Can a lender change a service that was initially disclosed as not allowed to be shopped (i.e., Section B and no SSPL) to a service that they will allow to be shopped as a change circumstance borrower request?

need a little more info. If you're talking about a regular service, like title work, I don't think so. You said they couldn't shop so they can't. Now, if they did and you decide to take what they picked, I don't think that's a valid CC. You would show the company they picked on your CD but the charge would stay in B and be subject to 10%.

After disclosing as not shoppable can you re-disclose and change to shoppable (and then allow customer to shop)?

What was the new information that allowed this to happen??

Borrower requests and we make the exception to allow the service to be shoppable.

Did you actually allow the consumer to shop or did you just agree to use the provider they requested?

6. Shopping for a third-party service. For good faith to be determined under § 1026.19(e)(3)(ii) a creditor must permit a consumer to shop consistent with § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A). Section 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) provides that a creditor permits a consumer to shop for a settlement service if the creditor permits the consumer to select the provider of that service, subject to reasonable requirements. If the creditor permits the consumer to shop consistent with § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) good faith is determined under § 1026.19(e)(3)(ii), 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.


IMHO you did not allow the consumer to shop. You simply made a concession on the provider you normally use.

That's what I think it is, too, Dan.

I thought that's what I said in my first post above too.

When you make a concession does that mean that the service is subject to 10% tolerance or 0% tolerance?

You did not allow the customer to shop (even though he did) because you identified the service as one that could not be shopped and did not provide a provider shopping list for the service.

It's a 0% tolerance. The concession doesn't change that.

John, while I agree the concession doesn't change tolerance, we're talking title which is 10% tolerance, isn't it?

Non-shop items are 0% no matter what they're for.

I disagree, burke.
from ppdocs TRID fee placement and tolerance chart: Section B Service you did not shop for. Note: Services selected from provider list will maintain a 10% tolerance.

Maybe I'm confused, but that sounds like for a fee that you allowed them to shop, they did not shop, so they went with the provider on your list. The fee moves from LE Section C-shop to CD Section B-did not shop, and retains the 10% tolerance.

It sounds like the original LE in this case, they did not allow the customer to shop, so the fee estimate was in LE Section B as a 0% tolerance, not disclosed on the SPL. The FI made a concession to allow the applicant to use a different provider, the fee stays in B and the tolerance stays 0%.

duh. my bad. I forgot the OP didn't give a list. That's what happens when you answer a week old thread without rereading. sorry.

I have a situation where we have Title Company 123 on our service provider's list....when doing an LE (for the permanent financing of a construction loan) our staff requested a quote for final title work from a different title company who is NOT on our service provider's list...let's say Title Company ABC.
They requested from Title Co ABC because on the initial construction loan the customer shopped and used company ABC--so they automatically followed up with final title work with that company....however we did NOT list them on our Service Provider List this time, and we put the fees Did Not Shop bucket.

So basically to sum up--we said they didn't shop, and they didn't but we got the quote from a title company we don't typically use... but didn't put them on the providers list. How to resolve?

If you didn't allow them to shop - why would they be on your list? If you don't allow them to shop - you can use anyone you want to.

Randy, I think I disagree based on the following that I posted in another recent thread on this topic.

From a Wolters Kluwer publication (4/11/19): The providers disclosed on the written list must correspond to those services disclosed on page two of the loan estimate, in section C.

As I read that, ScoutLaRue's bank would have to have listed ABC title company on their SSPL in order to properly comply.

I've never run into this before, but as I read it, it sounds to me like the only compliance-related error was listing the title fees as "did not shop" on the CD.

If Co. 123 was disclosed (listed on the SPL) but they went with Co. ABC, they did shop (no matter who you used on the back end to come up with your estimated figures).

How could they have shopped when the fees on the LE were not those of the company shown on the SSPL?
I'm saying they didn't shop and ,while it's moot on Scout's file because the fees were in B and stay in B, this could be an issue for others whose SSPL doesn't align with the fees they're showing on the LE.

The bank chose the title company on the permanent loan. They chose to use the same title that was involved in the construction loan.

How is that letting the consumer shop???

The LE states the title work is going to cost $100.
But the bank knows that the title company shown on the SSPL would only charge $75.
Would the borrower have 'shopped' for the title company on the SSPL if they'd know that company actually charged less?

Honestly, Randy, the excerpt I posted above started me thinking. TRID exists for the benefit and protection of the borrower. I'm not saying that what Scout did was intentional. Rather I'm just trying to show a fine point that might become a sticking point.

This is way to convoluted for me I guess. They didn't allow them to shop on the permanent loan - I therefor have no idea why there is any discussion about a SPL.

I read from the post that they got the quote for figures to disclose on the perm LE from the title company that the borrower had previously selected and used for the construction loan. Not that the bank didn't allow them to shop on the perm.

I read it and could be wrong but that the permanent loan LE was issued at a later date so it would be a standalone transaction. If that was the case, then it would appear the lender selected the provider on this loan, whether or not the consumer picked the provider on the construction loan.