Product: Debt collection

Multiple violations of Truth in Lending Acts. PennyMac has NEVER provided information to verify who owns the debt and if the debt was actually being paid. 

PennyMac fails to provide the name of any secured parties of interest ( i.e. real party of interest, creditor ), nor do they reveal or provide evidence, proving the original 'lender ' had been shut down XX/XX/XXXX. 

PennyMac has stalled, and avoided making corrections to this problem, making unnecessary excuses to ignore or work out a solution that would be reasonable for all parties stipulate to an agreement. PennyMac 's disingenuous misconduct led to concealment of pertinent information which may prove a nonexistence of debt and real party of interest ( " Ownership '' ). Having reviewed this case, there has been consistent delay tactics from PennyMac avoiding the obvious required discovery that could indicate an absence of a secured creditor which had no authority, or consent to foreclosed on a property which they knew, or should have known that they did not have any legal right or claim to execute a legal foreclosure. 

PennyMac has uttered fraudulent documents to misrepresent a false collection of debt they are not entitled to. It is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms : PennyMac and XXXX XXXX DBA XXXX XXXX have failed at all times to provide a validation of debt in spite of numerous requests. 

15 U.S. Code 1692g - Validation of debts : At all times we have not been given " Proof of a Debt '' or a " Debt Verification '' from a creditor to whom it is owed. Our research indicates that this purported loan may never have been funded, but has not been proven by the originating lender, who is now a defunct company. 

PennyMac has violated numerous laws under the unfair business practices laws:15 U.S. Code 1692f - Unfair practices:15 U.S. Code 1692e - False or misleading representations ( 7 ) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer. 

PennyMac represented that we were in arrears, stopped our trial modification that we previously had with XXXX and violated the National Mortgage Settlement guidelines in doing so. They claim ignorance of the trial modification ( even though we have written evidence ) and charged unconscionable fees to reinstate. 

( 8 ) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person creditinformation which is known or which should be known to be false, including thefailure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. 

We disputed this debt and filed numerous requests for evidence of their authority which they never provided, nor can they. PennyMac filed fraudulent documents with the county recorder 's office. 

In addition, PennyMac filed fraudulent evidence with the court. 

( 10 ) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attemptto collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. 

We believe that PennyMac used the fraudulent representation of offering a " modification '' in order to acquire our consumer information and social security numbers in order to securitize a 'purported ' loan that was never agreed upon with PennyMac. This can be evidenced by their securitization of this purported loan XX/XX/XXXX. 

15 U.S. Code 1692dPennyMac put us on an autodial program. After several months, when they chose not to work with us the calls continued. Approximately 3 x 's a day or phone would ring and we would get a message from PennyMac telling us to call back. When we picked up the phone the automated service would tell us to press one to speak to a customer service person. We would press one, the phone would transfer to the customer service personnel, they would then hang up on us.