Product: Mortgage

Company is not correct in its responses to two prior claims and someone needs to deal with this. 

TO CFPB : Based on your failure to actually review the Companies Response to the detailed complaint previously provided, we are providing the following request for an Elevated Review at the CFPB. Failure to do so, will lead to this complaint being filed with the XXXX XXXX, Congressional Oversight, XXXX and HUD, as a reason to revamp CFPB to actually do the job they were created to doreview complaints to determine the merit of the case and not just become a messaging conduit. The review of the Companys response follows. 

Response to CFPB based on Response by the Company Company 's Response Loss Mitigation - In the inquiry, you requested loss mitigation assistance. An Assistance Review Application was initiated on XX/XX/XXXX. You indicated that the initial Required Information Notice was not sent until seven days after the initiation of the assistance review application, which violated Regulation X. You were sent the initial enclosed Required Information Notice dated XX/XX/XXXX. Therefore, we believe there were no errors in the timeline in which we sent the required notice. Before we could complete our review and evaluate the account for all options for which you were eligible, you were required to submit a complete package. Upon receipt and review of submitted documentation throughout the application process, if it were identified that additional or supporting documentation was needed, we would then request this from you as required. You stated that you had listed the {$75.00} as miscellaneous property maintenance in the financial sheet, but we requested this again from you. Please note, we requested clarification of the {$75.00} because it was listed under expenses. We received clarification on XX/XX/XXXX, that this was to be itemized as miscellaneous property maintenance. At the time the Assistance Review Application was initiated, you indicated at least one borrower was unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits. However, you then submitted paystubs and/or an employment agreement as you mentioned. While SPS did acknowledge this proof of income, we requested clarification on the unemployment status and benefits, because we received subsequent Request for Mortgage Assistance ( RMA ) forms on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, in which you indicated in section number four that at least one borrower was unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits Facts : See the actual date time stamps from the portal File Submitted on XXXX not XXXX ( see portal history previously submitted ) Was opened by XXXX on XXXX 7 days later, XX/XX/XXXX, you made the following request for additional information on the portal, not on XXXX. You are required to use the real time postings on-line with the portal, not your internal times based on when you upload info to your system or when you say you started and action. 
On XX/XX/XXXX the XXXX asked for items that had been provided on other forms in the original submission. There was an error on the social security number of the SPS version of the UBAF which is required by SPS and is completed by hand by the borrower vs the automated forms prepared by the court portal. However, under Reg X 12 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) you are required to use Due Diligence in your review of all the documentation provided, which included multiple forms on the court ordered and automated documents ; including the RMA, standard UBAF, XXXX, as well as copy of the real social security card that were submitted. In addition to these forms, there was a complete explanation of the {$75.00} miscellaneous on both UBAFs as the three-page detailed financial statement clearly showed the make up of the {$75.00} being {$25.00} other property expense and {$50.00} miscellaneous ( by all standards a nominal amount of miscellaneous to capture random out of pocket expenses is standard to reflect an accurate budget. ( see attachment 1 ) As to the unemployment, a full explanation was provided, see attachments 2 and 3 ( Hardship letter & employment hire packet ), as well as providing the employment documents including a copy of the social security card, see prior issue on the social security card. 
SPS continued to ask for unemployment explanation, even though provided with initial and subsequent pay stubs, posting asking for them to see other documents provided. Statements on XX/XX/XXXX indicating that he was now working, including the initial pay stub. XX/XX/XXXX additional pay stub reflecting his ownership. On XX/XX/XXXX you ask for the employment status again. XX/XX/XXXX you get the response to see previous, which you do not do. Then on XX/XX/XXXX a message was posted Received clarification on XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX first of XXXX is hire date for XXXX XXXX XXXX which is not clear -- -Need exact clarification on hire date in MM/DD/YY format NOTE : This is an admission of not using information provided in other filings. ALSO NOTE : That a submission made on XX/XX/XXXX took them until XX/XX/XXXX to reply or 19 days, well beyond the 7 days allowed by Reg X. The Program Manager for the court, sent them a notice on XXXX asking for the status after 12 days. 

Company Response item 2 Additionally, you indicated the Homeowners Association ( HOA ) amounts were clear on all forms, except for one typo on one page submitted to SPS. Please note we required clarification if the true and correct HOA amount was {$220.00}, or {$240.00} to accurately calculate the monthly expenses. SPS sent you the enclosed Required Information Notices dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, which outlined documents and/or clarification which were still needed to complete our review. We received all required documentation as of XX/XX/XXXX. 

FACTS : The request made on XX/XX/XXXX, acknowledged that there was a different amount on the other forms, which proves they looked at the forms but did nothing with them for the prior issues. In addition, it raises the issue with the form completed by hand versus those provided by the system. They were sent a corrected manual form on XX/XX/XXXX showing the {$220.00} amount. 

The dates these requests were made in the portal, highlights the failure of record keeping at SPS. They were actually made on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX. This is verified by the attached portal history. 


Multiple Reg X Violations 1. Starting with failure to use all documentation provided and to use reasonable Due Diligence to review provided information. Validated by their own statements on XX/XX/XXXX about the HOA fee. 
2. The date review from the court record on the portal, clearly is in contrast to the dates of requests made on the portal. Several of which were never made as proven on the UNALTERABLE portal history. 
3. Multiple interventions by the Courts Program Manager for failure to use the provided documents, and failure to meet the court and Reg X timeframes. See portal history notes. 
4. It is clear that SPSs response was based on their own internal communications, but not those with the borrower and the REAL TIME portal. 

Conclusion : Given that our request for the actual owner of the securities has not been answered, the multiple Reg X and Court Program violations, and duplicate responses, same response made initially to the borrower as was made to the CFPB after the complaint and providing examples, we are requesting maximum penalties and sanctions on SPS.