Product: Mortgage

Feedback on Select Portfolio Services ( SPS ) Reply on Complaint XXXX Thank you for sending the reply provided by SPS on XXXX complaint concerning the XXXX XXXX XXXX It is our position that the reply is misleading, and we will demonstrate multiple violations of XXXX XXXX under XXXX2 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) as well as violating the court proceeding and the FDCPA. The program used by the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX is the XXXX XXXX. The portal captures all communications, document submissions and correspondence with an unalterable date and time stamp. 
We are providing a copy of that history with annotations reflecting the various actions taken by SPS and the violations that took place. We will also provide : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX authorization of attorney Initial SPS Form submission Initial XXXX Updated SPS Form Submission Error SPS Form Submission XXXX Financial Statement XXXX XXXX Handwritten XXXX XXXX Proof of XXXX  New Job Agreement including actual copy of social security XXXX XXXX pay stub Additional pay stub These documents are referenced in the comments added to the History. 
SPS is correct, they did indicate that the documents were incomplete, however they did fail to mention that other documents that resolved those questions were provided, as well as the XXXX XXXX timeframes that were missed. The primary issues that SPS raised were solely related to their version of the XXXX which is a manually completed form versus the standard package required by the court which is completed by the system. 
The issues were from XX/XX/year> submission A typo on the social security number that was correct at the end of the form where the borrower e-signed the documents. In addition, the actual social security card was provided with the new job agreement attachment in the initial submission. 
A typo on the XXXX amount which was consistent on all other forms and detailed on the XXXX financial statement. 
The Other category for {$75.00} needed an explanation even though the detailed XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly showed it was for Miscellaneous and XXXX XXXX XXXX 
The final issue raised was about employment. When the borrower initially applied, he indicated in the XXXX XXXX that he had lost his business, been on XXXX  ( provided proof ) and was starting a new position. The new employment agreement was provided. 
The first miss on timelines begins with the first incomplete notice coming 7 days after submission. A new form indicating his pay was provided, the form also reflected the Other category as XXXX, which was still not satisfactory to SPS XXXX In addition, the borrowers initial pay stub was provided along with updated bank statements. The social security typo was missed but it had been pointed out as correct on all forms and the copy provided. 
In conclusion, you will see a repeating pattern of asking for items they already have for items that have already been provided or explained. You will see over XXXX Reg X violations on timeframes for determining completion, XXXX up to 24 days and requiring multiple inquiries from the program XXXX. You will see multiple instances of violating the court procedure on communications outside the portal, and you will also see XXXX instances of violating the Of Counsel Representation under the FDCPA XXXX ( a ) XXXX. You will also note that the XXXX XXXX for the court has indicated that their requests were unnecessary, and they are not permitted to ask for anything else and must make their review. 
We ask that you review this in detail and correct these practices at SPS and compel them to review the whole file and not just rely on their own form to the exclusion of all other information.