Product: Mortgage

PHH, through its acknowledged and written admission of internal process errors, has denied me available options prior to the end of a Temporary Hardship Forebearance Plan as they failed to comply with state and federal regulations regarding borrower notification requirements. PHH 's Office of the Ombudsman, in correspondence to the borrower, has acknowledged PHH 's deficiency, however, PHH is reluctant to correct their very wrong.

The following presents PHHs written acknowledgements of its non-compliance/errors/process flaws presented in correspondence from PHHs Office of the Ombudsman. 

PHH Acknowledgements Acknowledgement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Correspondence We acknowledge that no call-out attempts were made to contact the borrower before the end of the plan. 

This acknowledges PHHs violation of the agreed-to Temporary Hardship Forebearance Agreement that states : What We Will Do Before the end of the Plan, we will contact the accountholder or their counsel ( if applicable ) and if the hardship still exists, we can discuss additional options which may include full reinstatement, partial reinstatement plus repayment plan, repayment plan, any available forbearance extensions, or payoff of the Mortgage, a payment deferral or submission of a complete mortgage assistance application to be reviewed for other loan modification options.

Further, PHH attempts to disengage itself from its responsibility as a mortgage servicer and violation and non-compliance by referencing XX/XX/XXXX correspondence, addressed and mailed to a third-party, one that is a XXXX ( XXXX ), distinct and separate legal entity and not personally liable/responsible for the account. The referenced correspondence, as clearly stated in our XX/XX/XXXX correspondence to PHH, were never received by the XXXX. 

Independent of PHHs desire to attempt to cover its tracks, a XXXX is not the same as the consumer. I am the consumer, the original party who entered into the agreement and/or contract, thus all notifications about my account must be communicated to my person as per mortgage servicing state and federal notifications requirements. PHH failed to comply. 

Acknowledgement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX PHH Correspondence We acknowledge that the notice was not addressed to XXXX XXXX. However, the letter was sent to his mailing address, which is also XXXX XXXX mailing address XXXX XXXX, not XXXX XXXX, is a XXXX, an individual and a distinct and legal entity from the borrower. PHHs subtle and veiled attempt to discharge itself from regulations governing notifications to the consumer are invalidated. 

Acknowledgment XXXX XX/XX/XXXX PHH Correspondence Please be advised that per our internal mailing process at the time, letters regarding loss mitigation options were addressed only to the confirmed XXXX, if XXXX existed on the account. However, we have since updated this process to ensure all correspondence regarding loss mitigations options is sent to the borrower, even when a confirmed XXXX is present, provided the borrower is living. 

PHH clearly and in written form, acknowledges that the regulatory requirement to notify both borrower and SIIs regarding loss mitigation options were not being followed, as per their internal mailing process at the time, letters regarding loss mitigation options were addressed only to the confirmed XXXX, if XXXX existed on the account. A total breakdown in process by PHH, one that they claim has been corrected since ..that time and one that has disallowed my person and who knows how many others their due process related to loss mitigation options. The latter speaks volumes about PHHs shortcomings in its mortgage servicing practices.

PHH Misleading Response In its effort to further discharge itself from its responsibilities, PHH, in its XX/XX/XXXX correspondence states, XXXX XXXX further noted that, due to the lack of communication from PHH, he missed the opportunity to have the account reviewed for all available loss mitigation options before the plans expiration. Please be advised that the available loss mitigation options were outlined early intervention letter sent on XX/XX/XXXX. The account was eligible for a review of all loss mitigation options, including reinstatement, forebearance plan, modification, sale, short sale, short-term repayment plan, and deed in lieu of foreclosure, subject to lender approval. Accordingly, we respectfully disagree with the claim that no communication was sent prior to the end of the forebearance plan and that the loss mitigation options were not offered following the expiration of the forebearance plan. 

PHH, in its response, fails to present that the referenced correspondences date, as there were XXXX, was XX/XX/XXXX, 90 days past the start of the forebearance period, a non-starter for most of the options they listed above and claimed were available to my person. One was a Notice of Default and the other one was an Early Intervention-Borrower Assistance, the only correspondence ever sent by PHH to the borrower, violating regulatory notification requirements. PHHs response continues to be disingenuous, deceiving and lacks any credibility.

The above is clear, undeniable and well-documented, all supported by the acknowledged actions, or lack thereof, by PHH. I am baffled as to why PHH insists in its ill-fated attempt to ramrod its version of facts that are invalidated in its correspondence to the borrower. I must and will ensure that my rights and due process are not violated. As stated above, this is my last attempt to reach out to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting a review of facts, not PHH-fabricated fiction, to allow me the options I have been denied through capricious actions by PHH. 

An ombudsman in a corporation serves as a neutral and confidential resource to address and resolve conflicts, complaints, and concerns within the organization, including showing impartiality, problem-solving skills and advocating for fairness. PHHs own Office of Ombudsman has increasingly acknowledged and validated, in several of its own responses, over a period of weeks, that PHHs actions have violated regulatory notification and servicing requirements at the expense of the borrower. It is as crystal clear as a cloudless sunny day. Why the resistance and refusal to acknowledge its shortcomings and address them? Your office has the responsibility to be impartial and fair. Not asking for anything else, but transparency, honesty and decency.