Date Received: 2022-05-27
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Please see previous complaint regarding this issue The company blatantly lied in their response with incorrect information about the situation Previous Complaint number is XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/XXXX PRODUCT Mortgage A copy of the companies web site which a form was submitted for the favor on credit was submitted This also being filed with the office of the comp controller I resent your sarcastic tone and the lies written in your response. I despise passive aggressive behavior and liars. But thank you Because now I have written proof to file a complaint with the comp controller You may think its no big deal lying and throwing the blame back on the customer all with a immature child passive aggressive attitude. Not sure whom wrote the response but they should not represent your company. This is no way is how a professional company should respond to anyone Ever! 1. Never did I ever say the tax shortage was not shell points fault You have a open escrow account for my mortgage It is your responsibility and fault if taxes and or insurance does not get paid in a timely matter. 2. I have proof I am providing that I most certainly did send the proof of of the tax shortage immediately after I called and spoke to the rep and requested the escrow department look into the account Also I hate to be misquoted I said in 2013 way before your company was involved with my mortgage I had a lien from my association for a laughable 50 dollars but to remove was a process not worth repeating!!!!!!!! I ado said that your very own website says that you can do a one time favor for credit reporting Which a rep told me that you were able and since this was the first request I was more than likely to have that granted I am also providing proof of this Which by the way destroyed my credit and my sons summer semester Because!!!! I was in the middle of a loan when my score dropped 48 points! But when the obvious immature spiteful Im guess from the complaint got ahold of my request they denied it. And the rest is obviously easy to see because how the response was written 3. As stated in your letter with your sarcasm You wanted us to thank you for the lien not being placed And your double talk about the credit reporting.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 92629
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-27
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Borrower sent Shellpoint a XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, to which Shellpoint replied on XX/XX/XXXX. Unfortunately, Shellpoint did not address all the queries presented by Borrower. Shellpoint never verified the Account Manager during the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure on Account. Shellpoint states in the XX/XX/XXXX response, A single point of contact is typically assigned once Shellpoint receives a request for loss mitigation assistance from a homeowner ; however, there are instances where an assignment is made as part of a pre-emptive attempt to assist a homeowner that has fallen delinquent. In the months of XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint issued you loss mitigation solicitations inviting you to apply for the available loss mitigation options. Foreclosure seems like an instance where an assignment would be made to an account manager. Borrower called Shellpoint on XX/XX/XXXX, asking to speak with Account Manager. Shellpoint CSR advised that Borrower would receive a call from Account Manager in twenty-four ( 24 ) hours. However, when Borrower called Shellpoint on XX/XX/XXXX, Account Manager was no longer employed. Eleven ( 11 ) days would go by before an account manager would call Borrower. Four ( 4 ) days after Borrower received notice of intent to foreclose from a lawyer. In addition, Shellpoint never provided an answer to the validity of the Shellpoint SPC statement on XX/XX/XXXX, about having to go to a courtroom to obtain information regarding Account, rather than through a QWR. Also, Shellpoint neglected to provide an explanation as to why Shellpoint Manager would not know the validity of Shellpoint SPC statement. Shellpoint Manager never provided Borrower with an answer to the validity of the Shellpoint SPC statement. Shellpoint never provided an explanation in the XX/XX/XXXX, response to Borrowers XXXX XXXX. Another item Shellpoint did not respond to on the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is the change in amortization on Account due to XX/XX/XXXX payment while payments from outside accounts were attributed to Account. Borrower claims Shellpoint intentionally neglected to respond to these queries from the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX while distracting Borrower with a loan modification with deferred principal balance approval. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, letter states, ... adjustments were made to your loan. To clarify, certain transactions occurred that affected the arrearage due on your loan, which directly affected your eligibility for a non-HAMP loan modification. Following the completion of those adjustments, a re-evaluation on your eligibility for a loan modification occurred, where as a result your loan was approved for a non-HAMP loan modification. By XX/XX/XXXX Account was five ( 5 ) months behind in payments and Shellpoint enacted foreclosure. In XX/XX/XXXX Borrower applied for a loan modification. Shellpoint interfered with Account in XX/XX/XXXX making four ( 4 ) monthly payments, bringing the account current. Shellpoint then denied Borrowers request for a loan modification due to Account default not being imminent. By end of XX/XX/XXXX Shellpoint had reversed four ( 4 ) monthly payments, bringing Account into default. All the while, serving Borrower a foreclosure notice in XX/XX/XXXX, along with a foreclosure letter from Shellpoint lawyers. Shellpoint SPC informed Borrower in XX/XX/XXXX, that the mortgage loan service provider will re-evaluate Account for a loan modification. By the end of Shellpoints XX/XX/XXXX, response to Borrowers XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Shellpoint had offered the loan modification with the forty ( 40 ) year deferred principal balance of approximately forty-nine XXXX ( $ XXXX ) dollars, Borrower requested XXXX One more thing, Shellpoint never explained the coincidence of the disappearance of the September 2016 monthly statement, showing the payment was made to Account while outside account payments were interfering with the Account amortization schedule. On XX/XX/XXXX, Borrower spoke with approximately five ( 5 ) to six ( 6 ) Shellpoint CSR and none of them could find the XX/XX/XXXX Account statement in Shellpoint systems. While Shellpoint provided the XX/XX/XXXX statement as an attachment to the XX/XX/XXXX response. Shellpoint did not explain the disappearance of the XX/XX/XXXX statement from Shellpoint systems.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-26
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am having a very difficult time with Shellpoint Mortgage. After struggling through COVID for almost 2 years I am back to work full time. I I am self employed and own my own company. We were shut down during COVID. Now that my business is back to normal I applied for a modification. On XX/XX/2022 I was declined by Shellpoint. The decline letter is stating based on a NPV calculation. What? We just went through a pandemic and Shellpoint placed me on a COVID 19 Care Act Forbearance. I don't understand this. HUD has advised me that based on my income and mortgage payment, that I meet the mortgage banking guidelines for approval.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92119
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I informed you of a conversation between XXXX XXXX and me on XX/XX/XXXX where XXXX XXXX informed me that the only way I was to obtain copies of communication logs for the account was going to be through court. I communicated my concerns over XXXX advice to her manager, XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX informed me he was unaware of the correct answer and would get back to me. When pressed to give his best guess based on his experience, XXXX stated the statement was most likely false.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-26
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2016, Shellpoint enacted a foreclosure on " Borrower '' property. The foreclosure was rescinded without explanation.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: " Borrower '' communicated to " Shellpoint '' in a XX/XX/XXXX, " CFPB '' complaint, ... if you look back at the data you will see the skipped payments you mentioned were made on XX/XX/XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX. A review of the attached spreadsheet will show, under Insurance Premium Disbursements, duplicate PMI payments made on XX/XX/XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payment installments. " Shellpoint '' never responded or corrected the PMI payments on " Account. ''
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-25
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: An audit of the " Account 's '' XXXX shows wrongfully interference on : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-25
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2022, " Borrower '' called and spoke with " Shellpoint CSR, '' XXXX XXXX, requesting the two payments sent on XX/XX/2022, and XX/XX/2022, be used for the May 2022 monthly payment. In addition, " Borrower '' also requested the payment of the {$210.00} Late Charge Payment and the {$20.00} NSF Fee Payment be reversed to allow for the {$880.00} funds to be used for paying the May 2022 monthly payments. " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX begrudgingly made " Borrower '' request with an apparent deep sigh. " Shellpoint XXXX, XXXX XXXX then questioned " Borrower '' on when payments will be made on the {$210.00} Late Charge and {$20.00} NSF Fee, rather than apologizing for the misunderstanding. " Shellpoint XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed " Borrower '' that the same situation will occur every month until the fees are paid. " Borrower '' stated the payments would be made when " Borrower '' is ready to make the payments. " Borrower '' proceeded to ask " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX, to provide payment dates for XX/XX/2022, XX/XX/2022, XX/XX/2022, and April 2022 monthly payments. " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX then asked " Borrower '' if he had access to the online portal. " Shellpoint XXXX, XXXX XXXX began directing " Borrower '' to the online portal to use while " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX verified the information over the phone together. " Borrower '' proceeded over to the computer to go online before communicating to " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX that he had already verified the information online and filed a " CFPB '' complaint requesting the " CRAs '' reporting to be updated on the 2022 payments in question. " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX seemed a little miffed at this information. Shellpoint XXXX XXXX XXXX refused to provide the information " Borrower '' was requesting on 2022 monthly payments because " Shellpoint '' had responded to the " CFPB '' complaint. Unfortunately, however, the " CFPB '' website is down, and " Borrower '' has not been able to access " Shellpoint 's '' XX/XX/2022 response. " Borrower '' thanked " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX for his interest in the details behind " Borrowers '' request before informing Shellpoint XXXX, XXXX XXXX that besides Shellpoint XXXX, XXXX XXXX personal opinions, " Shellpoint '' is required by law to provide " Borrower '' information on " Account '' promptly and correctly when requested. " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX went into a tirade about legalities, attempting to prove his understanding of the law over the " Borrowers. '' " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX stated in the middle of his tirade that this ( Shellpoint Customer Service phone line ) is not the place for " Shellpoint '' to be doing research and providing verbal confirmation about " Account '' information to customers. " Borrower '' shouted at " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX to get him to stop his tirade. " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX continued with his tirade as " Borrower '' listened. When finished, " Borrower '' kindly thanked " Shellpoint XXXX, '' XXXX XXXX for providing " Borrower '' with all the information " Borrower '' needed before hanging up the phone.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-25
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My mortgage was originally with XXXX and just last week changed to Shellpoint. I was under the covid forbearance plan with XXXX, I was promised the ability to defer the missed payment amounts until the end of the loan term, up until now that amount is over 100K, this was suppose to be deferred to the end of the loan once my forbearance ended in 18 months. However, now Shellpoint has taken over servicing my loan as of XX/XX/22, and they are claiming I owe the full XXXX and they claim they have received no covid forbearance agreement from XXXX. I believe this is a requirement by law to receieve all the paperwork in servicing transfer. I can not pay XXXX and nor do I want to be penalized and refinance with a higher interest rate. I am asking for them to honor my initial verbal agreement with XXXX that I would have an option to backload the due amount. This is urgent, as Shellpoint is threatening me with late payment fees and credit reporting of late payments, even though I should still be on covid forbearance.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 913XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-05-25
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am an attorney at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filing this complaint on behalf of my client, XXXX XXXX, who is the successor in interest of the subject property. An authorization is attached. XXXX XXXX is the daughter and successor in interest to the borrower, XXXX XXXX, who passed away in 2014. XXXX and XXXX owned the property jointly as joint tenants with a right of survivorship ( deed is attached ). Under XXXX law, XXXX thus became the sole owner of the property automatically upon her mother 's death. Shellpoint refuses to acknowledge XXXX as the successor in interest to the loan or allow her to assume the loan with the modification she other qualified for and successfully a TPP for. It improperly cancelled her loan modification and started a foreclosure. Inexplicably, Shellpoint demanded that XXXX open a probate action and become executor of her mother 's estate in order to effectuate a modification/assumption even though she is already the sole owner of the home and probate served no purpose under Connecticut law . It further cancelled her loan modification because her deceased mother could not sign it. XXXX nevertheless attempted to follow Shellpoint 's instructions and spent {$660.00} opening an unnecessary probate action. Shellpoint still was not satisfied, and initiated foreclosure, adding more fees to the account and subjecting XXXX to the potential loss of her home when she has already qualified for a loan modification and successfully completed a TPP.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: 06106
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-05-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A