Complaint management that reads every channel, keeps every clock and finds the one problem behind forty complaints
Every complaint routed in minutes, patterns spotted first.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that takes every complaint a lender receives — by phone, email, letter, branch, social post, state regulator or the CFPB portal — and logs, classifies, routes, tracks and answers it on time, with the trends reported to management and the board. Complaint Management adds agents that read and code every complaint, group them into themes across channels, find the root cause and draft each response.
How to choose AI solutions for lending →
Updated
Complaints reach a lender through the contact centre, the servicing mailbox, the mail room, the branches, social posts, state regulators and the CFPB company portal. Each channel has its own queue and its own coding, and analysts read and code them one at a time. The same problem shows up as 23 calls, 11 emails and 6 portal complaints, owned by three teams — and “escrow” and “payment increase” land in different categories, so no count ever spikes.
Meanwhile every complaint runs on its own clock: 15 and 60 calendar days on the CFPB portal, 5 and 30 business days for a written notice of error, and each state department’s own window. Root cause waits for the monthly or quarterly trend review. By then more statements have gone out, the next disbursement has run, and the unfair practice or fair lending issue is in front of the examiner before it is in front of the board.
Estimated split for a pattern that spans channels, by hand and with the solution, in days.
Six specialist agents read, classify, group and draft every complaint; the complaints lead approves and sends.
Kestrel Point Bank took over 6,214 mortgage loans from Brightwater Home Loans on 1 September. Its first escrow statements went out on 8 October. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Joelle opens Themes: 1,286 complaints from 15 Jul to 12 Oct, grouped into 34 themes, each a 90-day strip of daily bars coloured by channel. Above the strip runs a band of operational events — the 21 Jul app release, the 14 Aug HELOC rate notices, the 1 Sep Brightwater transfer, the 8 Oct escrow statements. The overnight scan read 63 new complaints, and one row is flagged in red.
“Escrow shortage after transfer” 19 → 40 — calls, emails and the CFPB portal · began after the 8 Oct statements · flagged likely systemic.
The theme holds 40 complaints — 23 calls, 11 emails, 6 CFPB complaints — owner Tom Whitfield. There were no escrow complaints for 37 days after the transfer, until the statements arrived. The proposed cause, at 92 % confidence: the transfer file listed the second-half 2026 property tax as still due on 1 Nov, while Brightwater had already paid it on 27–28 Aug, so the escrow analysis counted it a second time.
Ruled out: a tax-rate rise — Marlow’s 2026 rate rose 1.8 %, about $38 a year.
The investigator searched all 6,214 transferred loans. 1,140 carry the same false shortage — 812 in Marlow County, 328 in Ashby — $1.59M billed that is not owed, $1,391 a loan on average. Fourteen borrowers already paid it in one sum. And the 1 Nov tax run would pay $3.39M of tax a second time; the file locks on 27 Oct.
1,088 more borrowers got the same statement and have not complained yet.
Gloria’s payment goes from $1,842.17 to $1,966.02 for a $1,486.20 shortage, and she has the county’s receipt for the August payment. The intake reader notes each fact in the margin with its source; the account facts sit beside it. The response is drafted in the bank’s escrow template, every fact cited, on the CFPB clock: first response due 24 Oct, final due 8 Dec.
“Commitments in yellow wait for ISS-2026-031. They turn green when Tom Whitfield accepts the issue.”
Harold Benning writes to servicing that his escrow analysis is in error — the Ashby County taxes were paid on August 28 by Brightwater. The classifier treats the written claim of a servicing error as a notice of error, and the clock keeper sets two dates on business days: acknowledge by 20 Oct, correct or explain by 25 Nov.
Joelle sends the theme to Tom Whitfield, Head of Mortgage Servicing, as ISS-2026-031: 40 complaints linked, the cited evidence from the transfer file, county ledgers and escrow analyses, and a five-step remediation plan with owners and dates. The first step is to stop the 1 Nov tax disbursement for the 1,140 loans by 27 Oct.
“Tom Whitfield accepted ISS-2026-031 — the hold on the 1 Nov tax run is his first step.”
Before the issue was accepted, “Approve and send” stopped her: the response promises to stop the 1 Nov tax payment and keep the payment at $1,842.17, and the owner had not agreed to that yet. Now the commitments are green. She approves, and the response goes out through the CFPB portal 11 days before the due date.
“The commitments are not confirmed yet” — shown when a response promises what the issue owner has not accepted.
Another borrower writes in: Corinne Haverford, loan ending 6619, a $1,418.60 shortage and a payment up $118.22, saying Brightwater paid her Marlow County taxes in August. Pasted into “Add a complaint”, it is read, coded mortgage servicing · escrow · shortage dispute, logged as a notice of error, joined to the escrow theme, given its acknowledge and resolve dates, and a reply is drafted.
“Routed in 3.3 s — joined the escrow theme, clock started, response drafted.”
Six applicants at the Eastfield and Palo Verde branches say they were told to bring a co-signer after asking for service in Spanish. The theme carries a fair lending flag and goes to Anika as FLR-2026-007: pull the 41 applications at both branches since 1 Sep and compare co-signer requests by language preference, interview the branch managers, then decide — finding or not.
Only the Fair Lending Officer can clear a fair lending flag.
The October trend report is drafted for the board compliance committee: complaints by month and channel, themes up and down against the 30 days before, and issues found and fixed — the escrow issue, late fees inside the 60-day transfer window, the fair lending review, and the mobile-app posting fix holding since 2 Sep. The summary can be edited before it is exported.
“Every CFPB complaint was answered within 15 days; 6 escrow responses are due from 24 Oct.”
The same escrow error, seen by the five people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents read, classify, group and draft every complaint; the complaints lead approves and sends.
Reads every complaint from every channel — call transcripts, emails, letters, CFPB and state portal complaints, branch notes and social posts — and pulls out who, which loan, what happened and what they want.
Codes each complaint in the bank’s 9 products × 41 issues, mapped to CFPB issue names, sets risk flags — unfair practice, fair lending, notice of error, servicemember — and starts the right regulatory clock.
Groups complaints across channels into themes by what happened, not the words used, compares each with its 30-day baseline, lines spikes up with operational events and flags a theme as likely systemic.
Pulls the account, escrow analysis, payment history and transfer records behind a flagged theme, compares the records that disagree, proposes the cause with evidence, sizes the affected population and drafts the issue and remediation plan.
Writes a factual response to each complaint from the account record, in the bank’s templates and plain language — what we found, what we will do and when, how to reach us — with a citation on every fact.
Computes every due date — CFPB 15 and 60 calendar days, notice of error 5 and 30 business days on the bank’s holiday calendar, each state’s window — and warns the owner 3 days ahead and the lead on the day.
Approves every response; Fair Lending Officer decides fair lending flags. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Everyone on the complaints team can ask in plain words — or tell it what to change. Answers cite the complaints and records behind them.
Why did the escrow theme double overnight?
Monday’s calls about the 8 Oct escrow statements. 21 complaints arrived on 12 Oct — 15 calls, 4 emails and 2 CFPB complaints. All 40 are loans boarded from Brightwater on 1 Sep, all in Marlow or Ashby County. The transfer file lists the second-half tax as due on 1 Nov; the county ledgers show it paid on 27–28 Aug. The same pattern sits on 1,140 loans.
Which themes started after the Brightwater transfer?
Three themes began within 50 days of the 1 Sep transfer: escrow shortage (40), late fee after payment sent to the prior servicer (9) and insurance placed after transfer (8) — 57 complaints from one event.
Is any theme a fair lending risk?
One: Spanish-speaking applicants told to bring a co-signer — 6 complaints from the Eastfield and Palo Verde branches since 2 Sep. It is with Anika Sorensen as FLR-2026-007; the file review of 41 applications is due 16 Oct. Only she can clear the flag.
Hold the November 1 tax payment for the 1,140 loans
I cannot hold a payment — that is Tom Whitfield’s call. I added it as the first step of ISS-2026-031, with the list of 1,140 loans and the file lock on 27 Oct, and I will remind him on 22 Oct if it is still open.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Channels, the systemic flag, the clocks and who decides are settings the complaints lead can change.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Flag a theme likely systemic when it grows | Doubles within 24 hours | Grows 50 % within 24 hours · Doubles within 24 hours · Triples within 72 hours |
| Or when it spans, with at least 10 complaints in 7 days | 3 or more channels | 2 · 3 · 4 or more channels |
| Start the investigation at once | On | On · Off |
| Look for operational events in the 60 days before a theme began | On | On · Off |
| State regulators | 10 calendar days | 10 · 15 · 30 calendar days |
| Warn the owner | 3 days ahead | 2 · 3 · 5 days ahead |
| Approves and sends responses | Joelle Marchetti | Joelle Marchetti · Darnell Pryce |
| Clears a fair lending flag | Anika Sorensen | Anika Sorensen — no one else can clear it |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published timeframes: CFPB company complaint process (15 / 60 days) and 12 CFR 1024.35 (notice of error: 5 / 30 business days). People, banks and borrowers named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that takes every complaint a lender receives — by phone, email, letter, branch, social post, state regulator or the CFPB portal — and logs, classifies, routes, tracks and answers it on time, with the trends reported to management and the board. Complaint Management adds agents that read and code every complaint, group them into themes across channels, find the root cause and draft each response.
The theme finder places each complaint in a theme by what happened, not the words used or the channel, and compares each theme with its baseline. By default a theme is flagged likely systemic when it doubles within 24 hours or spans 3 or more channels with at least 10 complaints in 7 days, and it is lined up with operational events such as transfers, mailings and releases in the 60 days before it began.
Yes. The clock keeper computes 15 and 60 calendar days for CFPB portal complaints, 5 and 30 business days on the bank’s holiday calendar for a written notice of error, and each state department’s window. It warns the owner 3 days ahead and the lead on the due day. It cannot extend a clock.
The classifier flags unfair, deceptive or abusive practice risk, and flags fair lending on any mention of language, national origin, race, sex, age, marital status, disability or public assistance, showing the sentence behind each flag. Fair lending flags go to the Fair Lending Officer, and only that officer can clear them.
No. The response drafter writes each response from the account record in your templates, with every fact cited, and the Complaints Management Lead approves and sends it. A response that promises something an open issue has not confirmed is held until the issue owner accepts.
No. They read loan, escrow, payment and transfer records only. When a payment should be held — like the 1 Nov tax run in the escrow case — the request is added as a step on the issue for its owner to decide.
Call transcripts from the contact centre, the servicing and complaints mailboxes, letters scanned in the mail room, branch notes, public social posts that name the bank, state regulator referrals and the CFPB company portal — plus your servicing records, escrow analyses, transfer files and county tax ledgers, and your approved response templates.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your complaint categories, response templates, channels and a sample of past complaints — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own complaints first.
One question, all fifty states at once, every answer cited to the rule it comes from.
1-min demoRegulatory Change ManagementEvery new rule scoped to products and states, and owned the day it lands.
1-min demoHMDA and 1071 Data ValidationEvery record checked against the file, not a sample, before filing.
1-min demoWe’ll run Complaint Management on a sample of your own past complaints.