Date Received: 2015-09-29
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been trying for last 3 years to get a loan modification from Select Portforlio. They have not helped me and set a foreclosure sale date on my home for XXXX/XXXX/2015
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 94541
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2015-09-29
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I was given a date of XXXX to move out. I would like to remain in the home and pay rent.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 334XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2015-09-29
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This is really a two-fold issue. A complaint was issued against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( submission # XXXX ) for selling a mortgage XX/XX/XXXX for a home that was sold back XX/XX/XXXX. The issue with XXXX XXXX XXXX has been resolved. But now there is an issue with the place they sold the loan to : Select Portfolio Servicing. I have a stack of paperwork from SPS for demand payments and threats with foreclosure on this property. I have spoken with their customer service representative numerous times since XX/XX/XXXX, when this all started. I have been told that their records indicate it was resolved XX/XX/XXXX. Since that time, I have been trying to get a written document stating, this loan was sold erroneously and there was NEVER a loan that should have been processed. I do NOT owe {$65000.00}. I want documentation stating those facts along with a written guarantee that this will NOT be reported to the credit bureaus. After numerous calls speaking with reps AND supervisors, all I can get is their " word '' that it has been taken care of. Not good enough! This headache came out of nowhere through the fault of XXXX XXXX XXXX and/or SPS. At this point, I do n't care who is to blame, but since SPS seems to be able to send me stacks of demand notices and threats, I 'm sure a letter stating ... .oops someone XX/XX/XXXX up and you are in clear must be asking for too much. This is all I want .... Would really like an apology but I definitely know THAT is asking for too much.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OH
Zip: 44001
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2015-09-28
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing is a collection agency, not a mortgage Co.. Therefore I believe they do not have legal right to foreclose on my property. They have been harassing me with foreclosure, sheriff notices since year 2004. There is a statute of limitations to collect on a debt. I already owned my home. I did not purchase my property from SPS. I took out a home improvement loan with a mortgage company called XXXX. They are no longer in business. SPS refuses to produce original wet ink note on property.We went through numerous modifications. With higher payments.Always at the end of trial period, they have repeatedly lied about paperwork and documents missing.The last modification they wanted us to sign was for a whole new amount due, well over {$100000.00}. My principal due on loan was only {$71000.00} at that time. I refused to sign.SPS was adding attorney fees, property inspection fees, misc fees. No one ever came to my home to inspect. I have tried to make payments, sent through XXXX XXXX. SPS returns payment, will not accept. This has caused stress related illness with the constant badgering. I demand SPS to cease and desist any further contact, through the courts or otherwise. There are many, many others experiencing this same treatment from SPS. They have filed complaints as well. Why are they still allowed to be in business??
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 17109
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2015-09-25
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My home was foreclosed, and the servicer Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) out of Utah, did not adhere to the homeowners bill of rights. It is as if it does n't matter to them. I never spoke to the point person that you are entitled to have. The servicer never tried to work something out with me. Additionally, ( SPS ) engages in dual tracking, which is another violation of the Homeowners bill of rights. I have an inherited property that ( SPS ) is now trying to foreclose on. They are not specific with their instructions when they send out a modification packet, however, when you send the required documentation, they become specific, and document it as they did n't receive it, but the truth is, they would not accept it. By the time you send the documentation the way they want it, other documentation has expired, causing you to have to resend it. This is a trick, because they will place a sale date on your property in the process, and say if they do n't receive the documentation your property will go to auction. They then sell it to a XXXX party to clear their books. Now your recourse is not with the servicer but the third party, that may or may not know what is going on. When my primary residence was sold, I discovered that XXXX actually held the note. When my primary residence went to auction, it did n't sell and became an XXXX and from XXXX to XXXX I was going into XXXX asking them to reconsider what had been done, except, XXXX could not identify me either by Social Security number or Loan number, I spoke with the branch manager, by the name of XXXX XXXX and he called his back office. I had been fighting XXXX for 6 years because they created the default, and for 6 years they were unable to foreclose on my home legally, so XXXX simply sold the loan to ( SPS ) and it is clear their only goal was to foreclose on my properties, and decided to engage in illegal activity, as well as ignoring the homeowners bill of rights, because nobody is regulating it. I would like to see this illegal foreclosure reversed and my property returned to me. My case is further complicated because my properties are in private label security loans ( PLS ). the financial institutions have no intention of working with homeowners with principal reduction, however, are willing to sell them to speculators at a discount and displacing the homeowner, I have information that the speculator that purchased my home, has a non-profit in XXXX XXXX CA, and yet between he and his wife have recently purchased XXXX properties in XXXX XXXX CA, in XXXX zip code, XXXX of them on my same block, he has no desire to live in these properties, just wants to flip them to make money, this is not fair to homeowners. When I was notified that ( SPS ) was the new servicer, I informed them that their were unresolved issues with another financial institution, they replied, they have no say so on which loans they service.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 94124
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2015-09-25
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XXXX XXXX, 2015 my attorney submitted my most recent updated financial information to my servicer SPS. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 SPS gave my attorney a list of items they needed for my review. My attorney then forwarded all requested paperwork to SPS and then on XXXX XXXX, 2015 my attorney confirmed SPS had a complete application. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 SPS advised my attorney that they needed clarification on some of the bank statements for deposits of rent and my husbands contribution. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 my attorney again confirmed all paperwork was complete and no additional documents wer needed. Then on XXXX XXXX, 2015 SPS stated the paperwork sent was not clear enough. Everything was faxed again by my attorney on XXXX XXXX, 2015 and XXXX XXXX, 2015. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 SPS spoke with my attorney and now states they want everything again, but updated. Per my attorney and per RESPA Reg x, SPS was supposed to review my file for assitance within 30 days of having a complete file. My attorney has verified SPS had a complete file on : XXXX/XXXX/2015, XXXX/XXXX/2015 and XXXX/XXXX/2015. They continually string me along stalling and then asking for the same paperwork over and over. They are evading reviewing me for assistance by simply allowing the paperwork sent to expire and then asking for it all again. RESPA Reg x was put into place in order to stop this type of behavior, per my attorney. They can make a decision based on the paperwork they have in hand. Three times in the past 60 days they have had a full and complete file. I would like them to stop stalling and make a decision. The last time they confirmed they had a complete file was on XXXX/XXXX/15. The paperwork I sent in XX/XX/XXXX was valid through XXXX/XXXX/15. I should not have to send the newest paperwork over and over and over simply because they are stalling or not underwriting my information in a timely manner. My situation is not that complicated. They are making it complicated on purpose in order to evade reviewing me for assistance.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NV
Zip: 89141
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2015-09-25
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Servicer : SPSLoan Number : XXXXProperty Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXXShort Sale Package was submitted XXXX/XXXX/2015. There is a foreclosure sale date coming up of XXXX/XXXX/2015. SPS is refusing to postpone the sale date, and they are refusing to submit the offer to the investor for decisioning. They are refusing to allow any sort of review on the file for a short sale. SPS is not delegated to make decisions on the file for the investor. By refusing to submit the offer to the investor and postpone the sale date, they are defrauding their investor and the federal government.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92021
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2015-09-25
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I sent a rescission in to Select Portfolio Servicing on XXXX/XXXX/2015, they acknowledged the rescission ( XXXX/XXXX/2015 ) and I would like them to comply with the rescission requirements. They did not file any action within 20 days of receipt of the rescission.
Company Response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
State: NV
Zip: 89107
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2015-09-25
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Subject : SPS Servicing extending processing, not evaluating documents properly. Homeowner submitted RMA requesting modification result from Loss of Income due to medical hardship. The wife develop XXXX which caused a HUGE financial drain on the finances. The homeowner used almost all savings to support his wife during her medical ordeal. During the last year of XX/XX/XXXX homeowner used {$42000.00} for medical support. To further explain, homeowner has use most of savings to support their daughters University education to the current amount of {$80000.00}. The homeowners both estimate to retire in XX/XX/XXXX which will create a further loss of income of {$5000.00} dollars. The couple expect to have a monthly income of about XXXX dollars per month. Homeowner was denied a loan modification with the previous XXXX servicers XXXX, the XXXX : the homeowner was denied a loan modification, reason was to much DTI debt to income. Recently in XX/XX/XXXX, the homeowners applied with the new servicer, SPS Servicing. Not much progress was made due to lost documents now in XX/XX/XXXX a new customer relations ship manager was assigned to us on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. We are exhausted with all these denials and constant changing of " relationship managers '' We are asking the SPS servicing to honor the guidelines under the DOJ Department of Justice- XXXX States Attorney Generals National Mortgage Settlement Agreement. We have no other choice but to file a complaint with the CFPB Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. We are being discriminated against in a form of reverse discrimination because of age, race and loss of income hardships '. We feel that our case has been unfairly treated for the following reasons:1. No active single point of contact, constantly changing, when calls made to the single point of contact, routine routed to the collection department, never the same contact person, I had XXXX points of contact in 18 months. 2. No single point of contact has been assigned, as of XX/XX/XXXX I did not have a single point of contact. 3. SPS Servicing has lost documents previously sent. 4. SPS and XXXX did not inform the " US '' the homeowner of our modification options : and neither did XXXX under the MHA Making Home Affordable guidelines. XXXX. Homeowner has asked for the original signed note and copy of the note. This mortgage was originated by XXXX, these are the conditions homeowner has endured : A ) wrongfully advised that documents were not submitted, or lostB ) documents were submitted by homeowner but not located in the data base, orC ) resubmit your documents again. D ) there is no foreclosure date is set : but this could change any week now and homeowner is responsible for not providing the requested documents : these XXXX points are causing a state of confusion and terror to our household. Homeowner is claiming mortgage processing discrimination in delaying processing and holding our mortgage in extended processing, long periods of time. Alleged violations, included, but are not limited to, the following : a ) Failing to perform proper loan modification processing ; b ) Failing to manage processing agents and special points of contacts, therefore causing a processing center unable to handle homeowners case loads, a form of mortgage discrimination against homeowners.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IL
Zip: 60707
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2015-09-24
Issue: Settlement process and costs
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My rental home has been in a short sale for 7 months and the company that bought my loan out from XXXX is SPS portfolio managing. Both companies have made the processing time on the sale of this home unbearable. They have had several offerss and a XXXX where offers began and they have still found every reason to not allow this loan to close. They never give me nor the title company involved the same or correct information. I have emails strings that go on for months about contacting the company and what they say they need in order to close this loan, yet they have not be efficient or effective in communication with myself, and the closing company.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33713
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2015-09-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes