Date Received: 2022-12-13
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing Inc ( " SPS '' ), not properly disclosing existence of lease protected by Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act ( PTFA ) to potential Buyer ( s ). SPS using Occupant disclosure where they claim no knowledge of lease that has been provided by tenant to SPS attorneys during eviction attempt. SPS is misrepresenting their knowledge of existence and contents of lease that is material knowledge must be disclosed to potential Buyer ( s ).
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90255
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-13
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Mortgage Fraud by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX Select Portfolio Servicing, lawsuits as follows : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Not XXXX XXXX will uphold the laws to protect Consumers being defrauded! in 2023, I expect I will need to file another civil action against XXXX & the lawyer XXXX XXXX XXXX. & XXXX XXXX see XXXX # XXXX on case # XXXX, just filed on the docket XXXX we are now forced to pay the XXXX demand of over $ XXXX. Total corruption, read the detail lawsuit XXXX XXXX law section XXXX applies! XXXX misconduct, misdemeanor charge! XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 07871
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-14
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: In accordance with the fair credit reporting act XXXX account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, account XXXX Sps mortgage, has violated my rights. 15 USC 1681 Section 604 A Section 2 : It also states a consumer reporting agency can not furnish a account without written instructions. 15USC 1666B : A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for purpose.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: DE
Zip: 19702
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-14
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am filing this Complaint on behalf of my client, not myself. My client was denied a Trial Loan Modification on XX/XX/XXXX by his Mortgage Servicer, SPS. The reason given for the denial by the Servicer was that " in performing our underwriting of a potential Modification, we could not reduce the principal and interest payment or the payment reduction achieved did not meet the payment reduction required for the account. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a timely Appeal of the Denial of the Trial Loan Modification. In this Appeal, I suggested that a payment reduction could in fact be achieved by extending the term to 40 years since there had been no term extension at the time of the prior Modification in XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response from SPS to my Appeal that reiterated what was stated in the XX/XX/XXXX letter that is quoted above in the first paragraph. There was no reference to my suggestion of extending the term to 40 years to achieve a payment reduction. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a Notice of Error or Qualified Written Request to SPS stating that there was an error by SPS in refusing to extend the term of the loan to 40 years because that would achieve a payment reduction. In addition, I suggested adding the current arrearages to the back of the loan but keeping the arrearages in a forbearance balance that was non-interest bearing which would also result in a payment reduction. I specifically requested that SPS respond to these suggestions in the Notice of Error/QWR because I believe that they had committed an error in denying my client a Mortgage Loan Modification with a term extension to 40 years and putting the arrearages in a non interest bearing balance on the back of the loan. These would have resulted in a payment reduction which SPS said could not be achieved. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response from SPS that did not acknowledge or address the Notice of Error/QWR and which did not contain any reference to my suggestions that the term could be extended to 40 years and the arrearages could be put in a non interest bearing balance on the back of the loan. Their response was that they had received similar disputes from me and that they had responded previously to these disputes. That is patently false. SPS has NEVER responded to any of my inquiries asking them specifically why the term of the loan could not be extended to 40 years and the arrearages put in a non-interest bearing balance on the back of the loan which would result in a reduction in the payment. This Complaint is alleging a violation of Section 6 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) of RESPA regarding the failure of SPS to respond to a Qualified Written Request and a violation of Regulation X Section 1024.35 regarding failure to respond to a Notice of Error.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-12
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This began with a denial for a loan modification which was submitted to me on XX/XX/22. I appealed the denial. The Loan servicer has now provided a loan modification offer dated XX/XX/XXXX ; however, SPS has demanded the first payment be made by XX/XX/XXXX. This is less then 30 days from the receipt of the notice of receiving their offer. While the company, SPS Select Portfolio Servicing has not answered my appeal per se, this modification plan can only be accepted by making the first payment with very specific instructions which are an undue hardship. The date, XX/XX/XXXX is a Sunday also a standard holiday and I have not received sufficient notice to be able to make the first payment so I may successfully enter in the trial period. I am asking for payment due date to make the first payment from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX to properly prepare financially to make the first payment.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 11701
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-12
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Dear SPS, I am in receipt of your letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, In that letter, you assert that Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) is the " servicer for the account. '' You may have answered part of my questions, but I need clarification on what you mean when you use the words " servicer '' and " account. '' In plain language, are you stating, asserting, or alleging that you are providing services in connection with an existing unpaid loan account maintained on the books and records of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( or some other company or institution ) wherein said loan account is due from me and payable to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX as the creditor? are you stating that you physically receive my payments, account for those receipts, and distribute the money to a creditor ( s )? Can you provide me with the contact information of anyone who owns the alleged or implied unpaid loan account? I ask these questions for what are obvious reasons. Without receiving direct acknowledgment of the existence and ownership of the unpaid loan account, I can not confirm or deny the truth of the matters you assert, to wit : that you have the authority to administer, collect or enforce any debt, note, or lien issued by me. The claims of securitization have resulted in a wide variety of conclusions in court -- - including but not limited to findings of fact and conclusions of law that the alleged trustee was not entrusted with ownership of any debt, note or mortgage issued by the homeowner. Further, some decisions have held that the " servicer '' could not produce evidence that it was, in fact, performing the servicing functions that were argued or implied in court. All of this can be resolved by the creditor 's corroboration of the facts and authority you want me to accept as true. 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: 2022-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-13
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Recently, on or about XX/XX/2022, was guaranteed a loan modification by a staff member. XXXX of 2022, Sent in an appeal and never got a reply, as promised. Instead, got a notice of foreclosure. Numerous occasions, was assigned a Relationship Manager with a " supposedly '' direct phone number to this person, and every time, the phone was answered by a collection agent. I was told on XX/XX/2022, that when a customer requested to speak with the Relationship Manager, that the collection agent was not allowed to connect the customer with their Relationship Manager. Was told on multiple occasions that I was not to make a payment on my mortgage until the modification process was complete. This has been going on for over three years. Having to tell and retell my story over and over again, in excess of 50 times as they did not keep notes as to what my problem was and why I was calling.
Company Response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
State: AR
Zip: 71901
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-11
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This is a refilling of CFPB complaint # XXXX : For 10 years, I have been confronting the actors that were claimed to be servicers or creditors in my case, and I have learned that those actors are named but not functioning in any way relevant to my transaction or attempts to claim rights to administer, collect or enforce an unpaid loan account. All functions relating to my transaction are conducted by financial technology companies who are now categorized as servicers because they receive, process and account for payments received from homeowners -- - regardless of whether or not such payments are due. In consulting with experts in investment banking, accounting, and auditing, they assure me that no sale has occurred in connection with the allegation or implication of an unpaid loan account owned by any of the actors claiming those rights. By definition, this means that my transaction has NOT been securitized and that therefore no assignment of mortgage or endorsement of a note transferred any underlying obligation. The legal and common law requirements of transparency in such transactions have not only been ignored. They have been expressly evaded and voided, leaving homeowners like me without a lender, a successor lender, or even a loan account that I can access to determine whether it exists, who owns it, and the balance due. Instead, my inquiries have uniformly been met with stonewalling and distraction -- - presenting me with a third-party report or statement of " Payment History '' that is NOT from or by the party who was designated or implied to be the owner of an unpaid loan account. If it was a loan, it was never securitized ( assuming securitization means selling an asset in pro rata pieces to investors ). By definition, this means that all claims and all rights claimed by actors who are relying upon the securitization of an unpaid loan account owed by me do not exist. But your agency has consistently taken the opposite position without questioning whether the foundation for its presumptions is true. Your agency has a duty to inquire about whether unpaid loan account exists in my case and in thousands of other cases that are similarly situated. Suppose the original homeowner transaction was a shield to conceal the true nature of what investment bankers were doing when they appeared to be entering the lending marketplace. In that case, the agency must discover the component parts of the transaction and the nature of the implied or alleged transaction. In that respect, the agency has failed. The result is that I have been paying actors who have no right to my money, and I am constantly under threat of foreclosure or other enforcement mechanisms to collect a " debt '' that is nonexistent -- - at least to the actors making the claim. I am dealing with a ghost that fabricated by complex financial instruments in which virtual claims replace the legal requirement of actual claims. The end result is that the actors in the false " Securitization '' game have generated revenues hundreds of times ordinary revenue for investment bank underwriting, homeowners have received no share of a scheme that requires their signature and reputation to launch, and homeowners have assumed a risk about which they had no idea existed -- - counterparty to an apparent " loan transaction '' in which the " lender '' has no risk of loss and no incentive to assess the viability of the transaction as required by the Federal Truth in Lending Act. I have been injured by illegal activities conducted by the parties identified in this complaint. Upon information and belief, the damage I have suffered and continue to suffer also applies to thousands of other homeowners.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-10
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I purchased my home in XXXX with a fixed rate conventional mortgage loan for an amount of {$150000.00}. My mortgage has been sold multiple times from XXXX XXXX, to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and now Select Servicing Portfolio ( SPS ). It is currently XXXX and according to SPS my principal balance with over 15 years of timely payments is now {$150000.00} and my principal continues to increase every year even though I'm current on my mortgage. I would like to have my mortgage account audited.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TN
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-09
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I went through a hardship due to XXXX. I lost my job and had no source of income. My last servicer said they would help me. My loan then transferred to SPS. They asked me if I was experiencing a COVID hardship and I was so they put me on a forbearance plan. After the forbearance they sent me a balloon payment that I can not afford. I was told to send in a full modification package and I did. They denied me a modification. Now, I don't know how I will catch up and I am scared of falling into foreclosure. I feel like SPS should not have given me the forbearance if I was going to be stuck with a big payment. I feel as though this was a way to get me behind in my mortgage.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33458
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A