Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

Re : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

Regulatory Background The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( CARES Act ) amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including a provision in Section 4021 that directs lenders to report a credit account as current if the consumer has sought payment relief related to difficulties caused by the national emergency. 

With the purpose of clarifying federal guidelines, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) issued on XX/XX/XXXX a document entitled : Consumer Reporting FAQs Related to the CARES Act and COVID-19 Pandemic ( Last updated XX/XX/XXXX ). ( Copy attached as EXHIBIT 1, for prompt reference ). 

In page 1 of the FAQs, the CFPBs document states that : An accommodation includes any payment assistance of relief granted to a consumer who is affected by the COVID-19 pandemic during the period from XX/XX/XXXX, until 120 days after the termination of the COVID-19 national emergency declared by the President on XX/XX/XXXX, under the National Emergencies Act. Such an accommodation includes, for example, agreements to defer one or more payments, make a partial payment, forbear any delinquent amounts, or modify a loan or contract. 

Recollection of Events I obtained a forbearance for the Mortgage XXXX # XXXX on XXXX. The lender is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Servicing ( further referenced as XXXX ). The forbearance period was later extended until XX/XX/XXXX. The lender refused further extending the forbearance. It is worth noticing that XXXX has not presented evidence verifying that the entity XXXX XXXX explicitly provided written instructions toward not extending further the forbearance periods. No evidence has been presented either that the entity demanded payment of the full balance at the end of the forbearance. Besides, nowhere in the CARES Act it is stated that the forbearance implies payment in full immediately at the end of the relief period. 
In a former letter XXXX has said that the Loss Mitigation Specialist XXXX XXXX was the single point of contact ( SPOC ), and that she was unable to get back to me on XX/XX/XXXX. 

This comment is incomplete as XXXX omits to mention that I had multiple interactions with XXXX XXXX and other members of the Loan Mitigation Team after such date. 

XXXX Compliance Department does not acknowledge either that XXXX XXXX provided misleading and inaccurate information. Evidently XXXX Compliance Department is not fully aware of the extent of interactions that took place with the Loan Mitigation Unit. This lack of internal coordination between XXXX departments is highly unfair and undesirable, as translates into undeserved penalties for consumers. 
As a matter of fact, I exchanged multiple emails with XXXX XXXX XXXX after the referenced date, on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX refused to explain why a further extension of the forbearance was mentioned in XXXX correspondence, but she was not offering that to me. In addition, XXXX XXXX misrepresented the interest rate and monthly payments for the modification option. These are important parameters for reaching a decision. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I requested an amortization table to evaluate alternative options for accommodations, and XXXX XXXX simply declined returning my phone calls. Given that precious time was getting lost due to the neglecting treatment received, I escalated this case on XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX, Loss Mitigation Senior Manager. XXXX XXXX apologized for the service omissions of XXXX XXXX, and finally gave instructions to send me an amortization table. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX communicated that the loan modification trial had been approved, and sent me the offer, at a better interest rate that mentioned by XXXX XXXX. At such point we had already reached an ongoing accommodation before the forbearance period expired, which implied credit reporting protection as per the CARES Act. XXXX was not correct when reported this loan as delinquent, and violated US Federal Regulations. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, a different department from XXXX sent me a letter asking for payment no later than XXXX. I consulted with XXXX XXXX about whether to follow that letter, and she let me know that I could start the first payment on XX/XX/XXXX. I decided to get it started anyway on XX/XX/XXXX, and established autopay to avoid any late penalties. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I messaged XXXX XXXX informing that the trial payments had been concluded. I never received any further messages or phone calls from her, I dont know if she was removed from her position. On XX/XX/XXXX I signed the final Modification Agreement and on XX/XX/XXXX I closed the sale of the mortgaged property and liquidated in full the pending balance with XXXX. 

I include all emails exchanges with XXXX Loss Mitigation Department in EXHIBIT 2 to document the correspondence that XXXX Compliance Department is omitting to acknowledge. These messages provide evidence that the loss Mitigation Department never mentioned that the balance had to be paid in full at the end of the forbearance period. XXXX Compliance has not presented proof either that the entity XXXX XXXX imposed those payment-in-full terms. XXXX should assume full responsibility for what their representatives express or fail to express to the public. Besides, paying the balance in full would defeat the whole intention and purpose of the CARES Act. 

XXXX XXXX never mentioned that the XXXX modification trial payments would be reported as delinquent, otherwise I might have chosen a different option for accommodation. 
Regardless of whether the Compliance Department is acting out of miscommunication or bad faith, their policies are detrimental for everyone and do not really benefit XXXX, as lead only to generalized litigation. The company has built an industry reputation for not being well organized and is facing already multiple open cases for violations. 

XXXX has said that During a trial plan for a Loan Modification, the credit guidelines allow the delinquency to be reported, but we must furnish a Special Comment indicating you are paying on a partial payment agreement. Such comment is not correct, as the CFPBs document referenced on EXHIBIT 1 states that the credit protection does not expire until the President declares the COVID-19 emergency is over ( which has not happened yet ). The CFPB Q & A states in page 3 that : the CARES Act requires a furnisher to report a credit obligation or account as current if it was current prior to the accommodation. 

The document continues clarifying how the reporting should be labeled as current : Furnishing a special comment code indicating that a consumer with an account is impacted by a disaster or that the consumers account is in forbearance does not provide consumer reporting agencies with this CARES Act required information and therefore furnishing such a comment code is not a substitute for complying with this requirement. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX Compliance Department has said that we must treat all of our customers fairly and consistently, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Consistent unfair treatment, as the one I have received, will only translate into multiple litigation from the public due to these systematic violations of federal regulations. Shellpoint double-downs repeating that they have reported information to the credit bureaus correctly, which reveals that they are not current in their understanding of the amendments to the CARES Act. 
XXXX has never acknowledged the CFPBs referenced Q & A document. The CFPB should be more active enforcing regulations passed by the US Congress, and not just closing cases after violations are reported. Or at least should forward this case to the competent Federal Authorities. 


" Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Office of Congresswoman XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Cc. Office of the Attorney General, Florida