Product: Mortgage

My mortgage loan was transferred effective XX/XX/XXXX, which was about halfway between the XX/XX/XXXX official due date and the end of the grace period- XXXX XXXX on which I was planning to make my payment with the original servicer, Guaranteed Rate. 

I attempted to clarify with Guaranteed Rate whether my existing autopay would be processed or not on XX/XX/XXXX. They said they no longer had access to the file, and were not sure whether it would or not. 

I called Shellpoint- the new servicer- shortly after I got the letter advising of the transfer, and informed them of the uncertainty regarding the status of the autopay. The agent I spoke to told me it is totally fine to wait and see if that pulls, since I have a 60-day grace period to make my payments. I was surprised by this generous time frame, and it occurred to me that if I really had a 60 day grace period, I might be able to earn some interest on the funds by waiting until nearly the 60th day to make both the XXXX and XXXX payments. I asked the agent to confirm whether the grace period would allow me to do so without an issue. She balked a bit, and clearly had never been asked that question before. She asked me to wait on a brief hold while she confirmed that with her supervisor. She eventually came back and said that, yes, I could wait until XXXX at the end of the grace period to make my XXXX and XXXX payments ( assuming they didn't get processed by the Guaranteed Rate autopay ), and that would be fine. I thanked her for her help. 

Finding the long grace period to be perhaps almost too good to be true, I looked up the Federal regulations regarding mortgage servicing transfers, and found that they only protect mortgagees from certain consequences in the event payments are made on time to the original servicer, and arrive late via forwarding to the new servicer. 

I received a call from another agent on XX/XX/XXXX looking to secure a payment on the account. I relayed to him what I'd been told by the first agent about 6 weeks earlier, but told him that I had been meaning to call anyway out of an abundance of caution. I told him that I had been told there was a grace period running until on or about XX/XX/XXXX, and that because I was told it would not cause me any fees, penalties, or negative credit reporting if I held onto the funds until the 60 days had run, I was planning to pay on or around XX/XX/XXXX. But I added that I'd looked into the regulations which don't require such generous treatment, and that while I had him on the phone, I'd like to confirm that Shellpoint 's policy allows for a grace period of 60 days as I'd been advised. He told me that it's not technically a grace period, and that the other agent should not have used those words. I then said ( at least almost verbatim ) " okay, but just to be clear, my understanding from her is that there would be no negative consequences to my paying my XXXX and XXXX payments, so long as it was done fewer than 60 days after the transfer date. Can you confirm that? '' He then confirmed that there would be no consequences, and asked if I'd like to set up a payment for XXXX, which I did ( though I later cancelled and set up the payment from a different account ). 

I then began receiving mailings about my " defaulted mortgage, '' but knew based on these two conversations that I didn't need to worry about it. But then I got a {$19.00} fee for property inspection. 

I called to discuss/dispute this fee, which went very much against not only the original " grace period '' advice ( purportedly backed up by her supervisor ) that Shellpoint 's agent had given me, but also very specifically against the " no consequences '' assurance I'd received from the agent who called me on XX/XX/XXXX. 

I was advised to submit a dispute for the fee via Shellpoint 's website, which I did, in very great detail. I received a response overruling my dispute, but with language that seemed to suggest nothing more than that the fee is standard and valid, and which gave no explanation as to why they might believe their repeated false and misleading assurances- collectively the sole reason the payments weren't received in a time that would have avoided the property inspection and associated fee- didn't justify waiving the fee. 

I called and spoke to an agent who falsely claimed that the fee was not assessed by Shellpoint, and blamed it on my prior servicer. I then asked for her supervisor, who confirmed it was a fee charged by Shellpoint despite what the lower-level agent had repeatedly claimed earlier in the call. She confirmed that the audio of the calls in which I was repeatedly given false information in XXXX and XXXX still existed, but also confirmed that it didn't appear they were reviewed or taken into account in denying my dispute of the fee. She assured me that she would re-open my dispute, and make sure the calls were reviewed in connection with it. 

Having not heard anything on the subject since that call ( from approximately early XXXX ), still seeing the fee on my account, and growing increasingly frustrated that it effectively blocked me from making intended extra payments to principal, I called back today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) to follow up on the re-opened dispute. 

The agent I spoke to this time, after I gave him a detailed rundown of the situation and my efforts to this point, again claimed that this fee was carried over from my prior servicer, and that Shellpoint never charged me any fee. I told him that a previous first-level agent had also told me that, but that I'm 100 % sure that was not the case- something that the last supervisor I spoke with also clarified. He put me on hold and finally confirmed on his end that he was wrong, and that it was indeed a Shellpoint fee, and gave me a very lengthy explanation ( all of which I already knew ) as to why it was charged. I explained to him that I'd disputed the fee and was told the dispute would be reopened and refocused on the details of the situation that had evidently been ignored the first time, and that a supervisor advised me that she would see to it that the calls were listened to and evaluated for false and misleading content which led to the fee. He advised me that his hands were tied, at which point I requested a supervisor- prefarably the one who had given me these assurances last time. 

I reached what I believe was a different supervisor than last time, who advised that the dispute had not been reopened as I was promised by the last supervisor in roughly early XXXX, meaning I'd spent roughly 6 weeks waiting on the result of a fictional investigation, and been charged extra interest in the meantime due to my inability to make principal-only payments while waiting for the fee to be removed. She advised me that my only remedy would be to open a new dispute case online ( something I know from experience takes about a month ). She also claimed that because I had read the regulations, I should have known that the grace period was not real, and then began to give me a condescending verbal treatise on contract law. I informed her that she is actually speaking to a contract attorney, and I needed no such education. I further informed her that the minimum requirements of law and regulations do not necessarily prevent a company from adopting policies more favorable than required in dealings with customers, which is why I went out of my way to clarify Shellpoint 's policy on the second call, only to be misinformed to my detriment again. After she made it very clear that the invalid fee would not be removed, I asked that the calls be reviewed even if only on a customer service/training basis, as it is absolutely outrageous to mislead customers, charge them in violation of assurances made, and then blame the customer for the mistake/fraud. She gave no indication of any intention to take the matter seriously or have the calls reviewed. 

I had intended to make a {$1000.00} principal only payment in XXXX, and was prevented from doing so by this fee which was created from scratch by Shellpoint 's errors in making false representations to me, and kept in place by their lies and carelessness in the aftermath. 

This fee should be immediately removed. I should further be credited approximately {$5.00} to principal, which I calculate to be the approximate amount of interest that accrued due to Shellpoint making me unable to pay {$1000.00} in extra principal as I should and would have in XXXX. 

Further, I intend to pay {$10000.00} to principal in addition to my regular XXXX payment that I've already made. If this fee has not been removed and I haven't been notified in a timely manner such that I am able to make that payment, I'd request an additional {$58.00} be paid by Shellpoint to my principal, due to the additional interest they will have collected for XXXX if they continue to block my principal payment and I'm not able to pay that {$10000.00}. 

I've based both the {$5.00} and {$58.00} on 7 % interest on the {$1000.00} and {$10000.00}, divided by 12. If there is a more precise calculation available, I'd accept that. 

Further, I believe that each of the calls which resulted in my being provided detrimental false information which benefitted either Shellpoint, the Note 's owner, and/or a contractor with whom Shellpoint has a working relationship ( ie an inspector that got paid to come to my property and take a photo ) constitute violations of the FDCPA. Most especially the third detailed call, in which a supervisor apparently made a false claim that she would reopen my investigation, and instead seemingly did nothing and caused me to incur more interest. 

I believe Shellpoint knows it has provided me detrimental false information, or else that it is unwilling to investigate and learn that it has done so, purely due to self-interest and lack of interest in fair dealing. 

I believe I would be entitled to no less than {$3000.00} for the minimum of 3 FDCPA violations. However, I would not wish to seek remuneration for the initial inaccurate information, which may have been the result of an honest mistake, and therefore would only be seeking {$1000.00} in compensation for what I am nearly certain was a knowingly false claim by the supervisor regarding re-opening my dispute, which I find especially outrageous in light of Shellpoint 's determination to avoid accountability and flaunt compliance with not only law, but also basic principals of honest dealing.