Date Received: 2016-07-19
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My mortgage servicer has denied me access to mortgage payment history for the period XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. During this time period the servicer changed from XXXX XXXX XXXX To Select Portfolio Servicing. Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) after receiving the loan this company moved immediately to foreclosure. This action was against the California Homeowner Bill of rights that went into effect on XX/XX/XXXX. I would like a resolution that includes the servicer 1. Allowing me the opportunity to apply for a loan modification. 2. Supply me with the complete payment history from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX when the alleged delinquency took place.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92860
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-19
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-07-15
Issue: Settlement process and costs
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Dear SPS If you would assist me with documents I would greatly appreciate I have requested multiple times by phone and email Assignment of Mortgage New title Policy as of 2014 to show SPS as Beneficiary current preliminary title report shows XXXX Provide Beneficiary information not investor Explain why SPS is not on Preliminary title Provide who should be on preliminary title Explain and provide authority documents to move forward with foreclosure from prior to NOD, 2014 to current date Provide a copy of NOD and confirm debt on NOD if debt matches servicing of mortgage amount when transferred in 2014 not including escrow advance
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-07-11
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: debt collector select portfolio servicing under the control of select portfolio servicing and XXXX.debt collector XXXX XXXX and/or her daughter XXXX. OWES XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. FTC, Subprime Mortgage Servicer Agree to Modified Settlement Agreement With Former XXXX XXXX Provides Additional Consumer Benefits For Release XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has reached an agreement with a major subprime mortgage servicer to modify certain terms of a XX/XX/XXXX court settlement, providing substantial benefits to consumers beyond those in the original settlement, including account adjustments and reimbursements or refunds of fees paid in certain circumstances. In XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agreed to pay XXXX to settle with the FTC and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ), which charged them with engaging in a number of unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices in the servicing of subprime mortgage loans. The Commission distributed the XXXX as redress to affected consumers. The settlement also imposed a number of specific limitations on XXXX 's ability to charge fees and engage in certain practices when servicing mortgage loans. XX/XX/XXXX, the defendants changed their names to Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. and SPS Holding Corp.The FTC conducted a review of Select Portfolio Servicing 's compliance with certain aspects of the XX/XX/XXXX settlement. The FTC and Select Portfolio Servicing negotiated and agreed to several modifications of the settlement. HUD has also agreed to these changes, which include : A five-year prohibition on marketing optional products, which are products or services that are not required by the consumer 's loan ( such as home warranties ). Refunds of optional product fees paid by consumers in certain circumstances. Revised limitations on charging attorney fees in a foreclosure or bankruptcy to ensure that consumers receive full disclosures, including the actual amount due if they receive an estimated fee. Select Portfolio Servicing also will conduct reconciliations after payoff or foreclosure and reimburse consumers who may have paid for services that were not actually performed. Refunds for consumers who may have paid foreclosure attorney fees for services that were not actually performed since XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A permanent requirement that consumers be provided with monthly mortgage statements containing important information about their loans. A requirement that Select Portfolio Servicing revise its monthly mortgage statements based on consumer testing performed by a qualified, independent third party ( which the company has already done ). A requirement that Select Portfolio Servicing continue to use a qualified, independent third party to perform annual audits of its compliance with key settlement provisions until XX/XX/XXXX. The results of these audits will be subject to review by the FTC. Revision of specific provisions to permit Select Portfolio Servicing to engage in certain practices that were prohibited by the original settlement. For example, the modified settlement allows the company to hold or reject a payment that is more than {$25.00} short of the consumer 's monthly principal and interest payment so long as the consumer receives prompt notice of the action. The settlement continues to prohibit the company from applying such payments to fees before principal and interest
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MD
Zip: 210XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-07-12
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been struggling to work with SPS on keeping my home for several years now. I fell upon hard times when I lost my job of several years and could not afford my mortgage. I eventually fell behind and applied for assitance with Keep Your Home California. I was approved for this program but SPS would not accept the funds from this program and instead placed me into foreclosure. I decided to attempt a short sale but that has not turned out so well, SPS wants alot of money for my house and there is not a buyer willing to pay that much for my home. My home is in need of updating and minor repairs. I started working again and with my wife 's income I can now afford a mortgage payment. Since I have been unsuccessful with the short sale I decided to apply for a modification. I sent in all my documents and they were received by SPS. Now I am being told that due to me having a sale date that they can not work with me. The worst part is that they are unclear as to how much time is needed to review me for a modification before a sale date- I was told it was 7 days, but theyve had my package at least 10 days before my sale date and still refuse to work with me advising that their system wont allow it. I feel like this is the hardest company to work with, I have done everything they asked- I just dont want to live with having a foreclosure on my credit and I can now afford to keep my home. This treatment is very unfair I wish they would just be easy to work with but it seems like all they care about is foreclosing on good people that have come across hard times.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 93536
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-07-12
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: this mechanism has been designed to inform you that in 2009 my Mortgage Company was with XXXX in which I had XXXX predatory lenders on my mortgage account with a interest rate of 9.5 percent yes it is very high. XXXX XXXX was brought out by XXXX XXXX XXXX who has continue to still have these predotory lenders on my account with the same high interest rate of 9.5 percent. Under the Obama Administration in 2009 he said that there should not be any predatory lenders on nobody loans. There are also XXXX on my loan in which they were never registered in my county board of records. SPS is now the services for XXXX. I have submitted at least XXXX documents to them for a modification. I need you to look into this matter at your earliest convenience. Thank you
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 19119
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-07-10
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Select Porfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) works for our Bank ( s ) as the mortgage servicer for their Mortgage Loans, billing the Banks customers like us, as a collection agency, and processing our Assistance Review Applications for loss mitigation and Foreclosure Prevention. In our case, SPS has been processing our Assistance Review Application for the best part of a year. My wife and I requested an Assistance Review last XXXX 2015 when our income increased to prevent a foreclosure on our home of 17 years. We originally submitted over XXXX ( XXXX ) pages of documents that SPS requested including their Application and Affidavitt. Since then, SPS has requested additional documents " the Required Information '' on a continued basis, more often than a on monthly. In many cases they request additional documents that we sent and SPS received 30 or 60 days prior. We always mail the documents they request with a detailed cover letter via Registered Mail with Return Receipt required ( see Attachments ) so we can verify if and when SPS received them. However, the request for " additional information '' keep comming week after week and month after month. Each time SPS claims " we have performed an additional rewiew and have determined that the submitted documentation is insufficient or additional information is needed '', and that " Before we ( SPS ) can begin the evaluation process, you ( my wife and I ) are required to submit a complete application. '' While all of this is very burdensome and frustrating for us as borrowers, and though it could be possible that SPS loses a lot of our documents on a regular basis ; a more likely explanation deserves to be checked by CFPB, as we have heard that this same frustration happens to other borrowers in our same position. It appears that there is a system of DUAL TRACKING that the Banks are using to file and continue a Foreclosure Action against their borrowers in the Courts while a separate entity such as SPS is processing their borrowers ' Assistance Review Applications. This serves the purpose of circunventing or nullifying the USA Department of the Treasury, Office of the Controller of the Currency ( OCC ) program of Foreclosure Prevention that states that " preference should be given to activities designed to keep the borrower in the home. '' In our case, SPS, on behalf of our Bank ( s ) starts and continues processing our Assistance Review Application while XXXX ( XXXX ) files a Foreclosure Action and moves it through the Court while ignoring a previous Assistance Review Application ( ARA ) that we had filed with XXXX ( see CFPB Cases # XXXX & # XXXX ). XXXX then " passes '' our ARA to SPS to delay it until the Trial date approaches so SPS can complete and reject our ARA a few weeks prior to the Foreclosure Trial and our qualifying for Loss Mitigation is not an issue to continue the Trial. After we filed our two CFPB above for DECEIVING BANKING PRACTICES and VIOLATION of an OCC Consent Order, our Foreclosure Action was transfered or assigned to XXXX ( XXXX ) effectively changing or " passing '' both the servicer of our Mortgage Loan to SPS, and the Bank holding the note to XXXX ( see CFPB Cases # XXXX & # XXXX ). This orquestrated sequence of operations and changes of institutions takes us to today, when SPS, after almost ten ( 10 ) months of processing our Assistance Review Application, have finally proclaimed that they have received all the documents needed to evaluate our Loss Mitigation Assistance, as last time, it happened only weeks before our Trial Date. We PRAY that CFPB checks the actions of SPS as well as the Banks involved in this Complaint ( and others shown above ) and disrupts this pattern of circunventing and deceipt being used by the Banks and Mortgage Servicing Companies like SPS.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33156
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-07-11
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was discharged in bankruptcy
Consumer Complaint: XXXX currently claims to be a servicer of a loan in my name on behalf of Wells Fargo. I have already received a letter from Wells Fargo that there is no such account. Please treat this letter as a " qualified written request '' under the Federal Servicer Act, which is a part of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ). Specifically, I am disputing a ) the identity of a true secured lender/creditor, and b ) the existence of debt, and c ) your authority and capacity to collect on behalf of the alleged lender/creditor/note holder.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MI
Zip: 483XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-07-08
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been trying to get SPS SERVICING INC to lower the mortgage payment on my home and they refuse to grant me a modification, I send the all the information that is required for the modifiction.? I ask them why they told me the first time I submitted all the information that my I come was to high for the modifiction? Then I was told by thier office just use my icome and my daughter income? Then they said me and her still did not qualify for the modifiction because our income was to low? I also ask them, why and what about the harp program they said we did not qualify for that? i is that not the program that is to help people like me and my daughter to save our home? I was told that was unfair tactics that was using not to help me save my home? I do n't know a lot about the housing market and how it is supposed to work please help me. Just wanted them to lower my payment, my husband is decease and yes he was a veteran. Please help me and my family to keep our home.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: DC
Zip: 20011
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-07-08
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Since our income have increased considerably, we submited an Assistance Review Application request to XXXX ( XXXX ), the Mortgage Servicer of our loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX. While XXXX was in the midst of reviewing our Application, on XXXX XXXX, 2016, U.S. Bank National Association ( US Bank ) entered a Foreclosure Action against my wife and I and is pursuing it aggressively in Court, while we are proceeding in good faith with our request for relief and submitting additional documents that XXXX continues to request for their evaluation process. US Bank actions entering and actively pursuing this Foreclosure Action in Court against us to take possesion and sell our home of 17 years while our Request for Relief is being reviewed and considered goes against the policy of Loss Mitigation and Home Retention promoted by the USA Department of the Treasury, Controller of the Currency ( COC ). Thus, US Bank is in violation of the COC policy of Foreclosure Prevention that states that : " Well structured loss mitigation actions should focus on foreclusure prevention, which should tipically result in benefitting the borrower. ... .preference should be given to activities designed to keep the borrower in the home. '' US Bank entered this Foreclosure Action actively and agressively while we are procesing a foreclosure prevention action. US Bank policy is deceiving the banking practices it agreed to with the OCC, and must DISMISS its Foreclosure Action immediately to preserve the OCC Foreclosure Prevention policy.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33156
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-07-07
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing and XXXX XXXX XXXX have attempted twice to foreclose on the principle amount of {$970000.00}. I had modified with XXXX XXXX/XXXX/09. The principle amount then was {$910000.00}. Select Portfolio monthly mortgage statements show the principle amount is {$840000.00}. Why the disparity in amounts? I have complained multitude of times. I have had two trustee sale dates. I have proven to SPS that they are in violation of Dual Tracking. And they claim they did not. I have documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX recording a trustee sale date while I am in the Modification Loop. What can I do when they deny and deny the accuracy of the sale date county recordings and the ongoing documentation request for the pretend modification? Do I send you all the proof of the first sale date? Does SPS have the XXXX information. Where is my true Deed of Trust and Note? And now where do I go with the Dual Tracking proof?
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 934XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-07-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes