Consumer complaint received 2017-10-04
Company: Fay Servicing, LLC
State: OR
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
My parents XXXX away 4 to 5 years ago and I 'm the last living sibling on title of the home. I have not mad any payments due to hardship with my financial situation. I hoping to sell it with in the next 6 months, the market has recovered a bit in that area now to be able to do so.Fay servicing acquired the loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX and took me through mediation with the Oregon Foreclosure avoidance act which they are required to do XXXX XXXX ( represented of the Oregon Avoidance counseled me throughout this process in which we experienced many issues with Fay servicing not meeting requirements on there end thus prolonging the procedure racking up extensive fees. I will attach her comments about this experience. Basically we first received a reinstate amount or XXXX $ in which we requested a break down never to receive one of the next three months this increased to {$12000.00} $ .Apperanly they neglected to add the past payments correctly and add in there fees. The biggest increase came when just prior to the XXXX mediation Fay servicing neglected to pay there fee on time causing a postponement of the Mediation. We rescheduled one a month later, they consequently added on another XXXX in fees even though they had caused the delay. 
My goal is the reinstate this loan by catching up on the past payments. I do n't fell there fees are reasonable and they are causing it to be to much to afford. Also I need them to be reasonable about wanting all the funds in one payment. 
The Mediator did not award Fay servicing certificate to proceed with foreclosure due to there conduct.

Below see XXXX 's complaint, she forgot to mention the delay do to the Fee not getting paid by Fay servicing. 
We believe lender should not be given a COC for the following reasons : 1. Their documents were due to XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. They were not uploaded until XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, respectively.

2. During the Resolution Conference held on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, it was documented that Fay Servicing needed to provide a payoff and breakdown of reinstatement with fees. The reinstatement quote that was uploaded was labelled incorrectly and it contained no breakdown of advance fees covered. Requirements of OFA are that an itemized statement of the amount grantor owes including interest, fees, charges, and any other amounts and the amount the grantor must pay to cure the default. The reinstatement quote was for {$3300.00}. Grantor was interested in reinstating but was waiting for the revised reinstatement quote with the required information. Grantor is on the deed but not on the loan as the property was inherited. Fay Servicing requested court documentation of his status as Personal Representative in order for them to communicate with him ( i.e. send him mortgage statements and give him status ). Although he was on the deed, the estate shared other assets with a nephew. The form required by Fay required the sign-off of his nephew who is unavailable in XXXX. Therefore, Grantor had no other means of obtaining information other than waiting for Fay to produce the documentation requested at the Resolution Conference. 
3. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, lender uploaded another reinstatement quote, good through XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, not itemized. 
4. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, at the Reconvene, Housing Counselor requested a further updated reinstatement amount. Lender had to calculate, as it wasnt ready for the reconvene, and the amount was now {$12.00}, XXXX, an increase of {$9200.00} from XXXX. Halfway through the reconvene, the explanation of the increase was that the loan had not been booked at the time of the XXXX reinstatement. At no time did lender inform Grantor of this difference or inaccuracy, nor did they provide a corrected reinstatement until XXXX without itemization or explanation. At no time would lender provide Grantor with a mortgage statement. Grantor was using information initially provided by Fay to reinstate, and was now hit with a treble amount. 
5. Lender was unwilling to negotiate any fees even though they did not provide documents timely ( which accrued costs ), follow through on their promise from the initial conference, or compensate in any way for providing inaccurate information.

6. Lender is willing to accept full payment ( no partial or repayment plans ) only, but is unwilling to provide Grantor with the information he needs to monitor the loan. Any repayment or modification requests are dependent upon a document that he is unable to get.

7. Grantor is the legal owner of the property.

8. The BPO that lender provided is not an actual Brokers Price Opinion. It is simply listing a valuation on a spreadsheet. We do not know who provided that information or what comps were used.

One important fact I wish I would have remembered that we had to cancel that last meeting because they had not paid there fee for the continuance which they had a deadline and forced use toe waiting another month and cost me another XXXX , because as I had said to you I was planning on paying the XXXX and getting it over with. If you can add that to the comments as well. 

Basically they caused this to get out of hand, when I brought up the word predatory I was referring to the circumstances they caused by always being late or creating delays with every step of the way potentially forcing me to pay several times the about I would have had to in the beginning, and most buyers would not have been able to pay this essentially causing it to get to expensive for a barrower to catch up due to all of their delays. The last delay was on them, wish I would have remember that fact they would not have had an excuse for that one. 



XXXX XXXX Housing Manager XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fax XXXXXXXXXXXX thank you for helping XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation