Product: Mortgage

I had fallen behind on my mortgage payment due to a decrease in my monthly income. In order to prevent a foreclosure, I initially requested a loan modification with my lender, Carrington. However, due to the pandemic the loan fell back into default. Therefore, I decided to sell my property. I hired a real estate company and gave them 3rd party authorization to my mortgage account. They submitted an application for a short sale on my behalf in XXXX XXXX XXXX. Carrington contacted my representative indicating the offer for short sale had been denied, because websites like XXXX and XXXX indicated my home was worth nearly double the purchase contract offer. They also said my home was a 3-family. My real estate representative explained that my home was a 2-family. I provided the Certificate of Occupancy registered with the city. Carrington was also told that comparing my 2-family home with online resources of 3-family homes is inflating the value of my home. Additionally, it is not a legitimate way to evaluate the current condition of my home, which requires a physical inspection by an independent licensed professional. Afterwards, my real estate representative was contacted by individuals that purported themselves to be associated with Carrington and were asking questions regarding my loss mitigation application. They claimed to be from a company named XXXX XXXX. My real estate representative was concerned since this company was unknown to me as an entity associated with my mortgage loan. I thought they might have been fraudsters trying to gain access to my account information. However, Carrington stated XXXX XXXX is an authorized vendor and they had released my loss mitigation information to them without my knowledge. Carrington also stated, XXXX XXXX had the right to approve or deny any Short Sale offer and would make all final decisions. This was a surprise since I do not have a loan with them, had not authorized the release of my personal information to XXXX XXXX and was unclear regarding their role and why I would need their permission to evaluate my loss mitigation options. As time persisted XXXX XXXX only presented the option for a Deed in Lieu. They indicated a Deed in Lieu would give me compensation for relocating. Although I had never requested compensation for relocation, they used this offer to continually coerce me to accept a Deed in Lieu as my only choice for loss mitigation with Carrington. I rejected the Deed in Lieu option and asked to continue to be considered for all loss mitigation options, which XXXX XXXX refused to do. Additionally, XXXX XXXX asked to be allowed to come inside my property. I agreed as long as an independent non-affiliated professional came to evaluate my home. They refused to send a person other than someone from their own company to evaluate the value of my property. After some research, I discovered XXXX XXXX is actually a real estate company that employs agents who work for XXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe XXXX XXXX was acting on their own behalf to try and obtain my property so they could eventually sell it themselves. They had no desire to resolve my foreclosure or engage in my loss mitigation options. This creates a major conflict of interest since they are claiming to evaluate my personal loss mitigation options. XXXX XXXX  intentions are disingenuous to me as a homeowner. They stopped evaluating me for all loss mitigation options. They tried to gain access to my property under ill means when their goal is merely self-serving as opposed to resolving my foreclosure in an amicable and fair manner.