Date Received: 2019-12-29
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This is the email I sent to my mortgage servicing company. It includes all the information regarding the problems I have been having ever since they took over my loan. I am contacting you regarding several issues that have occurred since XX/XX/XXXX, which is when your company took over the servicing of my Mortgage. I have been calling your customer service department almost weekly since that time. I came to you struggling to pay my payments on time. Always working very hard to get caught up and stay caught up. I did get caught up, but because of the constant mistakes and changes from your company Im slightly behind again. As I said I have talked to probably 30 or more of your customer service reps to address every issue, with no resolution. After my loan was transferred to you in XXXX I quickly was notified by XXXX County that my XXXX Property taxes had not been paid. Which is, and always has been the responsibility of my mortgage company. You were notified on several occasions. With no results. Then in the mean time you decided that my Escrow account had to much money in it and sent me a very large refund. I knew that money was for the Property taxes and called to try to straighten this mess out. I was assured by your customer service rep. that the money was mine to do with as I please. After several weeks of worry about the delinquent property taxes, I took that money and paid a mortgage payment for {$1600.00} and the property taxes in the amount of {$4000.00}, which included {$340.00} in late fees/interest. This was XX/XX/XXXX. I called again to inform you that I had paid the property taxes, which included the interest of {$340.00} and that I expected to be reimbursed for that amount. Next I received a letter from you telling me that they had paid the property taxes and that the amount of {$3600.00} had been added to my account balance and there would also be interest added. And there has also been letters about my insufficient Flood insurance, at which time my insurance agent has been contacting you to verify that I do indeed have enough Flood insurance. This has happened I think 3 times. Not to mention my monthly payment has gone down, and then up because of your mistakes. Because of your mistake regarding my escrow account I am making up the shortage, which has brought my monthly payment up for 12 months which is going to be a hardship. I intend to pay the remaining amount of the shortage as soon as possible so my payment can go back down to a more doable amount. I have been assured by a customer serv. rep. that I can do this. I now have some questions. One is why is there no way to talk to management. Someone that can get to the bottom of these problems. And why will no one call you back except to tell you that you are delinquent. Two, when will I get the refund for the late fees/interest that I paid along with the delinquent property taxes which you were clearly responsible for. Three, did you indeed add {$3600.00} on to the balance of my loan, and if you did, please remove it and any interest you probably added as well from my account balance as you have received your refund from XXXX County Arizona. I am a hard working average person. All I want to do is pay my debts as agreed. And yes life is a struggle at times. I have gone along responding to everything that you have sent my way, and I have to say I can see something getting overlooked, but all this that I have outlined just seems to much. I will be sending this to your department in writing as well as sending a copy to the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions and any other institution that I can find that will help me with these issues. Please let me know what you intend to do about all this. Please answer my questions. And yes I am aware that I am late for my XXXX payment. Ill get caught back up as soon as I can.
Company Response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
State: AZ
Zip: 857XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-27
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My home is set for foreclosure on XX/XX/2020. The foreclosing Servicer is Select Portfolio Servicing. I had sent them a Qualified Written Request disputing some information concerning the loan as well as the foreclosure process as well as some further information on the payoff amount I requested. It seems that some previous forbearance and modification payments had been put in holding accounts and not processed towards the the Principle and interest ion the loan. In a response letter to me they requested that i deal only with the foreclosing Lawyer, XXXX XXXX XXXX. When I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX he informed me that they have nothing to do with the requests made and that they have no ability to address them. They only deal strictly with the foreclosure process. They informed me that only Select Portfolio would have to address these issues and they have not. So now I am stuck between a Servicer who won't answer my questions and refers me to the lawyer, and a lawyer who says it's not his job to answer questions about the loan, leaving without anybody to get answers from. My requests to Select Portfolio were for mediation to be held on this loan so that we may be able to meet face to face and possibly come up with a solution the issue. Are quest for proof that the foreclosure sale was posted in a timely manor to the XXXX county ga. legal sections. As well as a dispute as to why a modification was denied. Attached is the letter i got in response to my requests referring me directly to the foreclosing lawyer instead of answering my direct requests. I request that the XX/XX/2020 foreclosure date be postponed until this is settled.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30040
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-27
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My mortgage is currently being serviced by SPS. SPS has hired XXXX XXXX XXXX to proceed with foreclosure action on my home. SPS has set a foreclosure sale date for XX/XX/XXXX. SPS has refused to offer any loan modification assistance, which is a violation of CFPB law. SPS has also refused to offer FHA face to face meeting to mediate, which violates Qui Tam and obstructs the Federal Government. SPS has refused to offer assistance to mediate per IN 32-30-10.5, which is a violation of IN state law. SPS also never served me with the foreclosure notice, thus violation IN civil lawsuit procedure. Overall, I feel like SPS is trying to steamroll me through the foreclosure process. I want to save my home and I am seeking your assistance on this matter.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IN
Zip: 46385
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-26
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I fell behind in my payment because of loss of income. I'm currently 5 months behind. I been making consistently payments for the last 5 months including XX/XX/XXXX payment now that I'm back to work. I tried working with Select Portfolio Service Company to offer me a catch a plan that is affordable not something that is out of reach. I was offered a catch up plan in XX/XX/XXXX but it was completely out of reach they added a XXXX on top of my monthly payment loan knowing I will fail to make a payment. I contacted Select Portfolio Service to see if I can get a lower catch up plan, but was always told nothing was available. XX/XX/XXXX received a letter from Select Portfolio Servicing saying my account has been referred for Legal Action. I also received a letter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX My loan in very complex because it was part of the failure of XXXX XXXX XXXX and now XXXX XXXX XXXX trustee scandal back in XXXX. I have a silent second for the $ XXXX that was tacked on to my loan. I was also told recently they offered me a catch p plan of XXXX dollars a month more back in XXXX but it was verbally nothing in writing. Can you please Contact Select Portfolio Services on behalf ask why I do not have a catch up plan that is reasonable. Loan # XXXX XXXX Their address is Select Portfolio Servicing XXXX Inc XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Utah XXXX by fax XXXX XXXX email XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92504
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-24
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: CFPB Complaint XXXX See above case number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I tried to do a loan modification with SPS. SPS is stating to me that because I had other reviews in the past the investor says I am not eligible. I next submitted a short sale and SPS is stating because of how far behind I am on my mortgage that a short sale is not an option per the investor. The investor is XXXX XXXX. I spoke to XXXX XXXX and they stated I am eligible for a short sale because I never did one before. SPS should open my short sale review. I am eligible and they refuse to confirm this with XXXX XXXX. They should also open the review because these short sale documents were submitted 37+ days prior to my scheduled foreclosure sale date. SPS said they would review and now we have moved the file to a short sale and they are stating they need 45 days and the sale date was 42 days away when the file was submitted. They are changing the guidelines as they go in order to not open my file.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 07621
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-23
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Wed like to address the insufficient information we receive back through the CFPB each time we file a complaint. We are still in the same place when we filed our second complaint for short sale review in which you asked for THREE comps to be sent for a value dispute. The first complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX COMPLAINT ID XXXX, we addressed issues in valuation. As you outlined in your most recent response ( CFPB XXXX ), you received an offer from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for {>= $1,000,000} XX/XX/XXXX. When we called to check in on the status of this file, all we were told was that the value was too low and we could do a value dispute. You also sent a letter to us on XXXX stating we had 30 days to appeal the decision. After speaking with the buyers, and their agent, we realized, there were issues with the property that we compiled and sent to SPS on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, which was well within the 30 days. In the XX/XX/XXXX information there were MULTIPLE comps sent. In addition to all of this title is flawed and the buyers also must pay for a Department of Justice lien. In neither of the responses back from SPS filed through the consumer finance protection bureau has SPS addressed 1 ) the significant amount of delays with the fie 2 ) the fact they should be at this time reviewing value information to move the file forward. They seem to be reviewing OLD submitted files and addressing those in your responses. We are not working on those old files. In the last COMPLAINT ID XXXX still did not address issues we had raised. The first complaint we filed addressed issues with valuation. In SPSs response they spoke about prior offers in XXXX, and other items that didnt address our value complaints at all. We then filed another complaint to outline again our concerns with this file. In your opening paragraph to our complaint you STILL are talking about a offer from XXXX?? This has nothing to do with the current offer on hand that was sent and acknowledged received by your latest letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ). If you require additional information regarding the submission for XXXX XXXX XXXX, we have YET to receive that request. In your response you say you a have reviewed market analysis information dated XX/XX/XXXX and no change in value was warranted, however any value information we submitted for the offer of XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, was all done after XX/XX/XXXX. That information was not addressed. In addition to that when we called and spoke to the Ombudsmans office they exclaimed that information to support the XXXX offer would NOT be reviewed. We think this is poor servicing. If you send this file to auction you will not get more than {$900000.00} for it, if that. Right now, you have a strong offer from a buyer offering XXXX XXXX dollars. In addition to you disregarding the value support information that was sent in on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, when we received the first CFPB complaint back we called the Ombudsmans office, who insisted all they wanted to review the file was 3 comps. Those 3 comps were sent in on XX/XX/XXXX. Since that time we have been told that you have 30 days to review that. You have not asked for any information to review the file from the XXXX, you have not asked for any information regarding the XXXX, nor any information regarding the file. You have not ordered an interior valuation that we are aware of and even if you did and we have submitted AMPLE information for you to review and it should Not take 30 days to review 3 comps. This property has been on the market over 400 days. If we could get a higher offer than XXXX XXXX dollars, with all the issues, we would have received something higher. Our concern is that every complaint which we have filed, seems to be responded to with OLD information. Its as if you dont have a handle on the current file. We have received no calls from SPS to make sure this file is underwritten properly. SPS has asked for nothing from the XXXX or the XXXX, to complete a review of the file. You have had this offer since XX/XX/XXXX. Please start reviewing THIS file and all the correspondence AFTER that date. There seems to be a pattern of poor servicing of default short sale files, all being held up and not reviewed in an appropriate time frames. It should not take 30 days to review 3 comps submitted on XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MA
Zip: 01945
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-21
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: The mortgage company was XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX bought XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX. XXXX ceased XXXX 's operations in late XXXX due to the subprime market collapse. So now I am left with XXXX on my deed and no idea how to get a full reconveyance as the loan has been discharged. I wrote the Servicer SPS on my second mortgage. The second mortgage was also charged off in XXXX, and SPS did not notify me, and when requested proof of notification, they could not produce the proof that they notified me that the second mortgage of which was part of the purchase loan ( Combo Loan ). The accepted a short pay offer of {$2500.00} to pay off my second mortgage. Prior to all this, SPS denied me access to my account for four years, until I filed a complaint with Consumer Financial Protection Board. Since then they accepted my offer and sent me a full reconveyance. I do not know who owned the note and who the investor is ( owner ). It has been a long battle to save my home since XXXX. MERS, Robo Signers, Fraudulent Notices, companies going bankrupt like XXXX, then XXXX XXXX XXXX stepping in but won't step up and help home owners, but state that they are the trustee but don't have authority to grant the re conveyance. Then on the account statements financial records, there are discrepancies of money as place holders and large amount of cash transfers that SPS can't explain when asked. This mortgage XXXX ( that is the account number they give me now ) the MIN number for the loan is not even available or listed on MERS at all, no record. I don't know what is going on. I am requesting that SPS send me a full reconveyance of the first mortgage due to the facts. Thank you, XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2020-01-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-21
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am asking for a short pay for my first mortgage. I offered XXXX US Dollars to pay off my loan and for SPS to give me a full reconveyance due to the fact that the loan has been discharged and liquidated. SPS will not verify my mortgage. I requested a verification of mortgage, but they said my account does not qualify and is a non reported account. XXXX Also please see the settlement from XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX is Accused of misrepresenting the quality of stated income loans in run-up to crisis. My mortgage is included in this crisis. XXXX XXXX settled and will bay billions. Please do the right thing and grant me a full reconveyance. XXXX XXXX will pay more than XXXX XXXX for allegedly lying about the quality of subprime and Alt-A mortgages that backed residential mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the housing crisis, the Department of Justice announced Wednesday. According to the DOJ, XXXX XXXX allegedly knew that loans that went into the mortgage bonds in question were based on misstated income information and allowed the loans to be securitized and sold nonetheless. Investors, including federally insured financial institutions, suffered billions of dollars in losses from investing in residential mortgage-backed securities containing loans originated by XXXX XXXX, the DOJ said in a statement. According to the DOJ, beginning in XXXX, XXXX XXXX launched an initiative to double its originations in subprime and Alt-A loans. As part of that push, XXXX XXXX allegedly loosened its requirements surrounding stated income loans, which are loans where a borrower declares their income without providing documentation to prove it. The DOJ claims that XXXX XXXX was aware that a substantial portion of its stated income loans contained misstated incomes from borrowers, but says that the bank failed to disclose this information. Instead, the bank allegedly provided investors with false debt-to-income ratios in connection with the loans it sold. According to the DOJ, XXXX XXXX allegedly took steps to insulate itself from the risks of those stated income loans by not holding most of those loans in its own portfolio, and limiting its liability to third parties for the accuracy of its stated income loans. The DOJ stated that XXXX XXXX sold at least XXXX stated income loans that were included in RMBS between XXXX to XXXX, and nearly half of those loans have since defaulted, resulting in billions of dollars in losses to investors. According to the DOJ, XXXX XXXX implemented 4506-T testing, wherein the company compared a borrowers stated income to their tax documents from the Internal Revenue Service. The DOJ claimed that XXXX XXXX testing showed that more than 70 % of the loans that XXXX XXXX sampled had an unacceptable variance, i.e. greater than a 20 % discrepancy between the borrowers stated income and the income information reported to the IRS. Additional testing showed that nearly half of the stated income loans that XXXX XXXX tested had both an unacceptable variance and did not have a plausible explanation for that variance. According to the DOJ, those test results were disseminated internally at XXXX XXXX on a monthly basis, and despite one risk management employee claiming that the 4506-T results are astounding, the bank continued to expand the stated income loan program. As part of the settlement, XXXX XXXX will pay a civil penalty of XXXX XXXX under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, but the DOJ notes that the claims resolved by the settlement are merely allegations, adding that the bank did not admit liability. Abuses in the mortgage-backed securities industry led to a financial crisis that devastated millions of Americans, said Acting U.S. Attorney for the XXXX District of California, XXXX XXXX. Todays agreement holds XXXX XXXX responsible for originating and selling tens of thousands of loans that were packaged into securities and subsequently defaulted. Our office is steadfast in pursuing those who engage in wrongful conduct that hurts the public. In a statement, XXXX XXXX CEO XXXX XXXX said that the bank is pleased to resolve this legacy issue. We are pleased to put behind us these legacy issues regarding claims related to residential mortgage-backed securities activities that occurred more than a decade ago, XXXX said. XXXX XXXX remains focused on our important role as one of the nations leading providers of mortgage financing and on our commitment to expanding sustainable homeownership opportunities for our customers. The settlement is just the latest in a string of payouts for the bank. Most recently, the bank agreed to pay {$480.00} million to shareholders to settle class action suit over the banks fake account scandal. That settlement stems from actions originally taken in XXXX by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the city and county of XXXX XXXX to fine the bank {$150.00} million for more than 5,000 of the banks former employees opening as many as 2 million fake accounts in order to get sales bonuses. And in XXXX, the CFPB and the OCC announced a XXXX XXXX fine for the bank over auto insurance and mortgage abuses. Last year, XXXX XXXX revealed that it was preparing to hand out XXXX XXXX in remediation for potentially wrongfully force-placing auto insurance on as many as 570,000 customers. The bank later disclosed that it agreed to pay {$100.00} million to the federal government to settle allegations that the bank overcharged military veterans for refinances. To read this latest settlement document in full, click here. Thank you,
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-21
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-19
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I submitted my XX/XX/2019 payment on XX/XX/2019, they cashed my check on XX/XX/2019. They did not credit my account for the payment. When I called to inquire about my account after they called my house saying they did not get my payment, they said I was missing a payment in XX/XX/2019. I sent them a copy of my check I received from my back, and faxed it to the telephone number they gave me ( XXXX ), the Cashiering Department. Now they are saying they did not get the copy of my check that I faxed to them. I have a fax report that said it went thru successfully. I want them to credit my account for my payment, and correct my credit report where they said my payments were late, my payments were not late, but early. I also want the person who diverted my payment to be disciplined.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 080XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-19
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-12-18
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: A Written Appeal to the SPS ( Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc ), Trial Mod offered to Acc # XXXX was submitted and received several times by SPS on the following dates : XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019, and finally XX/XX/2019. Included in this document is the Right to Appeal, in which an error by SPS on the Comps of the XXXX XXXX Subdivision versus the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subdivision. There is a {$700.00} per month to {$800.00} per month increase difference in property value. That is a 45K-100K upgrade property difference between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Sub division and XXXX XXXX XXXX Sub division. SPS Hardships forms were submitted on XX/XX/2019. The Trial Modification Plan amount was XXXX. The currents payment was XXXX. That was a Payment increase of {$190.00} per Month on the Loan Modification amount. The Modification is intended to help American but the payment increased. Corrected Comps and a Right to Appeal in The XXXX XXXX Subdivision and Arkansas XXXX County City Property Card for Parcel XXXX Loan # XXXX were submitted again on XX/XX/2019. The Error is Comps on a higher price Subdivision like XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subdivision versus the XXXX XXXX Subdivision in which SPS took. Also enclosed is the State of Arkansas property value of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ar XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Subdivision and Comp for the Subdivision. Consider this Right to Appeal document submitted on the XX/XX/2019. Finally income change state of Arkansas Garnishment XX/XX/2019 ( See addition forms enclosed in this Right to Appeal Document ). Also, Information concerning my mortgage insurance was submitted to you, as well as the bankruptcy Court but SPS continued to charge for Escrow ( Taxes and Insurance ) {$400.00} and now {$1100.00}. You have yet to respond in writing to our documents. This information and all documents are being forwarded to CFPB, XXXX, Ark State Regulatory Board, XXXX XXXX Ark Attorney General, HUD, and the Federal Reserve, and Legal action pending the outcome.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: AR
Zip: 72211
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-12-18
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A