Skip to Main Content

AimLoan.com Customer Reviews

Bankrate logo

The Bankrate promise

At Bankrate we strive to help you make smarter financial decisions. While we adhere to strict , this post may contain references to products from our partners. Here's an explanation for .

AimLoan.com customer ratings and reviews

logo

NMLS: 2890

State License: RM.850089.000

4.2

Rating: 4.23 stars out of 5

179 ratings

This lender has 2 recent reviews.

Knowledge
Rating: 4.4 stars out of 5
Level of service
Rating: 4.3 stars out of 5
Professionalism
Rating: 4.3 stars out of 5
Responsiveness
Rating: 4.3 stars out of 5
5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
77%
3%
2%
3%
15%

79% of customers would recommend this lender.

2 of 2 reviews

The consumer reviews posted on Bankrate.com ("Bankrate") are individual, subjective opinions of reviewers, and not of Bankrate. Bankrate does not endorse any of the opinions expressed by reviewers or any responses to reviews.

Bankrate cannot guarantee or verify the accuracy of the opinions shared by individual reviewers, and reserves the right to reject or remove any review, at any time, for any reason at Bankrate’s sole discretion, including but not limited to those that Bankrate deems inappropriate, fraudulent, invalid, irrelevant, or otherwise outside the parameters of the Bankrate Review Guidelines, the Privacy Policy, or the Terms of Use.

In addition to collecting reviews on-site, Bankrate collaborated with third-party Slice MR to survey 750 homeowners nationwide in July 2024. Bankrate and Slice MR collected, averaged and presented responses to nine questions. Users received an incentive for their feedback. Responses are based on individual experiences, and therefore cannot be verified for accuracy. Submissions with user ratings that are materially inconsistent with written sentiment have been removed. User ratings are unedited and have not been reviewed or approved by lenders, nor do these ratings reflect Bankrate’s own reviews of these lenders.

To help serve you with relevant information, the consumer reviews shown below are limited to only those that this advertiser has received during the past 12 months.

Search Icon
Caret Down Icon
Rating: 5 stars out of 5

I really appreciate the extra effort and I recommend Aimloan.

I have used Aimloan to buy and refinance multiple properties going back to 2007. In my latest experience with them in which an issue occurred (because the Postal Service took a month to deliver a letter), the manager called and worked with me to resolve the issue. I really appreciate the extra effort and I recommend Aimloan.

Knowledge
Rating: 5 stars out of 5
Level of service
Rating: 5 stars out of 5
Professionalism
Rating: 5 stars out of 5
Responsiveness
Rating: 5 stars out of 5

Rates and terms of loan honored?

Yes

Closed mortgage with this lender?

Yes

Closed on time?

Yes

Would you recommend this lender?

Yes

David L.
Maryland (Oct. 21, 2024)

Rating: 1 stars out of 5

Shorted me $1400 from my escrow

Unfortunately I have to leave a negative review regarding Aimloan to express my disappointment. I have used Aimloan multiple times to buy properties and to refinance going as far back as 2007. With my latest experience, I am extremely disappointed and cannot in good conscience recommend them to anyone else. To sum up, I recently sold a rental property and the balance of the escrow account was supposed to be returned to me. The balance was over $3k however I only received initially a check for $367.08. It appears that the shortage occurred when the servicer paid the property taxes at some point AFTER the closing on the property. In other words, funds from my escrow paid the property taxes on a home that I no longer owned. Additionally, the property taxes was taken care of out of the proceeds from when the home was sold. I was only responsible for the taxes between 1-17 July 2024 (paid at closing) and the servicer paid the full taxes covering 07/01/2024 - 06/30/2025. I called to notify Aimloan of the discrepancy and a couple of weeks later I received another check for $1432.83. While I appreciate that I received some of my funds back I was still short $1399.98. Since then I have called back and was told that they would look into it and refund the rest. However after several weeks I have not heard back. A shortage of nearly $1400 is not a small deal and the fact that I'm not hearing back from Aimloan and I have to continue to chase them for the balance is not a good look. They after-all... are not disputing that I was shorted... but they are not providing a proper followup nor providing the funds in a timely manner. Since I'm not hearing anything, my only recourse is to leave negative reviews.

Knowledge
Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Level of service
Rating: 1 stars out of 5
Professionalism
Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Responsiveness
Rating: 1 stars out of 5

Rates and terms of loan honored?

Yes

Closed mortgage with this lender?

Yes

Closed on time?

Yes

Would you recommend this lender?

No

Dave C.
Maryland (Oct. 16, 2024)

Response from AimLoan.com:

This was resolved with our valued customer. Property taxes were paid as scheduled for Frederick County, MD, 7/8/24. Request for payoff received 7/09/24. The loan paid off 7/17/24. On 7/30/24, the customer contacted us as the expected escrow refund post payoff was much less than anticipated ($367.08) due to the prior tax disbursement. The customer further stated there was an agreement in the sale for the Buyer to pay all taxes. It was subsequently confirmed by the Tax Dept. that the title company remitted tax payments at close in two separate amounts for some unknown reason that totaled our original disbursement. Aim’s Tax department sent several requests for refund to Frederick County and following their audit and due diligence, they finally issued two refunds: 9/04/24 ($1432.83) and finally the balance 9/20/24 (1399.98). Refunds were subsequently processed and mailed to our customer the day following receipt - 9/05/24 $1432.83 and 9/23/24 $1399.98. Check copies were provided to the customer to support these refunds. The customer stated he did not receive the second refund of $1399.98. The envelope supported our postmark of 9/23/24, but a secondary post office stamp of 10/12/24 was found on the mail piece. The customer did not receive the $1399.98 check in question until 10/18/24. We certainly value our customer and made every effort to release these refunds as they were issued to us by the county.