Product: Mortgage

On XX/XX/XXXX RightPath Servicing sent me a notice informing me that my betterments and improvements insurance had expired when at no time did my insurance expire. 
Due to the claim by RightPath Servicing that my hazard insurance expired, I sent RightPath Servicing proof of hazard insurance ( Condo Assoc. Master Policy ) on XX/XX/XXXX. A confirmation email was sent in response by RightPath Servicing, acknowledging receipt of the documents I provided. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I received a Second and Final Notice dated XX/XX/XXXX. This second and final notice was in the format provided by the CFPB ( XXXX ) or Model Form to be used if no response was sent to the servicer after sending a first notice ( XXXX ) to the borrower. Again, RightPath Servicing did receive proof of insurance on XX/XX/XXXX as confirmed by the documents confirmation response I received. This would have required RightPath Servicing to use the XXXX Model Form for Second and Final Notice. 
The Second and Final Notice, in the no response format sent by RightPath Servicing, requires the second and final notice to have the same language as the first notice. It does not. 
The XXXX Model Forms place the words hazard and insurance type in brackets [ ]. If RightPath Servicing had properly drafted these notices, HO-6 Insurance would have been placed in these brackets as [ insurance type ]. Hazard insurance is not a type of insurance that can be purchased but HO-6 insurance is, as referenced in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX RightPath Servicing is aware of this insurance type as they referred me to XXXX XXXX XXXX Servicer Guide in a response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, to my complaint. 
RightPath Servicing has sent a letter detailing a timeline for HO-6 insurance and clearly take the position that my hazard insurance was insufficient, not expired or about to expire. In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, RightPath Servicing states ; XX/XX/XXXX - Loan transferred to RightPath Servicing with no HO6 insurance XXXX details. RightPath Servicing does not state hazard insurance expired, in this timeline, as they do in the first and second notices regarding forced placed insurance. In this same response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX RightPath Servicing states ; XX/XX/XXXX - No response to initial letter provided ; a second and final LPI notice was issued. This is simply not true, insurance documents were sent on XX/XX/XXXX and a confirmation email for receipt of these documents was received by me. 
Also, within this timeline, it states ; XX/XX/XXXX - LPI was added to the account on policy # XXXX - term XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, with a premium amount of {$4900.00}. 
I informed RightPath Servicing that I never received a notice from them that HO6 insurance was placed on my property at my expense. In a response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX RightPath Servicing explains that they did not send a notice of HO6 insurance and states : Regarding your claim that the final notice of placement of HO-6 insurance dated XX/XX/XXXX was never sent and never existed, please be informed that the insurance-related letters were sent directly from our insurance vendor and was not in our imaging system. The timeline of events, XX/XX/XXXX, does not state a notice was sent. 
On XX/XX/XXXX RightPath Servicing received contact information for borrowers insurance provider via email. At no time does RightPath Servicing provide proof that they contacted my insurance provider in order to satisfy the Reasonable Basis requirement for imposing forced placed insurance. RightPath Servicing has never provided a copy of a cancellation, expiration or non-renewal document from borrowers insurance provider, this document must be provided to satisfy the Reasonable Basis requirement. 
In addition, RightPath Servicing does not identify the type of hazard insurance they claim to require, hazard insurance is a broad term used to identify forced placed insurance but it does not identify the type of forced placed insurance. XXXX XXXX lists HO-6 as the insurance type, they do not simply list hazard insurance. 
The proof of insurance documents sent to RightPath Servicing on XX/XX/XXXX shows the insurance policy to carry an additional coinsurance clause. Again, RightPath Servicing refers me to Chapter 4703.2c in a response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and within this Chapter it states : A policy with a coinsurance clause, and inclusion of an agreed amount endorsement or selection of the agreed value option ( which waives the requirement for coinsurance ) is considered acceptable evidence that the 100 % replacement cost requirement has been met. 

To date, RightPath Servicing continues to claim they have properly noticed me in regards to forced placed insurance. This is not true, as detailed above. 

RightPath Servicing has and continues to cause me great financial harm as well as unnecessary personal injury.