is the software is not calculating the 10% tolerance that is allowed per the new rule update if we put it under B.

Remember that under the new rule (TRID 2.0) you still have to let them shop to avoid the 0% tolerance bucket (and the fee also can't be paid to you or your affiliate). The only difference when you don't include the service provider on the shopping list is that 1) you didn't include it on the list and 2) your tolerance goes from unlimited to 10% (if they don't choose your provider). Therefore, you still need to disclose the provider in C on the LE to represent that they can shop. On the CD, you should disclose the fee the way you normally would, but how this is handled on your system for tolerance/good faith purposes is a question for your LOS.

I think that since you didn't provide a list, that any provider that is selected by the consumer is then considered the bank's preferred provider and the charges move up to Section B.

^^ what he said. We would place in section B and treat accordingly.

I'm confused by the original post. Did you provide and SSPL but forget to list a provider for a specific service required on a particular loan? Or does your list contain multiple providers for the same service and you left one off?

My vote is with Adam on this. Here's the last part of updated comment 19(e)(3)(iii)-2:

"If the creditor permits the consumer to shop consistent with § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) but fails to provide the written list required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C), good faith is determined under § 1026.19(e)(3)(ii) instead of § 1026.19(e)(3)(iii) unless the settlement service provider is the creditor or an affiliate of the creditor in which case good faith is determined under § 1026.19(e)(3)(i). As noted in comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-1 whether the creditor permits the consumer to shop consistent with § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) is determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances."

The last sentence is critical. Obviously, you would have to have included the service in section C of the loan estimate, or there's no way you can claim that shopping was allowed. And then, other "relevant facts and circumstances" will determine whether your argument will hold water.

But you would still move the service to section B on the closing disclosure because it's treated as a service the borrower could have shopped for but didn't (10% tolerance bucket under 1026.19(e)(3)(ii)).