Product: Mortgage

SECOND COMPLAINT- NOT A DUPLICATE Our loan servicer, Mr. Cooper ( " the Company '' ), has INCORRECTLY evaluated our account for loss mitigation options upon the conclusion of our Cares Act Forbearance. Furthermore, the Company has misrepresented facts within their response to my former CFPA complaint. The Company has also engaged in deceptive and unfair debt collection practices in the handling of my account as further described as follows : ISSUE 1 : On XX/XX/2023, the Company provided a letter in response to my initial CFPA Complaint. Within the letter, the Company, stated that my account was evaluated for a VA Home Affordable Modification. The Company further claims that their denial reason of " excessive obligations in relation to income, '' is valid, and further explains that " In order to be eligible for this program, pre-modification Debt-to-Income can not be less than 31 %. '' This answer is both FALSE and DOES NOT SUPPORT THE COMPANY 'S CAUSE FOR DENIAL. According to 38 CFR 36.4315 and the VA Servicer Handbook M26-4, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.06 -Loan Modifications, the correct eligibility requirement states that the PITIA payment can not be GREATER than 31 % of the borrower 's gross monthly income. Per the Company 's response my debt to income was calculated at 20.34 %. THEREFORE, our account WAS ELIGIBLE for this option but the Company denied this option based upon false criteria.

ISSUE 2 : According the Company 's response letter to my former CFPA Complaint, my account was also evaluated for a traditional modification. Again, Mr. Cooper denied this option due to " excessive obligations in relation to income. '' The Company further claims that the " proposed rate '' considered for a traditional modification was 7.2 % which increases our monthly payment from {$1800.00} to {$2400.00}. The proposed rate increase is NOT CONSISTENT with VA Servicer Handbook ( Chapter 5, Par. 5.06 -Loan Modifications ) or Code of Federal Regulations ( 38 CFR 36.4315 ) which both state " the rate must not exceed the weekly XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX... as of the date the modification agreement is approved, plus 50 basis points, AND NO MORE THAN 1 % HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING INTEREST RATE ON THE LOAN. '' Our current interest rate is 3.5 %, and therefore, the Company 's denial is UNJUSTIFIED by proposing a rate more than double my existing rate. 

ISSUE 3 : The Company also states in the aforementioned letter that their denial of my loss mitigation options were being upheld subsequent to my appeal. THIS IS ALSO FALSE. According to a letter generated by the Company on XXXX XXXX XXXX my account was approved for a Traditional Modification. HOWEVER, the proposed rate as previously mentioned is NOT CONSISTENT with VA Servicing Guidelines or the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed rate of 7.25 % is more than double my existing rate, but can not exceed 1 % over our existing rate of 3.5 %.

ISSUE 4 : The Company is pre-dating their correspondence to provide me with less time to make informed decisions regarding my options. When the Company initially declined my home retention options, a " Loss Mitigation Evaluation Notice, '' was generated in my account on XX/XX/2023, HOWEVER, the letter was pre-dated XX/XX/2023. I spoke with XXXX XXXX ( in the Company 's Escalation Department ) on 3 separate occasions, and she did not even have access to that notice which provides us with our right to appeal the decision prior to the XX/XX/XXXX date. THEN subsequent to my appeal, a second " Loss Mitigation Evaluation Notice, '' was generated in my account on XX/XX/2023, HOWEVER, this letter was predated for XX/XX/2023. Again, I spoke with XXXX XXXX, on at least 5 separate occasions, and even she did not have access to this letter until after XX/XX/XXXX. To add insult to injury, this letter provides us with only 15 CALENDAR DAYS to make a decision to accept the Company 's proposed terms. THEREFORE, we have less than 9 calendar days to make an informed decision regarding out account as opposed to 14 calendar days. 

ISSUE 5 : Within the Company 's " Loss Mitigation Evaluation Notice, '' received XX/XX/2023, the Company claims that our account was evaluated for the VA Home Affordable Modification, however, the Company now claims that this option is " NOT AVAILABLE '' but provides no reason for this outcome. 

ISSUE 6 : Within the aforementioned Loss Mitigation Evaluation Notice received XX/XX/2023, the Company states, " You must contact us at XXXX or in writing ... no later than 14 days to accept or reject this offer. If you do not respond within 14 days, we will treat the offer as rejected. '' NOT ONLY do we not have 14 days to respond due to the pre-dated correspondence, BUT this phone number is INCORRECT. I called this number today to ask some questions regarding the letter, and received an automated message stating that this is an incorrect number and that I need to call a separate number XXXX to reach someone. When I called that number, the representative had NO ACCESS to information regarding this decision to answer my questions. I was told that I needed to send an email to the Company 's customer relations department to answer my questions. I was also informed that department does not have a phone line to speak with customers, that they will acknowledge my email within 5 business days, but they have 10 business days to respond. The Company also claims through its correspondence and in my account that if I have any questions my assigned " Dedicated Loan Specialist, '' named XXXX XXXX XXXX can allegedly be reached at ( XXXX ) XXXX, but this phone number is ALSO incorrect and I receive an automated message telling me that I have dialed the wrong phone number. THEREFORE the Company is providing me with inadequate time to make an informed decision, and IS NOT providing me with ANY resources to obtain the information I need to make an informed decision. ADDITIONALLY, the Company 's evaluation of my loss mitigation options is INCORRECT!

The Company is egregiously engaging in deceptive and unfair lending practices and unjustifiably attempting to coerce a distressed borrower into predatory loan terms or risk losing my home to foreclosure or filing a XXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy because the Company 's negligence in correctly evaluating my loss evaluation options.