Date Received: 2020-01-31
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: All calls were made to Ombudsman File was initiated on XX/XX/XXXX. We sent in the 3PA, Payoff statement request, short sale documents, offer and HUD to shortsaledepartment, Ombudsman, and several other faxes. Acknowledged on XX/XX/XXXX and on the same day, we sent in the RMA and Hardship Affidavit. Called in, spoke to XXXX, We were informed that the homeowner needed to send in proof of residency. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received the electrical bill and sent it promptly to SPS. On XX/XX/XXXX we called in to Ombudsman dept and spoke to XXXX was confirmed that they rec 'd the docs we sent in and that the file was " Complete '' and it would take 30 days to make a decision. On XX/XX/XXXX, we were informed that there were missing documents, despite Ombudsman stating that the file was complete. We sent in the documents they requested. The last document missing was the homeowner 's proof of occupancy. On XX/XX/XXXX we received the proof of occupancy from the homeowner. We sent this in immediately to SPS. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called in to SPS and spoke to XXXX again and were told that the listing agreement needed to be extended, and revisions to the RMA and Hardship Letter. We were able to send all these documents to SPS on the same day. We also confirmed with them that the proof of occupancy we sent on XX/XX/XXXX was received and was being reviewed. On XX/XX/XXXX SPS informed us that the proof of occupancy was not sufficient so we re-requested the proof of occupancy from the homeowner once again. Bare in mind, the homeowner is an elderly man who has gone through hardships within the last year so he struggles with document request. Spoke to XXXX. In between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, we went through a counter offer phase. We were informed that the value that was done in XXXX of XXXX was {$83000.00} - Spoke to XXXX. SPS took a couple of weeks to give us a counter offer, asking for the full value amount of {$83000.00}. The Buyer did not agree to the higher amount so they walked. On XX/XX/XXXX we received a new offer and we sent that in to SPS immediately. This particular offer ( the current offer we have now ) is {$94000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, we sent in the Buyer 's POF. We called in on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke to XXXX. SPS confirmed that they received the new offer and POF but all documents were being reviewed. I pressed the point that I would like for this review to be escalated because I was concerned that the value for the property would be expiring soon. I was informed that the value would not be expiring for another 60 days so our offer, that was above the counter offer of {$83000.00}. We were also informed that SPS needed an addendum regarding as-is verbiage. We got to work on this addendum immediately and alerted the Agent with this request. On XX/XX/XXXX we also sent in the new Homeowner 's proof of occupancy. On XX/XX/XXXX, we sent in the addendum that SPS requested. On XX/XX/XXXX we called in to SPS again, and was informed that we needed to send in the 3rd Party Authorization with the Listing Agent 's name. We sent that in on XX/XX/XXXX. Spoke to XXXX. We called in on XX/XX/XXXX and received confirmation that the last 2 documents had been received and were being reviewed. Spoke to XXXX again. We finally received a viable proof of occupancy in the form of a water and sewer bill from the homeowner that shows the mailing and service address of the property. We sent this in on XX/XX/XXXX. We called in on XX/XX/XXXX to SPS to make sure that the proof of occupancy document had been receive. We were told it was and it was being reviewed. Spoke to XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX we called in, spoke to XXXX, and we were pushing for an approval but was told that the Investor was no longer participating in incentive funds for homeowners and we would now have to remove the incentive from the settlement statement - 3 months after asking for several proofs of occupancy. We sent it in the revised HUD on XX/XX/XXXX Monday since XX/XX/XXXX was a Friday and we did not get the HUD until Monday. On XX/XX/XXXX the same day we sent in the revised HUD without the homeowner moving incentive, I called in once again to push for an approval review since the Lender at this point had the documents for over 30 days. I spoke to XXXX. I was told that the Lender was reviewing all the documents and because they just recently asked for additional documentation ( the revised HUD without the moving incentive ), I was told that the review time is pushed back to re-start at zero since the file was not deemed completed until they received the last document they needed ( the HUD without the moving incentive ). I asked for them to escalate this case and quickly ran through the timeline of the file once again. We called in on XX/XX/XXXX and was told there was no updates and the file was being reviewed.Spoke to XXXX. Called in again on XX/XX/XXXX and was told there was no updates and the file was being reviewed. Spoke to XXXX. Called in on XX/XX/XXXX and was told that unfortunately, the value had expired and that they would have to re-order another value. I tried to push back on this since we were informed a month ago that the value did not expire for another 60 days. I was informed that although I was given the wrong information, unfortunately the Investor wanted an updated Value. Spoke to XXXX. The new value was taken on XX/XX/XXXX and the value strangely, went up to {$160000.00} - almost twice the amount of the previous Interior BPO value of {$83000.00}. We became concerned that the value inflated this much since the neighborhood values had not changed nor had there been any repairs made to the property to raise it's value. We went back and forth with the SPS from the dates of XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, asking them to give us a value dispute review option because the jump in value was so concerning. We sent in a value dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. We received confirmation that the value dispute was received on XX/XX/XXXX and that it was being reviewed. On XX/XX/XXXX we called SPS again and asked them if there was any updates on the file ( Spoke to XXXX ). We were told that the Investor refused too review the value dispute because they had not given a final decision on the current offer of {$94000.00}. We argued that 1 ) the offer had been with the Investor for 60 days now and why did the Investor not have a final decision on it? and 2 ) Based on the value of $ XXXX, the current offer of XXXX was not anywhere near that so a value dispute packet to be reviewed with the current offer of XXXX would save time and effort on all parties involved. Ombudsman filed another escalation request for the value dispute to be reviewed and told us to call back in 5-7 business days. On XX/XX/XXXX we called SPS for any updates and we were told that they didn't see any issues with the value dispute being reviewed and that there was no updates, and to call back in several days. Spoke to XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called SPS again and they needed all 3 pages of the HUD. We sent this to them on the same day. We were told that the POA was needed. We requested the copy of the POA immediately from the seller 's rep. Spoke to XXXX. We sent in the POA on XX/XX/XXXX when we received it. We called in on XX/XX/XXXX to see if there were any updates. There were none and we were told that the POA was received and was being reviewed. Spoke to XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX we called again to get another update and this time we were informed that the POA was never received and if we could send it again? We re-sent the same POA on XX/XX/XXXX. Spoke to XXXX. We called in XX/XX/XXXX and we were told there were no updates. I pressed for an escalation request and they informed me that they would put in the escalation request on that day. I was told to call in 3-5 business days. Spoke to XXXX. For the entire week of XXXX, we did not get any updates. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called in and was told that there were still no updates. I asked for yet another escalation. Spoke to XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX we called in again was informed that there was still no updates and was told that according to their records, they should have a final answer from the Investor by XX/XX/XXXX. Spoke to XXXX. We called in on XX/XX/XXXX to get an update, expecting a decision. What we received on the other hand, and SPS now informed us that they needed a document revision that we were able to get sent back that day. The Ombudsman department informed me that they DID get the document and would be forwarding it to the department in charge of reviewing documents. Spoke to XXXX. We called in again on XX/XX/XXXX and was informed that they were still waiting on the same document revision. I let them know that I did confirm on XXXX that it was received from the Ombudsman dept so why did they say it was received if it was not? Ombudsman apologized for the confirmation in error but stated that they still needed the document because it could not be found anywhere. I re-sent the same document to them via email and fax. On XX/XX/XXXX I called in again and was advised that there were no updates and no documents were needed. On XX/XX/XXXX I called in again and this time, were were asked again to re-sent the same revision needed for the offer paperwork. I again explained to them that we sent in this same document twice already and we got 2 confirmations that it was sent. I was told that the document was sent in but it did not have the revision on the document. I had to walk them through the entire document collection of this particular document and asked repeatedly for them to look up the email I sent on XX/XX/XXXX to make sure they were looking at the same document. XXXX, the Ombudsman dept rep refused to do this and instead insisted that we send it in again - for the 3rd time. We went ahead and sent it for the 3rd time and I asked to speak to a Supervisor since we had now been in review for essentially 90 days. I did get a call from XXXX, a supervisor on XX/XX/XXXX and I spoke to her in earnest about the file timeline and how this file has been dragged out for a very long time, almost 90 days at this point. She acknowledged this delay and was concerned as well but stated that she couldn't do anything about the delay and rather, can push for a quick review of the offer so the Investor could make a decision. I have not heard back from her since yesterday and am awaiting an update from her. This is just completely unacceptable. Not only has the same offer been in review for almost 90 days but the Supervisor I spoke to has stated that the 2nd value is now expiring by XX/XX/XXXX. We are now about to go into a 3rd value on a property on the same offer and we still do not have a decision from the Investor.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MA
Zip: 015XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-30
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Loan # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX SPS has not addressed nor resolved our concern in unlawfully foreclosing on our property on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX SPS states " The Notice clearly stated the XX/XX/XXXX deadline to provide these documents. As indicated in the enclosed Short Sale Decision Notice sent to you on XX/XX/XXXX, SPS did not receive the required documents within the timeline specified. As such, SPS considered the offer withdrawn. '' We would note, The Notice did not clearly state the XX/XX/XXXX deadline to provide these documents, because it was not clear on what to send it was a repeated request causing confusion and delay. The document requested per SPS letter dated XX/XX/XXXX was sent to SPS at XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ) only 41 minutes past the date given. The fact that SPS considered the offer withdrawn due to the deadline given is beyond words and shows how SPS was looking for any reason to withdraw the offer. This is a lack of customer consideration and courtesy. 41 minutes would have not made a difference in their review process since SPS repeatedly asked for this same document for months, with no phone calls nor explanation when we called, which caused confusion ; and the 41-minute delay. Therefore, this was due to their servicing error. Furthermore, SPS states " SPS sent you the Assistance Review Missing Information Notices on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX indicating that a HUD-1 Settlement Statement was received however the document was rejected and additional action was needed. In the enclosed Notices, SPS provided the contact telephone number of ( XXXX ) XXXX to contact SPS for further clarification on what was required for the HUD-1A. '' We would note, we did call SPS inquiring about the missing document due to its repeated requests and all SPS stated each time we called was to resubmit the HUD1 because it was showing as still missing. SPS never clarified it was missing {$10000.00} relocation fees " the required document '' in which SPS avoids mentioning in their response because they never informed us of this specific missing information during the process. SPS did not specify this verbally nor in writing. Again, the only time we ever heard of the missing relocation fees was when we spoke with Mr. XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX after SPS withdrew the offer. Mr. XXXX XXXX did not mention that the offer was withdrawn due to it being received on XX/XX/XXXX as mentioned in SPS response dated XX/XX/XXXX which reads : As indicated in the enclosed Short Sale Decision Notice sent to you on XX/XX/XXXX, SPS did not receive the required documents within the timeline specified. As such, SPS considered the offer withdrawn. Mr. XXXX XXXX stated it was due to relocation fees not reading {$10000.00} per their guidelines. Mr. XXXX XXXX stated this was the reason the short sale was closed. SPS did not attempt to call us during this process. Confirmed by Mr. XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This is something SPS continues to avoid and should accept as a servicing error in communication. Because the HUD1 was repeatedly submitted as requested and again caused confusion hence the 41-minute delay. This is a trick to get us at a moment when they could simply use the deadline verses accepting that they were repeatedly asking for the same document yet not disclosing the required details " relocation fees '' and being vague in order to trick us and later use the deadline against us. Even if we would have submitted it 42 minutes earlier it would have been the same document we had previously submitted many times prior because we were not made aware of the specific relocation fees. Then what would SPS have done next, continue to request the same information over again, not call us and not give us the required details when we call to get further clarification and just wait at a moment when we submit anything 41 minutes past the date given because they know they are not being clear on what they need on purpose? This is a complete travesty on their part. We request a rescission of the sale date XX/XX/XXXX and allow us to complete the short sale.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 91352
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-30
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Just recently through the complaint process with the CFPB, XXXX XXXX XXXX again pass off the responsibility of answer a question directly related to them as an alleged Trustee of my mortgage and owner of the NOTE. SPS the alleged servicer says that XXXX XXXX XXXX is the Account Holder of my mortgage. I disagree. I wanted XXXX XXXX to tell me that the mortgage was not paid off with Federal Relief Funds, or included in a law suit settlement.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-02-19
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-29
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: We took out a Texas Home Equity Adjustable Rate Loan in XX/XX/XXXXfor {$560000.00} ( which was 60 % of the total worth of our home which we bought in 1989 for {$160000.00} ) with XXXX XXXX XXXX at a high interest rate ( 10.25 % ) to make payments on what we owed IRS, to pay our large property taxes owed, and to spend the rest on small home improvements. Very quickly we found our regular monthly payments were being applied to late fees before interest and principal first as is required on page 4 of the Texas Home Equity Instrument. When I asked for a payoff number from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( which had bought XXXX XXXX XXXX ) since we had arrangements to get loans then at fixed rates from other lenders for less than 7 %, XXXX refused to give us the payoff amount. By XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX was not crediting our payments until they were late then paying late fees before principal and interest repeatedly. IRS agent XXXX XXXX suggested that we file ChXXXX in XX/XX/XXXXso we could dismiss our old IRS debt per her supervisor. Once we were in Ch. XXXX, XXXX attorney XXXX XXXX claimed we were behind in our mortgage payments ( we were not ) and asked the Ch XXXX Judge to dismiss our Ch XXXX protection. Instead of bundling what we owed to XXXX XXXX and spreading the payments over 60 months as is typical in ChXXXX protection, XXXX XXXX asked for the monthly payments be caught up in the next 3 months split in 6 payments by cashier check mailed to a Florida XXXX XXXX . I was refused by local XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX to make cash payments instead and my payments that were mailed on time failed to credited to accepted on time. When we failed to be on time 3 times, the Ch XXXX Judge agreed to dismiss our Ch XXXX and XXXX XXXX returned all late payments to us in XX/XX/XXXX because we were going to be foreclosed on shortly.Our IRS debt remained intact as well. Our credit was now ruined. We were not foreclosed on until XX/XX/XXXX and that's when we sought Ch. XXXX to protect our home. Again Trustee payments to XXXX XXXX were not made to principal and interest. In XX/XX/XXXX, I notified Attorney XXXX XXXX by certified mail ( which he/she signed for ), as a representative of XXXX XXXX, that all payments are required to be paid on principal and interest before late fees. As per page 6 of the Texas Home Equity Instrument, if the payments are correctly applied in a reasonable amount of time ( later defined as 60 days ) to principal and interest first and late fees last, the result is to void the agreement between the Lender and the Borrower and the loan becomes void. This is the part of the of my Texas Home Equity Loan that the CFPB has never understood and should have voided my loan many years ago. CFPB did provide the accounting records for the years when other banks were in control of my loan, for example, XXXX XXXX with help from Senator XXXX XXXX XXXX Constituent Services Office. I wanted my loan voided as per the Texas Home Equity Instrument. As it is, I was evicted from my home on XX/XX/XXXX but I am the only one with the continuous accounting record that of this loan. I have run out of the funds to hire the legal power to fight XXXX XXXX who now owns my loan as a part of a mortgage security which the DOJ in XX/XX/XXXX has already found guilty of committing mortgage fraud. I hope the US government can help me yet. Originally, I asked for help with the OCC because XXXX XXXX said we would receive {$8500.00} if we moved out by XX/XX/XXXX and if we never sued XXXX XXXX again. It was the latter statement that made us refuse to sign that statement because we refused to give up the right to sue XXXX XXXX after so many years of having clear title to our home since XX/XX/XXXX, even if the Ch XXXX Judge claimed otherwise. The Texas Home Equity Instrument passed as a constitutional amendment in Texas in 1998 by a statewide vote and that Ch XXXX judge could not overrule its protection reacting to the XXXX /XXXX XXXX attorney 's request for a summary judgement without more study and hearing all of our attorney 's arguments.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-02-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-28
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I purchased this house in XX/XX/XXXX. After this purchase my mortgage was sold a couple times. I fell behind in XX/XX/XXXX right after having a baby. XXXX to be exact. I received threatening calls and threats of foreclosure. I was told the only way to keep my home was to do a mortgage modification. And additionally pay extra each month to catch the XXXX I was behind. I did that. I paid the money back monthly. I also did the modification which proved to be a huge mistake. I only did it because I was made to feel like I had no other options. This agreement has me paying more in interest then the actual loan amount at payoff. I have reached out to Select Portfolio Servicing for years to fix this. How can you owe over what the loan amount is for payoff in interest. They refused to give me a amortization. My principal balance is XXXX The interest owed is XXXX This is a home I have lived in for 14 years with the purchase price of XXXX This company is predatory. This company takes advantage of families struggling. I was harassed until I agreed to a mortgage modification that I was not given the accurate details on. I am reaching out for assistance on this issue. Select portfolio has offered several more loan modifications that I have refused. I would like to see a investigation into how this company uses threats and tactics to trap homeowners under a sickening amount of interest and penaltys. I do have documentation to back up everything I have written.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OH
Zip: 454XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-02-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-27
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Since it acquired my mortgage for servicing, Select Portfolio Servicing has continuously and consistently provided mis-information to the point where I am unwilling to speak with them but feel it is a necessity in order for me to work on correcting my delinquent mortgage amount and putting payments back on track I lost my job after an illness and when I applied to the mortgage company, XXXX, I was given no option except short sale and then the mortgage was transferred by XXXX to Select Portfolio Servicing. I've attached the latest letter to them trying to get the appropriate assistance in place for my hardship. I previously filed a CFPB Complaint # XXXX which this should replace as there is more detail and a better flavor of the frustration and unprofessional behavior that is being dished out by SPS.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 190XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-27
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2019 our home was damaged due to an electrical fire. My family has not occupied our home. The funds of $ XXXX has been deposited with the Select Portfolio Service for disbursement to my contract. A payment 1 of 3 was to be mailed today in the amount of $ XXXX. SPS has informed me via the web-portal ... XXXX that only the amount of less than $ 27K has been released. However, this comes after weeks of being told that the check is in transit. Now, my contractor is ready to walk-off the job and sue me for breech of contract as he can't start the re-build process without the funds. In addtion, due to this delay, my insurance housing allowance is being exhausted and my family is now facing the issue of not having enough funds to cover our housing due to this one-month delay. I'm requesting immediate assistance to resolve this issue.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 93536
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-26
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been attempting to modify my home loan for 1 year and I have been unsuccessful. I need assistance with the options I have to assist me so that I won't lose my home.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30094
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-26
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My Mortgage Company XXXX XXXX XXXX placed my mortgage for servicing by Select Portfolio Services in XX/XX/2019 after I contacted XXXX for mortgage assistance and way told the only thing I could do was a " short sale ''. This was not an acceptable workout as I became delinquent during an illness which resulted in XXXX XXXX XXXX with quite a bit of back and forth to receive the XXXX payments from my employer. XX/XX/XXXX SPS took over servicing the mortgage. I set up a profile and submitted a mortgage assistance request as I took on 2 part time jobs, at a lower rate of pay, with shift hours totaling enough to make my unemployment compensation award go dormant. One of the part time jobs stopped giving me hours not too long after hiring me. I spoke with SPS representatives several times ( I have a list of calls and contact names ). Each person told me something different and when I finally did receive a workout plan it was {$400.00} higher than a regular payment would be. I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX who, I authorized to intervene on my behalf, SPS would not speak with the counselor even though I'd submitted a signed authorization. I then received a " default letter '', An ACT 91 letter and a letter stating that I refused the workout plan since I missed the deadline to accept it because I could not get anyone at SPS to speak with me. On inquiring why I was not getting any call backs from my " account manager '' at SPS I was told they were returning my calls to a phone number that was disconnected over 15 years ago, even though I did a current profile on the SPS website when I first received notice that the mortgage was being transferred to SPS. Now, I have asked again for mortgage assistance to clear my outstanding payments to current and the workout I received recently is {$500.00} more than the workout with the {$400.00} more over the original payment amounts. I am in the process of appealing a denial from Pennsylvania Housing. The frustration and stress is mounting as I continue to find adequate employment to correct my arrearages. I was told by my credit counselor not to make any partial payments until I could get a clear handle on where this stood and how it could be rectified with the help of SPS. As I mentioned, I have a log of various phone calls and responses to my inquiries as well as any other documentation that will show the chaos this situation has taken on.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 190XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2020-01-25
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am fully disputing theValidity of this debt My loan has been Securitized and placed in Loan trust. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is serving as trustee for a XXXX XXXX.asset-backed certificate XXXX XXXX in section XXXX of this trust it clearly defined that all mortgages have to be transferred prior to the cut off date of this trust they are using a fraudulent assignment to foreclose on my property. I received a three month trial to get modification for XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/2020 I am concerned about the the back payment being applied to the end of my loan. I have asked for the gap accounting in a qualified written request which has not been responded to. This Loan trust has taken it losses and I am asking for a principal reduction with a complete restructured mortgage and all foreclosures to be canceled until all of my concerns ands dispute Ive been addressed.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30060
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A