Date Received: 2022-12-30
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am having trouble with making my payments with SPS, I had gone thru a financial hardship due to XXXX XXXX where I had lost income and suffered job loss during my time of being infected with XXXX. During this time, I kept communication with SPS where they placed me in a Forbearance program pushing my payments for several months. After my financial hardship was over and I was able to resume making my payments I applied for mortgage assistance and was later approved for a trial plan modification on XX/XX/XXXX. I received the trial plan modification documents and proceeded to make the payments on the account as instructed. My first trial payment was not due until XX/XX/XXXX I attempted to make the XXXX trial payment on XX/XX/XXXX thru XXXX XXXX ( Please see attached receipt of payment ) after I had made the payment, I called SPS to make sure the payment was received and applied. Well, after several weeks and after numerous calls trying to track the payment, they informed me the payment was not received even after I sent SPS the confirmation receipt thru XXXX XXXX. SPS informed me to try to send the payment to them again which I did and on XX/XX/XXXX I sent them another payment thru Wire using the payment instructions provided by SPS representatives. At this point I figured my account was fine after making XXXX payments thru certified funds. SPS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Utah XXXX -- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX : UT I then later received a letter stating they had closed out my Loan Modification due to Nonpayment even though I had made XXXX payments on the trial modification. Recently I applied again for assistance but within 3 days they denied my request and refused to remove the foreclosure date on my account set for XX/XX/XXXX. I feel this is in violation of XXXX XXXX Laws as stated on your CFPB site as well as a violation of my Homeowners XXXX of rights law set to protect me from lenders abusing and miss placing my payments and proceeding with foreclosure.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MT
Zip: 598XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-19
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-28
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In trying to resolve my foreclosure with SPS, an appeal of my request for mortgage assistance denial was emailed to the relationship XXXX and to XXXX the SPS XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/22. A representative from XXXX emailed a reply directing me to call SPS and speak to a relationship XXXX. On XX/XX/22 I called SPS at XXXX am. XXXX answered the call but released it ( claiming no one was on the line ) and a second call was made at XXXX am. XXXX answered this call and we immediately asked for a supervisor. Rather than getting a supervisor she attempted to ascertain what was needed and proceeded to provide erroneous information. She put the call on hold numerous times saying that she was looking into the account. She determined that a reply to the appeal would be available on XX/XX/22 after XXXX days. When it was pointed out that XX/XX/22 is more than XXXX days from the appeal submission, she said it would be received by XX/XX/22. Each time she was asked for a supervisor, the call was put silent hold. XXXX checked the line after extended periods but never provided any additional information. Finally, after XXXX hours on the telephone there was no response from XXXX who abandoned the call. The written decision on my appeal was delivered by mail the same afternoon. XXXX not only provided incorrect information, but refused to escalate the call as requested. In the denial to the assistance review decision dated XX/XX/22, SPS wrote You indicated you have a lump sum to apply to your account. Contact SPS to discuss if options are available. I responded with another appeal indicating the amount I can pay. No relationship XXXX explained why my proposed payment of {$50000.00} was insufficient or what amount would be satisfactory. The written response to my proposal said You also requested assistance and want to use funds for a down payment. Please contact SPS to discuss if options are available. Although SPS has this language in the communications, it isnt following through by making authorized personnel that are qualified accessible.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 11901
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-28
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I contacted Select Portfolio Servicing on XX/XX/2022 to advise them of my previous telephone calls stating I would pay the escrow deficit in two payments. On XX/XX/2022 my regular mortgage payment was submitted with my online banking institute. XX/XX/2022 {$500.00} was also submitted for the specified ESCROW DEFICIT. Having spoken on XX/XX/2022 to XXXX who did not give his last name, I told him about the agreement on the payment of escrow and the previous telephone calls, I was told he knew nothing about any agreement and I then asked to speak to a supervisor, he told me none was available, I asked a supervisor could return my call, he said no, I will receive no calls from any supervisor and insisted he was the one to handle this situation and would not allow me to speak with any other person. He told me have a nice day. I told him I will contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Be advised all these call are recorded when you give permission which I did. Please listen to all the telephone calls. I am giving you permission to do so.
Company Response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
State: MD
Zip: 20784
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-28
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: i was offered a Loan Modification after the covid forbearance period was over. the mortgage servicer took over a month to mail me the paperwork they needed me to sign. i had to call them two more time and ask them to send it to me again. after receiving the documents, i signed them and mailed them back the next day. because of the month delay, the time period given to submit the documents was now severly shortened to 12 days ( including weekends ). the mortgage company sent the documents via USPS and advised me to send the documents back via USPS. now i have been advised that the documents have not arrived and their modification offer has expired. meanwhile i have made the payments that the mortgage servicer has asked me to pay including the new modified mortgage amount. every time i call to speak to the person who is assigned to my loan, He/she is never available and i am passed along to someone who does not know anything about my account and they provide poor and incorrect information. i just want to have this situation resolved. i am dealing with SP servicing mortgage. Their communication is extremely poor and the fact that they rely on the postal service to get important documents to their customer during the holiday season is a poor choice of business practices.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 07026
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-27
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I had a modification in XXXX. I then fell behind on my mortgage XXXX, XXXX. I had some home repairs that needed to be done to keep the house in livable. Due to this I fell behind on my mortgage. I have applied for assistance 3 times and be denied each time. Each denial has come with the reason that my loan is ineligible for assistance. The lender told me it was due to my prior modification. I have reviewed the prior modification and can not find anywhere where it says that I would no longer be eligible for any assistance in the future. I would like to be reviewed for help as I think I can prove affordability. They offered me a repayment plan that was not affordable.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33458
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-27
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I tried to call SPS today XX/XX/22 and request a forbearance. I called with my HUD Certified Housing Counselor on the line and gave SPS a verbal authorization to speak on behalf to my counselor. I spoke to two separate agents who both denied the verbal authorization and said third party authorizations were only allowed to be made in writing only, for the state of New York. I further requested a forbearance to be put in place due to my circumstances and I was only informed that I was only eligible for a short pay or a short sale. I am very unsatisfied as I am trying to save my home and do not feel my account was handled correctly, I was not informed to submit a workout package nor was I able to provide representation on my behalf to help me in this process.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 11717
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-28
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I tried twice to set up a trial payment plan, but both times i had issues and they would not give me a chsnce to try again. I have my own business and it went through a very hard time because of XXXX virus which I caught twice., I also had a XXXX XXXX and was prescribed medication, and I also went through a divorce.. my business went down to almost nothing but now it has come back to almost pre Covid levels so im sure i can make the mortgage payment if they will work with me. I tried several times to get another trial payment plan started but the people im getting on the phone are not giving me any sign of hope. They are saying they cant do anything. Yet repeatedly in their letters they say over and over they want to help us retain the home. But the way they treat me on the phone really depends which person answers the phone. I also have a very very difficult time getting my so called relationship manager they assigned to me. She is impossible to reach. I also have documented proof that on the last trial payment plan i paid on time with two of the three payments but they sent the first payment back then refused my trial plan in s letter before i could make the final payment. I have documented proof of this and they still have not told me why they sent the payment back on the first payment
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 91325
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I contacted mortgage loan servicer SPS on a number of occasions to request the automatic termination of PMI payments in accordance with my loan agreement. The date listed in my original loan agreement with XXXX for automatic termination is : XX/XX/XXXX. My account history shows that I am well within what is defined in the contract as " good payment history ''. I provided copies of the document to SPS who insists I need to pay an appraisal fee of {$450.00} in order to have the PMI payments removed. The original purchase price on XX/XX/XXXX was {$270000.00}. The current value of my townhome is over {$40000.00} and readily available based on current sales of identical properties in the development.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NC
Zip: 28210
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-18
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In The SPS response on XXXX, they stated : Servicing Agreement In the inquiries, you requested to review the servicing agreement related to your account. Please note that such servicing agreements contain responsibilities for multiple parties unrelated to you as part of a securitization transaction. SPS will not be sending you a copy of the XXXX XXXX, as it is proprietary and intended for internal use only. Origination In the inquiries, you questioned several issues relating to the origination of the loan. While SPS services this account on behalf of the Noteholder, we did not take part in its origination and we are unable to respond to the issues raised relating to the origination of the loan. Noteholder Information In the inquiries, you requested clarification regarding your XXXX identity. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, successor trustee to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX successor in interest to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust is the Noteholder of the account, and SPS is the mortgage XXXX. How can a Servicing Agreement be proprietary when I am supposed to be XXXX of the parties to this agreement? Similar to signing a contract that you are not allowed to read! What is SPS hiding? Once again : My request is for the identity of the party who owns and maintains an unpaid loan account receivable, that is due from me to that party. SPS claims that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the Note Holder I have had XXXX forensic title investigations that claim the my XXXX was never added or included in this possibly non-existent Trust I once again ask for proof that my Deed of Trust was or is included in this trust.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Dear SPS, You are not answering my question. At the time of origination of my transaction, I reasonably believed that I was paying for the establishment of a loan account on the ledgers of a lender, whose name appeared on the note and lien. I am not asking you for the owner of the " account, '' unless you mean the unpaid loan account on the ledgers of a lender or successor lender, who has paid value for the obligation you claim is due from me to XXXX XXXX. Despite my many questions directed at this issue, I keep receiving unsigned letters that do not appear to be coming from SPS. The content of those letters is evasive at best. I am asking for the owner of the unpaid loan account that can be corroborated by an accounting ledger that keeps track of the establishment of the lower account, and all debits and credits that have been made to the loan account from the date of origination through this date. The correspondence that I am receiving implies that XXXX XXXX now maintains that accounting ledger, which contains the unpaid loan account that is alleged to exist. The answer contained in the letter I received, which bears the date of XX/XX/2022, makes an obvious attempt to distract from my question and rephrase it as merely an inquiry about the identity of an investor, creditor or note holder. A note holder, as I have previously repeated, is the person who possesses the original note or had a right to such possession. But the possessor in not a " holder '' under Chapter 3 UCC as adopted by state law verbatim, unless that holder has been authorized to enforce. That is where you are being evasive. Authorization can only come from one who is legally possessed of rights that serve as the foundation for an authorization. Based upon the prior responses to my inquiries and the probable answer to this inquiry I am assuming that neither SPS has had any contact with or authorization from such an authorized person. Accordingly the designation of SPS as a servicer is untrue and perhaps even fraudulent. The only legally authorized persons who possess a financial interest and ownership of the alleged note, if it still exists, is the lat person who paid for the underlying obligation that is repeatedly asserted but never shown. Under existing law ( RESPA and FDCPA ) as previously cited, the person who responds to this letter is required to provide the answer. In the absence of such a person, there is no reason to believe that SPS is acting at all much less acting for a party in interest who has paid value in good faith for the debt, note or lien. I conclude therefore, unless your response addresses this issue directly that no person, company or other party asserts nor can they corroborate that SPS is acting as an authorized agent for the owner of the implied unpaid loan account due from me and that the author of the responses to my previous requests have been sent either by machine ( computer ) without any human action or intervention or by a human with no knowledge and only a script. This is your last opportunity to avoid litigation. In the litigation, the matters at issue will penetrate down into the recesses of the false implication of securitized debt. No debt of mine was ever sold and I know that because you have failed and refused to provide me with any corroboration, such a transaction exists. I will seek declaratory, injunctive ( mandatory and prohibitive ) relief, statutory and actual compensatory damages, attorney fees, costs, and expenses of forensic experts without whose help your scheme might have succeeded. Regards, XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A