Int Q&A – Penalty 2 – What constitutes a “pattern or practice” of violations for which civil money penalties must be imposed under the Act?

Compliance > Lending > Flood > FAQs
Q:  Penalty 2 – What constitutes a “pattern or practice” of violations for which civil money penalties must be imposed under the Act?
 
A:   The Act does not define “pattern or practice.” The Agencies make a determination of whether a pattern or practice exists by weighing the individual facts and circumstances of each case. In making the determination, the Agencies look both to guidance and experience with determinations of pattern or practice under other regulations (such as Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity) and Regulation Z (Truth in Lending)), as well as Agencies’ precedents in considering the assessment of civil money penalties for flood insurance violations. The Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (Policy Statement) provided the following guidance on what constitutes a pattern or practice: Isolated, unrelated, or accidental occurrences will not constitute a pattern or practice. However, repeated, intentional, regular, usual, deliberate, or institutionalized practices will almost always constitute a pattern or practice. The totality of the circumstances must be considered when assessing whether a pattern or practice is present.
 
In determining whether a lender has engaged in a pattern or practice of flood insurance violations, the Agencies’ considerations may include, but are not limited to, the presence of one or more of the following factors:
 
  • Whether the conduct resulted from a common cause or source within the lender’s control;
  • Whether the conduct appears to be grounded in a written or unwritten policy or established process;
  • Whether the noncompliance occurred over an extended period of time;
  • The relationship of the instances of noncompliance to one another (for example, whether the instances of noncompliance occurred in the same area of a lender’s operations);
  • Whether the number of instances of noncompliance is significant relative to the total number of applicable transactions. (Depending on the circumstances, however, violations that involve only a small percentage of a lender’s total activity could constitute a pattern or practice);
  • Whether a lender was cited for violations of the Act and Regulation at prior examinations and the steps taken by the lender to correct the identified deficiencies;
  • Whether a lender’s internal and/or external audit process had not identified and addressed deficiencies in its flood insurance compliance; and
  • Whether the lender lacks generally effective flood insurance compliance policies and procedures and/or a training program for its employees.
     
Although these considerations are not dispositive of a final resolution, they do serve as a reference point in assessing whether there may be a pattern or practice of violations of the Act and Regulation in a particular case. As previously stated, the presence or absence of one or more of these considerations may not eliminate a finding that a pattern or practice exists.
 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
This Q&A was included in the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance, which were issued on 05/11/2022.  They were published in the Federal Register on 05/31/2022 and may be found here:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-10414/loans-in-areas-having-special-flood-hazards-interagency-questions-and-answers-regarding-flood
 

Add Feedback