Consumer complaint: Homeowner is XXXX-months past due since XX/XX/XXXX payment and had a Notice of Default recorded XX/XX/XXXX, which expired XX/XX/XXXX ( this was also initially the projected sale date before the workout package was submitted, as discussed below ). 
In order to provide continuity of contact, the servicer should ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( a ) ) assign personnel ( which can be one or more persons ) ( 12 C.F.R. part 1024 Supplement I, Comment 40 ( a ) - 2 ) to the delinquent borrower, or an authorized agent of the borrower, ( 12 C.F.R. part 1024 Supplement I, Comment 40 ( a ) - 1 ) who will be available via telephone, immediately or in a " timely manner ''. ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.40 ( a ) ) Based off the below detailed timeline of calls, emailed documents and servicer correspondence, it does not appear the servicer is " maintaining policies and procedures that are reasonably designed ... to ensure that '' the servicer can : o Provide the assigned personnel with access to all documents and information the borrower submits in connection with a loss mitigation option ; and ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( a ) & ( b ) ( 2 ) ( iii ) ) o Facilitate the sharing of accurate and current information about the borrower 's loss mitigation application and the status of any foreclosure proceeding between the assigned personnel and other appropriate personnel, such as those handling a foreclosure. ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( a ) & ( b ) ( 3 ) ( iii ) ) The personnel assigned to this file have not consistently been able to respond to the borrower representative 's inquiries and assist the borrower with available loss mitigation options by doing the following : ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.40 ( a ) & ( b ). ) o Giving the borrower accurate information about loss mitigation options ; o Telling the borrower the status of any loss mitigation application ; o Being able to retrieve and provide to anyone considering the borrower for loss mitigation all written information the borrower has submitted to any servicer in connection with a loss mitigation application. 
The application was received more than 45 days before any foreclosure sale was scheduled ; the servicer has not promptly reviewed the loss mitigation application to determine if it was complete. ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( A ) ) In the last two months it has indicated the package was facially complete, then incomplete, then complete again nearly every two weeks, sometimes with duplicative requests of information that was previously submitted and not reviewed. 
The XXXX-page initial package was submitted XX/XX/XXXX, and was not reviewed promptly after receipt of the application. ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ) ) The written acknowledgements sent do not tell the borrower whether the application is complete. There are then later duplicative conflicting incomplete notices sent incorrectly detailing what additional documents and information must be submitted to complete the application ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ). This is confirmed versus telephone conversations where borrower 's representative calls in to the SPOC team and they list different items being required than on the notices. Thus, it does not appear the servicer is " maintain ( ing ) policies and procedures that are reasonably designed ... to ensure that the servicer can ... facilitate compliance with '' this notice requirement. 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( a ) & ( b ) ( 2 ) ( iv ) ). 
The assigned relationship manager on the account never once made any direct/live contact with the borrower or the borrower 's representative after the workout package was submitted, until the representative put in a verbal complaint for him to do so on Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX, when he returned the call the next day. This was 38-days after the initial facially complete workout package was submitted. Along with XXXX the underwriter had put notes on the file for clarifications, which the assigned relationship manager never relayed either. 

Company response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law