Product: Mortgage

Please accept this formal complaint in regard to our business interactions with Mr. Cooper, Nationstar Mortgage LLC known as provider, or service provider. References to " respresentive '' were employees of Mr. Cooper contacted throughout this process. Most dates listed are approximations of the date period the events or sub-series of events occurred. This was done in an effort to simplify the complaint. We have been in constant communication with our loan service provider to resolve the issue, but attempts have been unsuccessful. We can afford this home and the current terms, but the provider has failed to process information provided in a way to demonstrate our abilities to make on time payments. I have nowhere to turn outside of seeking legal counsel ( next step ) and ask that you consider the totality of our complaint, as well as individual incidents, to determine if unfair and deceptive business practices have occurred. We are well positioned to provide supporting details if needed. Please reach out if there are any further needs to generate a comprehensive inquiry. 
Step 1 : Please accept this complaint in regard to unfair and deceptive business practices that violate the California Homeowners bill of rights while attempting to modify our mortgage to an affordable level. It has become clear that our loan service provider has no interest in helping us reach a solution, and has made no efforts otherwise to assist in the process. 
Step 2 : Since the beginning our loan modification process, our loan servicer has been deceptive through purposeful misguidance, failure to disclose or vague in need for additional documents, failure to provide a single source for assistance, failure to process/acknowledge documents, failure to process appeals, erroneous obligation attachments, erroneous self-employment status claims, and failure to accept payment ( s ). These deceptive practices have delayed our ability to receive a loan modification while allowing our loan processor to proceed with the foreclosure process, a violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights.

Step 3 : XX/XX/2019, Service provider informed us that they would not accept partial payments and to proceed with the modification process. We are currently behind on our mortgage by {$23000.00}, but are able to reduce that amount significantly to allow affordable modification options. Our hardship of reduction in income and increase in expense has been submitted for review multiple times with no indication from the provider that they are willing to assist. 
XX/XX/2019, Service provider informed us via phone conversation that we were declined for surplus income and needed to modify our expenses to calculate an income surplus of {$250.00} - {$400.00} in order to be considered. Subsequent modification request ( s )  listed monthly expense surplus as requested/suggested by provider and were then declined as having excessive obligations. This deceptive guidance further delayed the process and aided provider in declination. 
XX/XX/2019, despite providing a letter of explanation in regard to income received by a neighbor for storing vehicles would require a profit and loss statement as self-employment income. This information was only made available through our own inquiry. Informed by representative that it would be better to not include this income and to submit letter of explanation to state that no rent ( s ) are received on this property. Subsequent application ( s ) declined for insufficient income. This deception coerced us in to reducing income aiding in the declination. 
XX/XX/2019, informed again by service provider that rent on the subject property would not be an appropriate source of supplemental income as it would be subjected to taxation and deductions. That this supplemental income would be better received as a gift, or household contribution. Subsequent application was submitted with gift letter. This application was declined, representative stating that this income could not be considered as income despite request to modify as such. This deception further delayed the modification process and impeded attempts. 
XXXX-XX/XX/2019 informed by representative that a loan modification request was initiated by the VA simultaneously with our modification request. We had simultaneously submitted multiple supporting documents to secure a modification. This loan modification was declined for excessive obligations with no specific details on what was being considered. Appeal was filed within timelines stating that we could not have had excessive obligations if the information submitted was reviewed. We specifically submitted the claim that the provider did not review the information provided in the packet. Was informed by service provider that any information provided by us at the same time was not considered as they were processing the 3rd party inquiry and we had to submit a new packet as opposed to an appeal. Our opportunity to appeal was never processed in accordance to their own published guidelines. Our purpose for appeal was specific that they did not review any details of our application and warranted opportunity to appeal. No response was issued addressing our claim. This further delaying the process. 
XX/XX/2019 ( estimated ), Reached out to service provider to discuss options to better our chances of modification. Guidance by provider was to not make a considerable payment towards the past due balance as the 3 month pay back agreement would be unaffordable. This is deceptive as later conversations with provider revealed our past due would be easier to accept if lessened. 
XX/XX/2019, New application was filed as a result and subsequently declined with no reasoning. Throughout the process requested profit and loss statement for self-employment income. There has never been self-employment income claimed on our applications. Letters of explanation were provided stating as such. Representative stated excessive obligations with no detail provided. 
XX/XX/2019, filed an appeal stating that we had sufficient income providing proof of income and monthly statements. The appeal was declined again stating excessive obligations and that the supplemental income received could not be considered despite the guidance to not claim as rent. Within the same response the provider stated that the income would be considered if listed as rent, despite previous guidance by the provider to not list as rent. Additionally, the appeal decline lists a negative income of {$1000.00}. The information and expense lists provide by us to the provider list a surplus of income. Again, the provider lists obligations without explanation further delaying the process as we get closer to foreclosure status. 
XX/XX/2019, Filed new application listing appropriate changes in circumstance and appropriate surplus based on request from provider. Application process was held up by provider. Only through inquiry of our own did we discover that the provider was withholding the application for an erroneous claim that there was self-employment income attached to our application, and that we had to submit a letter of explanation explaining that there was no self-employment income. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the provider also erroneously attached our application and rental income statement to address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX. Representative stated that they still show XXXX XXXX, applicant, attached to this home and assumed that the rental income must be coming from this home. This occurred despite having a signed leased agreement as part of the initial application stating that the {$1000.00} rental income comes from our primary address of XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX. This is a room in our home that we rent to XXXX XXXX. We have never once associated our application or rental income with the XXXX XXXX XXXX address and have always listed this as our only home. The erroneous addition of obligation would have certainly affected the outcome of this, and previous applications, but was only made available through accidental conversation prompted by the consumer. This was clearly an attempt to drag out this process to allow the foreclosure process to continue. 
XX/XX/XXXX, Despite informing provider that they are incorrect in their assumptions, they still require a letter of explanation to dispute their unsubstantiated, unwarranted, and erroneous claims of additional properties and self-employment income further delaying our application and allowing the foreclosure process to continue. Letter of explanation submitted. This is an unfair and deceptive practice as it was not the consumers responsibility to clarify the erroneous claim. This burden should have fallen on the provider as more than sufficient evidence stating otherwise was already accepted and processed. 
XX/XX/XXXX, We inquired about status of our pending application to discover that they did not see the letter of explanation when sent in, but then acknowledged receipt on this phone call stating that it was hidden behind other documents. Following this acknowledgement, our application was received for review. This is negligence on the part of the provider and again delayed the process allowing the foreclosure to continue. 
XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. Cooper reopened a vague request for lease agreement, rental income, etc. It was through our own diligence that we discovered the inquiry that was previously displayed as accepted. Upon contacting the provider, they informed us that they required a statement connecting our names to the receiving account for rental payments. If this information was required, it should have been included in previous conversations or requests and should not have previously been accepted. This appears to be a deceptive practice to reopen the application phase on what was previously accepted. Additionally, like all previous applications, and despite our written request, the provider has never once reached out to us to explain any deficits or needs. All discoveries were made through our own inquiry and happening across information as  representatives review our application. This is an unfair and deceptive practice by requiring consumers to unnecessarily fish for information that is readily available to the service provider and further delaying the process and allowing foreclosure to continue. 
Provider never provided a single source ; two names were provided XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. However, neither party was ever made available to discuss the specific details of our modification. In XXXX, it was explained to us by the provider representative that this is a common practice and frustrates them as well. During a second request, I was informed that the names listed are not people handling our case and that there was no such thing as a dedicated loan specialist just for our case. The representatives almost unanimously disapprove of this practice as well. This is appearing to be a purposeful business practice to make navigating the loss mitigation process extremely difficult and confusing. 
The service provider initially only accepted hand-written explanations, delaying first application. If agreed/stated that all submissions are true and adorned with consumer signature, I can not see any business purpose for this other than to make it difficult on the consumer. The provider would not accept typed documents until we, the consumers, informed them that we could not supply hand written documents due to injury. 


Thank you for taking the time to review this complaint.