Consumer complaint received 2019-12-23
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: MA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
Wed like to address the insufficient information we receive back through the CFPB each time we file a complaint. We are still in the same place when we filed our second complaint for short sale review in which you asked for THREE comps to be sent for a value dispute. The first complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX COMPLAINT ID XXXX, we addressed issues in valuation. As you outlined in your most recent response ( CFPB XXXX ), you received an offer from XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX for {>= $1,000,000} XX/XX/XXXX. When we called to check in on the status of this file, all we were told was that the value was too low and we could do a value dispute. You also sent a letter to us on XXXX stating we had 30 days to appeal the decision. After speaking with the buyers, and their agent, we realized, there were issues with the property that we compiled and sent to SPS on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, which was well within the 30 days. In the XX/XX/XXXX information there were MULTIPLE comps sent. In addition to all of this title is flawed and the buyers also must pay for a Department of Justice lien. 

In neither of the responses back from SPS filed through the consumer finance protection bureau has SPS addressed 1 ) the significant amount of delays with the fie 2 ) the fact they should be at this time reviewing value information to move the file forward. They seem to be reviewing OLD submitted files and addressing those in your responses. We are not working on those old files. In the last COMPLAINT ID XXXX still did not address issues we had raised. The first complaint we filed addressed issues with valuation. In SPSs response they spoke about prior offers in XXXX, and other items that didnt address our value complaints at all. We then filed another complaint to outline again our concerns with this file. In your opening paragraph to our complaint you STILL are talking about a offer from XXXX?? This has nothing to do with the current offer on hand that was sent and acknowledged received by your latest letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ). If you require additional information regarding the submission for XXXX XXXX   XXXX, we have YET to receive that request. In your response you say you a have reviewed market analysis information dated XX/XX/XXXX and no change in value was warranted, however any value information we submitted for the offer of XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, was all done after XX/XX/XXXX. That information was not addressed. In addition to that when we called and spoke to the Ombudsmans office they exclaimed that information to support the XXXX offer would NOT be reviewed. We think this is poor servicing. If you send this file to auction you will not get more than {$900000.00} for it, if that. Right now, you have a strong offer from a buyer offering XXXX XXXX dollars. In addition to you disregarding the value support information that was sent in on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, when we received the first CFPB complaint back we called the Ombudsmans office, who insisted all they wanted to review the file was 3 comps. Those 3 comps were sent in on XX/XX/XXXX. Since that time we have been told that you have 30 days to review that. You have not asked for any information to review the file from the XXXX, you have not asked for any information regarding the XXXX, nor any information regarding the file. You have not ordered an interior valuation that we are aware of and even if you did and we have submitted AMPLE information for you to review and it should Not take 30 days to review 3 comps. 

This property has been on the market over 400 days. If we could get a higher offer than XXXX XXXX dollars, with all the issues, we would have received something higher. Our concern is that every complaint which we have filed, seems to be responded to with OLD information. Its as if you dont have a handle on the current file. We have received no calls from SPS to make sure this file is underwritten properly. SPS has asked for nothing from the XXXX or the XXXX, to complete a review of the file. You have had this offer since XX/XX/XXXX. Please start reviewing THIS file and all the correspondence AFTER that date. 

There seems to be a pattern of poor servicing of default short sale files, all being held up and not reviewed in an appropriate time frames. It should not take 30 days to review 3 comps submitted on XX/XX/XXXX.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation