Date Received: 2019-03-14
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: LOAN # XXXX BORROWER : XXXX XXXX PROPERTY ADDRESS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA # XXXX XXXX ** We are trying to negotiate a short sale on the above referenced property I was advised the investor is countering the offer that is currently price at $ XXXXto increase to {$160000.00}. I am disputing this and feel the dispute is warranted because the XXXX that SPS currently has on file values the property at {$140000.00}. Which is in line with our current offer is and should be approved since the offer on the short sale is fair market value. The investors expecting to receive above fair market value according to their counter is unethical and no up to distressed homeowner protection laws.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: WA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-13
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: The following is in response to Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) response ( XXXX ) dated dated XX/XX/ and XXXX XXXX response ( XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please allow me to outline my continued unresolved issues/concerns and provide additional indisputable documentation of SPS 's and XXXX fraudulent activity and misrepresentation. First, both SPS and XXXX assert the property address associated with the alleged note and mortgage as XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. My deceased father 's last address was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. However, in the past this property was assigned the following addresses over the fifty years he lived there. They include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX NY XXXX, and lastly, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX. XXXX, NY is a village in the town of XXXX, NY XXXX. Secondly, Tax Map # XXXX also associated with the alleged mortgage does NOT represent a single property. It consist of multiple parcels ( 3 ), including Deeds XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ). The only affected Deed, as described in the alleged mortgages, is XXXX ( XXXX ) consisting of approx. .25 acres. My deceased father 's residence is not located on this parcel. His residence is located on associated Deed XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This is all verified by the attached document which includes a very detailed title search report conducted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. The documentation is indisputable and proves the fraudulent and misrepresentation SPS and Beneficial continue to perpetrate. SPS ( AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), Beneficial, or any other associated entity has never had, or have, a security interest in my deceased father 's personal residence, which is located on a parcel totally unassociated with the alleged mortgage. See attached documentation for verified proof. Not only has Beneficial misrepresented the facts when they sold the alleged note and mortgage to XXXX, SPS continues to threaten legal action against my father 's estate ( foreclosure, forced placed insurance, etc. ) Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and SPS defrauded investors. They have securitized this alleged note and mortgage, without the required due diligence, and continue to misrepresent the facts to investors, by claiming they have a security interest in a property in which they absolutely do not. This misrepresentation is both unconscionable and despicable. Their actions need to be addressed with appropriate consequences.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-13
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: The following is in response to Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) response ( XXXX ) dated dated XX/XX/XXXX andXX/XX/XXXX response ( XX/XX/XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please allow me to outline my continued unresolved issues/concerns and provide additional indisputable documentation of SPS 's and XX/XX/XXXX fraudulent activity and misrepresentation. First, both SPS and XXXX assert the property address associated with the alleged note and mortgage as XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. My deceased father 's last address was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. However, in the past this property was assigned the following addresses over the fifty years he lived there. They include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX, and lastly, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. XXXX, NY is a village in the town of XXXX, NY XXXX. Secondly, Tax Map # XXXX also associated with the alleged mortgage does NOT represent a single property. It consist of multiple parcels ( 3 ), including Deeds XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). The only affected Deed, as described in the alleged mortgages, is XXXX ( XXXX ) consisting of approx. XXXX acres. My deceased father 's residence is not located on this parcel. His residence is located on associated Deed XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This is all verified by the attached document which includes a very detailed title search report conducted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. The documentation is indisputable and proves the fraudulent and misrepresentation SPS and XXXX continue to perpetrate. SPS ( AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX, or any other associated entity has never had, or have, a security interest in my deceased father 's personal residence, which is located on a parcel totally unassociated with the alleged mortgage. See attached documentation for verified proof. Not only has XXXX misrepresented the facts when they sold the alleged note and mortgage to XXXX, SPS continues to threaten legal action against my father 's estate ( foreclosure, forced placed insurance, etc. ) Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and SPS defrauded investors. They have securitized this alleged note and mortgage, without the required due diligence, and continue to misrepresent the facts to investors, by claiming they have a security interest in a property in which they absolutely do not. This misrepresentation is both unconscionable and despicable. Their actions need to be addressed with appropriate consequences.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-13
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPS 2nd : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Before we begin it is important to note that SPS services both the 1st and 2nd loans on this property, and that they belong to different investors, with differing guidelines, that are in conflict with one another. This creates many problems when it comes to short sales, or any other type of negotiation, as they can not best protect either investor in a situation where the demands from each investor require the other to lower their net proceeds. SPS does not allow a prospective buyer to bring in additional monies to satisfy a demand from a junior lien holder, and in the State of California, a seller is never allowed to contribute any monies to satisfy demands. So that means the offer on the table is the only amount of money we have to work with to satisfy all liens on a property. The time line below shows the level of gross incompetence and possible purposeful negligence of the underwriting department in the review for loss mitigation on BOTH loans for this property. I have highlighted with *** the particularly problematic issues and communications. They have 2 sets of rules that are in direct conflict with one another. They should have known that there was no way for them to work out this loss mitigation file. XX/XX/XXXX Submitted to SPS offer was {$430000.00} XX/XX/XXXX Got value back of XXXX. We were asked to increase the net but not told what they required. XX/XX/XXXX Called the SPS Ombudsman to see if they could find out what the minimum required net is, and they were unable to tell me. XX/XX/XXXX - We sent market comps and an inspection report to support our offer of XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Rep at ombudsmans office said we were about 6k off minimum net required. We revised the HUD to reflect an increase to the net proceeds to the 1st trust deed by XXXX and sent that back to SPS XX/XX/XXXX Per Ombudsman, no response to our higher net. XX/XX/XXXX Called ombudsman, no response. Ombudsman sent message to underwriting to please get response XXXX Per the Ombudsman, underwriting somehow managed to close the review on XXXX yet the ombudsman never got notice of that, and wasn't apparent in the database. Instead, underwriting approved the XXXX 's for a repayment plan. The ombudsman can do NOTHING until one of the XXXX 's call in to decline that repayment on a recorded line. they can call the ombudsman to do so, to make sure it gets done right. we need to send all short and offer docs again to both XXXX and XXXX along with a letter requesting rush review due to us thinking we were in review for an entire month and no one ever told us we weren't. XX/XX/XXXX Resubmitted entire file and the homeowner called the ombudsman to decline payment plan that was never requested. XX/XX/XXXX Per XXXX in the Ombudsman department, the underwriter on the 1st denied the offer again wanting a further increased net. Yet again, they refused to provide us what net they wanted, making this a very frustrating guessing game for the buyers and the sellers. XX/XX/XXXX We increased the net again, and resubmitted the new offer. XX/XX/XXXX Underwriting for the 2nd demanded a corrected RMA and we sent that back on the same day XX/XX/XXXX Ombudsman told us that both loans were active in short sale review. XX/XX/XXXX We were told it looked like the 1st and 2nd were negotiating between each other and to expect decision by XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Finally got word that the investor for the 1st Trust Deed approved the short sale and that now the file can go to the investor to the 2nd for approval. As is normal for ALL short sales we do with SPS, the net to the 2nd was {$8500.00}. It is important to note here, that SPS never allows more than XXXX to go to a junior lien on any short sale, except in some GSE situations where the guidelines state the maximum is XXXX. We were told by SPS that they had internally approved the 2nd and just needed investor signoff. XXXX We were now told that the 2nd is requiring no less than 25,000 to approve the short sale, on a loan of XXXX. This is where the conflict of interest comes into play when the same company is servicing the 1st and 2nd for different investors. In NO short sale would SPS ever allow 30 % of the UPB to go to a 2nd when the 1st is still short. We were asked to revise the HUD showing XXXX to the 2nd. At that point I informed the Ombudsman that I believe we would then have a problem with the 1st, as we had already been fighting over meeting their net proceeds and per their investors policy of not allowing any 3rd party including the buyer or agents to contribute to satisfy junior liens, and the State of Californias law that sellers may not contribute in a short sale, this would then result in a substantial decrease to the net on the 1st. Ombudsman still asked us to send the HUD showing increased net to the 2nd, and decreased net to the 1st. We sent it same day. XXXX Ombudsman confirmed receipt of new HUD and attached it to both accounts. XXXX Ombudsman escalated issue again for resolution on the issues with both the 1st and 2nd nets. **** At this point I started calling twice a day for updates**** XX/XX/XXXX Still nothing back explained to ombudsman that based on the 1st TD approval letter and the verbal that the 2nd had been internally approved, that the buyer started working on their loan. Now their rate lock is expiring and asked them to please escalate again. Was told that they would attempt to escalate this to the highest level of management to get it going. Was also reassured that the issues for the 1st and the 2nd were escalated and tied together. XXXX Was told investor for 2nd has approved the file, but it needed to go through QC and there was nothing they could do regarding the net issues for the 1st until the letter for the 2nd had been issued even though we had been told repeatedly that they were escalated TOGETHER. XX/XX/XXXX Was told that the ombudsman had this escalated to the highest level and they send a message to find out what was taking so long. XX/XX/XXXX. Was told by ombudsman department that it had notes in the system for the 2nd from the 8th that it was being worked on by XXXX. XXXX Was told by ombudsman that this had only been sent to QC on the XXXX. We asked how that could possibly be the case and referenced our previous notes, we were then told it had failed QC on the XXXX but there were no notes as to why and that it was sent back to QC on the XXXX and escalated again. XXXX. Was told that the 2nd TD NEVER SENT THE FILE TO THE INVESTOR. They had NO EXPLANATION about all the times I was told it was approved and the approval letter was in the QC department. At this point it is obvious that we have been lied to throughout the entire process with SPSs 2nd TD department. ************Keep in mind we started this short sale with SPS on XX/XX/XXXX, so we have been LIED TO FOR OVER FOUR MONTHS. They have harmed not only their own investor ( s ) and their borrower, but also the buyer as they are preventing them from finding another property in this difficult market. I want SPS fined to the maximum amount allowed by law, I want the conflict of interest investigated and I want the short sale approved AS IT STANDS for both the 1st and the 2nd liens and I want SPS to be required to make up the difference for their investors. **See attached 1st TD Approval Letter. CC : US Ho use Committee on Financial Services Chairwoman XXXX XXXX. Attorney General XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-12
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Investigation took more than 30 days
Consumer Complaint: SPS took over my mortgage as of XX/XX/XXXX. I received my first statement in XX/XX/XXXX. I noticed it had a caption regarding bankruptcy. I called and they stated it was because I had a bankruptcy associated with my social security number. But that I am in good standings with them. I started a re-finance thru another company and when it came time to view my payment history, they stated there was none on my credit bureau since XXXX XXXX was paid in full. I called SPS back XX/XX/XXXX and they stated that my home was discharged in bankruptcy and by law they could not report to credit bureau. I told them no, my bankruptcy was discharged in XXXX and I assumed the mortgage in XXXX. I was advised to upload the documents and I was not allowed to speak to the bankruptcy department until I did. XX/XX/XXXX I uploaded all requested documents to their website. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX XXXX @ SPS he stated no changes. XX/XX/XXXX spoke with XXXX and requested a supervisor. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with supervisor XXXX XXXX and she stated she would escalate the review, it would be taken care of 14 business days versus the 30 days. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX XXXX she stated no way to expedite. XX/XX/XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX and again got no where so I asked for a supervisor again. I was transferred to XXXX XXXX he stated should have an answer by Friday XX/XX/XXXX. Called XX/XX/XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX with no updates. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with customer service rep and requested a supervisor, they stated all of them were busy and they would call me by end of business day. XX/XX/XXXX No call from supervisor, called and XXXX XXXX answered ; I again requested a supervisor. I was transferred to XXXX XXXX She stated their bankruptcy department agreed with my documentation and that advocacy department now has the file for the credit updates. It is now XX/XX/XXXX after the 30 day review with nothing updated or corrected.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IN
Zip: 468XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-08
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was paid
Consumer Complaint: I continue to dispute the debt and the payments I am making to the extortionists There was no balloon payment to XXXX XXXX loan paid off in XXXX. The balance was paid off by the XXXX loan paid off in XXXX. The XXXX card was a fraudulent lien on a mortgage I assumed in XXXX I did not refinance. No one gave me any money. I did not borrow any money I paid {$75000.00} to the escrow account for less This is the {$27000.00} XXXX card. 1. It is unsecured 2. Discharged in bankruptcy 3. It was prepaid 4. I used {$19000.00} with Interest 5. I paid back {$16000.00}. 6. I did not owe {$3000.00} interest. I owe them {$0.00}. They owe me {$27000.00} + XXXX they were just paid. They did not pay my taxes and insurance I already paid in my house
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MO
Zip: 64081
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-08
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I overpaid my 2nd mtg by {$1200.00}. I by my mistake sent in a check in the amount of {$1600.00}, but it should have been in the amount of {$370.00}. When I found out my mistake while reconciling my bank statement, I immediately called Select Portfolio Servicing and let them know my mistake and asked them to send me the difference I overpaid via a check by mail. This call was made back on XX/XX/XXXX. Since then I have made numerous follow up calls regarding my check, each time I have been given the run around about receiving my check. I have been told it was mailed out regular mail on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told by supervisor XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX that the check was overnighted via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX but could not give me a tracking # because cashier dept was closed at the time and he would call me back the following day ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with that info. XXXX called me back the next day ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and said there was no tracking # to be found so he requested that they send out another check via overnight, but again he said that he would have to contact cashier dept again to get the tracking # and he would call me back, but he never did. I have sent them a copy of my bank acct statement that the funds where withdrawn from my acct as proof that they requested and to this day I have received nothing but stories.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92131
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-06
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: After a period of rapidly demising remuneration due to technological obsolesence I lost my last job in XXXX XXXX just over two years ago. At aged XXXX it is not easy finding another one. Nevertheless in the last quarter of XX/XX/2018 both my wife and became employed. That income along with a pension, social security and additional fees for professional services rendered should by all expert accounts justify a mortgage modification. The servicer - Select Portfolio Servicing Inc is proceeding with a forced sale despite the fact that they are still considering a restructuring as they repeatedly ask me for data that I have already submitted. I do comply promptly with their requests. It is very challenging to establish enhanced lines of communication with them given no real relationship manager and written correspondence that completely contradicts that which I have been told on the phone. I think it perfectly reasonable for both parties to delay the enforced liquidation until a more thorough examination is made of the additional financial resources being introduced in an attempt to work collaboratively with the servicer.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 108XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-06
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Utah XXXX ATTENTION : Notice of Error RE : HOME Equity Loan, XXXX XXXX, with the following loan numbers : l. XXXX XXXX # XXXX assigned by XXXX XXXX 2. XXXX XXXX number assigned by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX is Loan # XXXX 3. XXXX new loan number assigned XX/XX/XXXX is XXXX I am requesting a copy of servicing file for all lenders that have had any interest in this loan. Additionally, I am requesting an audit of all the payments, trial loan modification payments and the payments independently paid for escrow account as a part of any trial modifications to bring the escrow account to a level balance, any credits, fees charged, interest of the accounting of all three loan numbers to validate the represented balance on the account plus any additional amounts claimed against this HOME EQUITY LOAN. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX servicing, and XXXX plus XXXX XXXX have repeatedly sent partial accounting records on this HOME EQUITY LOAN that only go back to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and have stated they have no further records. Although XXXX XXXX XXXX recorded a questionable transfer and assignment of this loan in XX/XX/XXXX and then filed for foreclosure and received a court order of such in XX/XX/XXXX, they have consistently responded to repeated requests for records by saying they have none from both the time they are claiming ownership of the loan from XX/XX/XXXX up to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX reassigned the loan and also they have none of the original XXXXt XXXX records from XX/XX/XXXX up to XX/XX/XXXX including a XXXX trial modification finalized with payments and also a {$2500.00} payment for escrow shortage. Even more conflicting is the fact that AFTER the XX/XX/XXXX alleged transfer of the loan to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and also the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure action, XXXX XXXX signed XXXX trial modifications in XXXX and then in XXXX and accepted trial modification payments but apparently did not credit those payments anywhere that I can find. They also paid all taxes and insurance on the HOME Equity Loan during all years before the accounting begins with XXXX in XXXX and where it shows that XXXX back charges for taxes and insurance along with many fees and interest. Please see the attached index of events which will show the dates. I have not been able to get the records from either XXXX or XXXX and have spent years searching and rebuilding events as best as I could. I do have a 2 think indexed and tabbed binder of all the documents that have taken a long time to trace back and put into order. I am happy to provide a copy if you require them but in all honestly I would guess that a bank should have that and all previous records to validate the balance and ensure all is in order. In addition, I am requesting validation of the accuracy of legal signatures and representation of the following documents : l. XXXXXXXX Transfer and assignment document recorded in XXXX and XXXX XXXX which is signed by XXXX XXXX and prepared by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have been disposed in several fraudulent signature convictions for signing assignments as representatives of XXXX XXXX XXXX when they were not in fact authorized to sign the documents. ( They signed up to XXXX a day illegally ). Please see the index attached for 5 cited actions against this person and corporation. 2. XXXX XXXX Affidavit for foreclosure filed on behalf of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX by XXXX XXXX, who certifies his knowledge of the loan documents and accounting and warrants them and the assignment as legally correct. Mr. XXXX is also cited for falsely signing documents and is also listed in the index document provided for your review of the history and documents of the HOME EQUITY LOAN. 3. XXXX Transfer and assignment recorded in XXXX XXXX ( have not found it in XXXX XXXX yet ) that was prepared by Core Logic and signed by XXXX XXXX, who is also cited for falsely signing documents. In addition, the notary is cited as signing under various signatures and as falsely signing documents. Since there seems to be disparity between the ownership and accounting records and conflicting dates of service and accounting I request clear and accurate chain of title that has been reviewed as to accuracy legally and also an audit and accounting of the loan from the beginning of the loan thru todays date. If errors are confirmed then interest and fees will also require correction. Thank You XXXX XXXX MAILING ADDRESS : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Texas XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Texas Attorney General OCC DOJ XXXX DC, XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-03-06
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a loan modification contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the interest rate would increased on XX/XX/XXXX. We received notices from the current loan servicer Select Portfolio Servicing as to the rate increase and that we should take the opportunity to apply for a loan modification. Select Porfolio did not process the loan modification in good faith, thus engaging in Floridas deceptive business practices. The payments increased to {$1600.00}, when i ask why such an increase, was told by a representative that was due to not having a previous escrow account. This statement is false i have attached a copy of the mortgage statement for your records that proves that the account always has maintain an escrows, in fact since the loan originated. In addition According the mortgage statement for XX/XX/XXXX reflects a monthly due of {$800.00}. Then suddenly the mortgage statement for XX/XX/XXXX reflect that we are behind {$7100.00}. Clearly this a fraud. If on XXXX the amount owed was {$800.00} because was making timely payments i can not possibly owe {$7000.00} the following month. Select Portfolio has inflated the amount owed. Moreover, the loan modification proposal reflects a ballon at the end of the loan in the amount of {$53000.00}, which we are not in arrears such amount. It is obvious that Select portfolio has engaged in deceptive business practices and we ask that you investigate. Select portfolio have increase the loan balance without any justification and this is fraud. At this juncture we will not be sending any future payments until the account is given credit for the fraudulent loan balance increased. On XX/XX/XXXX, we send two Qualified Written Request to select Portfolio Servicing under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ). The company failed to acknowledge our request within 5 business days and also failed to respond within 20 days of receipt. We are asking select portfolio to respond to this complaint and the qualified written request under RESPA. Select Portfolio must comply with the request under RESPA, its a Federal Law. I am also requesting transaction history in detail from Select Portfolio since the first day servicing the account.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33157
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-03-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A