Date Received: 2019-01-18
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My name is XXXX XXXX and I have a home in XXXX North Carolina, which is mortgaged through SLS Mortgage Company. I have been trying for several months to get SLS to drop the PMI from our mortgage but they will not respond to our requests. We have invested XXXX in improvements to the home which has increased the value significantly. My wife and I have called several times, weve sent in all requested letters but have gotten zero response from SLS. We would appreciate any help you could offer on this matter. Please see attached letters
Company Response:
State: NC
Zip: 287XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-18
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-15
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I received a letter from a debt collector Lawyers Office stating that I had 30 days from receipt of the letter to validate the alleged debt. I have replied to the Lawyer 's Office, My document is attached.I would like for the those stated as the RESPONDENT in my Notice of Dispute to respond to the dispute letter from me.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MD
Zip: 20716
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-15
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been having issues with completing the short sale process for my property to relieve myself from the debt and settle what i owe with the lender Specialized Loan Servicing. I followed all their guidelines and steps involving the short sale process and had the auction of my home delayed in order to ensure that i would be able to complete a short sale and get my life back on track. With the help of my realtor we got a buyer to put an offer in which we submitted to them. Around the end of XX/XX/XXXX they agreed to review my short sale and sent out an appraiser to get the value of the house. Their value came back higher than our buyers offer of XXXX. Despite their lower value, they told us they were looking to get XXXX. We immediately went back on the market to look for that value. We were able to get the original buyer to come up to meet their counter, and when we did they refused to review it as they had set an auction date and claimed we did not have enough time to submit it for a review. They claimed they had issues getting into the property a second time which caused some delays in them getting another value, but we never received a call from any appraiser. They finally sent someone on XX/XX/XXXX and my realtor had to meet them out there to make sure they would get in. At this point another auction date was scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX so we were still on a time crunch. They got their value back at the same as it was previously XX/XX/XXXX and asked us to wait til after the holidays for an approval. After the holidays we were told that they were looking to NET XXXX even though their valuation of the property came back at XXXX and said their investor would no longer look at a short sale. I have put a lot of effort into this short sale only for it to be shut down because SLS 's negligence and inability to follow through with the process. Their inconsistency leads me to believe that they never actually entertained our offer, and put us through this process for no reason.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MA
Zip: 015XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-15
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC. misapplied the money I sent to them in XX/XX/2016 for property taxes and insurance. They called me on that XXXX and want me to send the money. I sent two checks to them. one check was for {$7700.00} for taxes, and the second check was for {$1200.00} for insurance. These were exactly what they requested for. The following month they forced payment plan on me, and started appropriating my regular monthly mortgage payment to cover the same taxes and insurance. They claimed that my regular monthly mortgage payment of {$1400.00} was not enough for the mortgage, taxes and insurance thereby started charging me LATE payments. I was then reported to THE CREDIT BUREAU for late payments. Since the past two years, I increased my monthly payments to {$2500.00}. I have never been late on my payment since they bought my loan, and now they have destroyed my credit.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30024
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: No
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-14
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I filed for bankruptcy, and the company has retaliated by blocking me from accessing my account. I am no longer able to check when payments are due, how much is due, tax information, payment history, or anything else. They refuse to send statements, so I can't get the information there either. Without having this information available, I am at risk of losing my home, and that is their whole purpose in denying me access to MY information. Contacting then numerous times has had no results. They are also violating Federal Bankruptcy laws by retaliating.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MO
Zip: 65807
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-14
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I submitted to my servicer who has both the first lien mortgage and the second lien mortgage. They denied me the modification of the first but they gave me a 1 percent on the second with a defer o XXXX and XXXX. Then I got my statement on the second they charged me XXXX all entered on the same day as XX/XX/2018. They put me on default but my payment was only XXXX per month. I need your help as these lenders and servicers are repeating errors that the National Mortgage Settlement and the Homeowners Bill of Rights was give to assist consumers.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 92108
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-09
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Specialized Loan Servicing ( SLS ) acquired my mortgage including servicing beginning on or about XX/XX/XXXX. The mortgage was previously originated and serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. At origination and at the time of the acquisition/servicing transfer to SLS, the loan was only escrowed for property taxes. It was not for insurance as the condominium master policies were provided at origination and were sufficient for closing. It is extremely important to note that my loan was originated without a requirement or condition for me to have an HO-6 insurance policy. On XX/XX/XXXX SLS claims to have sent me a first notice of expiration of a condominium unit owners policy. I never received the first notice from SLS. On XX/XX/XXXX SLS sent me a second notice which I did receive. Shortly thereafter I called and verbally spoke to SLS loan servicing department to inform them that my loan was originated without an HO-6 policy and that it was not required at origination. SLS was only able to respond that the HO-6 policy was required by law in Florida. I informed them that it was required in Florida in XXXX but an amendment was made to the Florida laws in XXXX in which the requirement was removed. The SLS representative did not take the time to consider the correct information I relayed to her and just kept saying that HO-6 insurance was required in Florida. I then called a second time to see if I could speak to a rationale person at SLS and again communicated to SLS that it erroneously was requiring me to have an HO-6 insurance policy. Again I explained to the representative that Florida laws were amended in XXXX and that any explicit requirement that condominiums must have an HO-6 policy was removed. Since the SLS representative continued to communicate to me that Florida law requires me to have an HO-6 policy, I specifically asked the representative to have SLS Legal send me evidence that Florida had such a requirement. The representative stated that someone would research and call me back. On XX/XX/XXXX a SLS representative named XXXX XXXX ( spelling may be wrong ) left me a voicemail requiring me again to have an HO-6 policy and to send evidence of an HO-6 policy. She also stated that it was Required by the State of Florida which is not correct. I have this voicemail saved as evidence that SLS gave me incorrect and misleading information. Although I requested it, SLS never provided me in writing any legal citation that I was required in the state of Florida to maintain an HO-6 insurance policy. On XX/XX/XXXX SLS force placed insurance costing {$5100.00} covering XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. This amount of force placed insurance impacted my monthly loan payment. My loan payment increased {$1200.00} ( 77 % ) from {$1600.00} to {$2900.00} based on an escrow analysis completed by SLS which was immediately enforced. Even though I did not have any prior damage to my property or any claims, they placed insurance retroactively for the entire year at an egregious cost of {$5100.00} when the market cost of HO-6 policies is approximately $ 600- {$700.00}. In XX/XX/XXXX SLS then renewed the forced placed HO-6 policy at an even higher cost of {$5600.00}. This new policy is a whopping 10 % higher than the prior policy which was force placed just 2 months prior. I ended up getting my own HO-6 policy for the sole purpose of reducing my required escrow amount and monthly payment to escrow until this issue was resolved and NOT because of any Florida requirement because one does not exist. My cost of getting an HO-6 policy was {$590.00}, approximately 89 % less than what SLS charged my escrow account. In the end, I believe the actions of SLS violate the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which requires covered persons or service providers such as SLS to refrain from committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. SLS force placed an HO-6 insurance policy on my loan on the premise that it was required by Florida law as SLS representatives stated in a voicemail message which I saved and can provide. The citation of that law could not be provided by SLS when requested. Therefore it is contended that no such legal requirement exists for my loan. In addition, no such requirement was in place at the time of my loan origination and, therefore, no such requirement can arbitrarily be imposed on my loan by SLS at its leisure. As such, the act of SLS of incorrectly force placing an HO-6 insurance policy on my loan was an UNFAIR act in that 1 ) it caused me direct and substantial injury since my monthly payment immediately increase by {$1200.00} ( 77 % ) per month and I had to eventually get my own HO-6 policy which I was not required to obtain 2 ) it was not avoidable by me ; even though I attempted to resolve the matter with SLS prior to the force placement, SLS did not act appropriately and continued with the erroneous force placement ; furthermore, if I did not pay the increased escrow amount, then SLS would have reported negatively and incorrectly to the credit bureaus which would have created yet another regulatory violation ( of FCRA ) on their behalf 3 ) my financial injury was in no way outweigh by any benefit of having the HO-6 policy ; in fact, the first policy was retroactive 11 months from the date it was purchased ; since I had no events or claims during those 11 months then the benefit of the policy was solely for SLS, NOT the customer ; in addition, since the HO-6 policy is not a legal requirement, then I do not believe the benefits of the policy costing approximately 89 % more than the typical market price outweigh its costs. The acts of SLS were also DECEPTIVE in that 1 ) I the consumer ( and potentially other consumers ) was mislead by SLS as an SLS personnel made an explicit Representation to me that the HO-6 policy was required by Florida law. I have subsequently consulted 2 separate law firms and both have informed me that Florida law was amended in XXXX and as a result there is no such explicit requirement that I have an HO-6 policy on my condominium ; furthermore, since I requested SLS to provide me evidence that a Florida requirement for the insurance existed and SLS did not provide evidence of such legal requirement, then SLS may have Omitted material information ; 2 ) since my loan was originated without the requirement of an HO-6 insurance policy and without the requirement to place funds in escrow for the purpose of purchasing an HO-6 policy, then my belief that an HO-6 policy was not required is reasonable 3 ) the misleading act by SLS is material The acts of SLS were also ABUSIVE in that I that consumer placed reasonable reliance on SLS to act in my interest. However, SLS did not adequately perform its responsibilities in understanding Florida law and did not provide me with the evidence and citation of the Florida law SLS referred to in its voicemail probably because the requirement does not exist ; SLS was in a position to take advantage of me as I felt I did not have any other avenue to gain clarity on the matter and resolve it except for getting my own legal advice. Should this formal complaint not be resolved to a mutual satisfaction, I will have no choice but to proceed with formal legal action. I hope we can all come to an agreement.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 331XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-09
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I hired my attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to handle my mortgage defence on or about XX/XX/XXXX when I was given a default notice, ( 3 months behind then ) since then I followed my attorneys advice, the bank Specialized Loan Servicing of XXXX XXXX. XXXX CO. are playing games, they keep on adjouning the conference because they aren't ready and my arrears keep getting larger and larger, today they SLS didn't even bother to show up and the judge adjounded the case again ( 2 months ) from now to XX/XX/XXXX because they didn't show up. My Arears keep on going up. My bank Arears are now at {$110000.00} until present, I offered the bank {$100000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX and was turned down, this bank is not looking to come to the table and assist in getting this loan Motification or settled, I have both letters from my attorney stating the refusal of my offer by my attorney, and that today XX/XX/XXXX a scheduled court conference by the court they didn't even bothered to show up. I need you to investigate this bank as they are forcing me to file a bankruptcy which I do not want to do.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 103XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-09
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ( SLS ) confirming that " lender-placed insurance '' is not being renewed due to my negligence of not securing insurance coverage on my property. Please review attachment of the letter from SLS. In response to the letter from SLS, I never authorized SLS to place insurance on my property. Since XXXX, I have been trying to secure my own coverage and when I attempted to place insurance on my property, SLS refused to remove their lender forced policy coverage. As confirmation, SLS currently have a Class Action Lawsuit pending ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN XXXX ) for their lender placed insurance.I confirm that I am a claimant in the Class action against SLS. Based on the attachment letter from SLS, SLS & XXXX XXXX was never my mortgagee, because I never executed documents with SLS, SLS never established a chain of title or custody from the original lender, and XXXX XXXX confirmed that they do not have any affiliation with SLS in anyway as well per XXXX ( SLS ID # XXXX Dated : XX/XX/XXXX | Time:XXXX | stated " SLS has no information referencing the original lender nor payment history. However the " loan '' came from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' who confirm the same ( no chain of title or payment history from its originator XXXX XXXX XXXX ).
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NC
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2019-01-05
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am filing this complaint to address several significant areas of concern during and following the submission of my Loss Mitigation Application ( RMA ) dated XX/XX/2018, and also the Notice of Error letter, submitted XX/XX/2018. Throughout this entire process, it is clear that SLS and its representatives are operating in a deliberate unethically discriminatory manner. While suppressing all means of communication and correction, it is also apparent that they attempt to prevent me from seeking my right to pursue available alternatives to foreclosure. Highlighted below are some of the more egregious and erroneous actions perpetrated in the very short span of my seeking loss mitigation assistance. I have provided all documentation to support and bolster each claim in my charge against SLS. XX/XX/2018, I submitted to SLS an RMA application seeking a short negotiated payoff ( charge-off ). On XX/XX/2018, SLS reviewed the remainder of my submitted documents, and the application status updated to complete. ( SLS did not meet regulatory guidelines by failing to provide written notices as well as requests to have this confirmation in writing ) XX/XX/2018, SLS representatives falsely stated that XXXX XXXX does not allow short negotiated payoffs, the subject property is in an equity position, and that I would have to submit another application that does not select short negotiated payoff as an option. Despite their false assertion, I knew that charge-offs, its definition, and implementation are part of XXXX XXXX Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide chapter 9210.1. XX/XX/2018, the outcome of the Foreclosure Settlement Conference, held at the XXXX Supreme Court, was a signed agreement that SLS would provide a full interior/exterior appraisal to compare our vastly differed values accurately. The property value of my interior/exterior appraisal is $ XXXX whereas SLS 's desktop estimate was $ XXXX. SLS and its representatives had full disclosure of the preexisting interior damage before the RMA application yet they did not communicate this information to XXXX XXXX contrary to its ' Seller/Servicer Guide chapters 8403.1 and 9202.5. On XX/XX/2018, the BPO company, hired by SLS to perform the interior/exterior appraisal, informed me, via phone, that they will not schedule an appraisal until SLS confirms that they will either provide a safety mask ( for mold throughout the house ) or compensate them for their purchase of a mask. ( A hazard distressed BPO servicer is required as stated in XXXX XXXX Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide chapter 9210.3 ( 2 ) ) During a self-initiated phone call to SLS on XX/XX/2018, I discovered that SLS stopped processing my RMA application, no agent was assigned, no valid, verifiable explanation available as to why. Since XX/XX/2018, there were no requests for me to supply any additional information, no denial notices, written notice of loss mitigation options available, or the right to appeal any adverse decision made. ( Violation of RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41, b, c, d, e, h ) On XX/XX/2018, SLS representatives attempted to initiate dialogue with me to present what they called an " alternative settlement proposal. '' Within their letters, they would make the following claims : 1. XXXX XXXX doesn't accept short negotiated payoffs but has secured a one-time approval 2. The settlement is based on the lien amount only 3. Their exterior-only appraisal is $ XXXX ( $ 100K less than previously asserted yet in clear opposition to the Court instruction and agreement to conduct an interior appraisal ) 4. They have approval from XXXX XXXX to sell the property for $ XXXX 5. XXXX XXXX XXXX stance is that their contractors can do the needed repair work at the subject property ( sight-unseen ) for $ 75K less than the itemized contractor estimate supplied in my RMA application which also would include expenses not provided in my report. With each correspondence, under threat to proceed to litigation, the time to accept or respond to their offer was 15, 10 and 5 days. On XX/XX/2018, SLS attempted to validate their reason for not performing an interior appraisal as due to the presence of extensive mold. However, this was not new information. The Court understood this fact beforehand and therefore instructed SLS also to provide a full-appraisal similar to the one I had supplied with the RMA application to which SLS agreed and signed off. Though SLS and their hired BPO Company both knew of the extensive damage and presence of mold, they have attempted to provide their land-only BPO as reliable and accurate. Within the report, they entirely omitted any mention of the preexisting hazards. Though the subject property is a single family house, their BPO reclassified the property as vacant land and used a wide range of nonqualified varied comparables that include commercial property, multi-lot, unlicensed parking lot and non-existing property. Most notable is that report lists the overall property condition as " good. '' SLS 's actions and inactions have obstructed my physical possession of the property as it was originally willed, impeded means of foreclosure redemption and has left the property uninhabitable and its contents nonredeemable due to contamination from toxic high levels of black mold. To date, multiple requests have gone unanswered for any valid reason for my stopped RMA application. No explanation provided as to why I have been subjected to deceptive, misleading statements and practices. I've not received the non-proprietary documentation of XXXX XXXX approval to sell for $ XXXX or their contractors work estimate for $ XXXX. No explanation is given as to if SLS still intends on using their BPO as an acceptable accurate document. No answer to my notice of error letter submitted on XX/XX/2018 XX/XX/2018
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NJ
Zip: 07060
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2019-01-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A