Consumer complaint received 2019-01-05
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: NJ
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
I am filing this complaint to address several significant areas of concern during and following the submission of my Loss Mitigation Application ( RMA ) dated XX/XX/2018, and also the Notice of Error letter, submitted XX/XX/2018. 

Throughout this entire process, it is clear that SLS and its representatives are operating in a deliberate unethically discriminatory manner. While suppressing all means of communication and correction, it is also apparent that they attempt to prevent me from seeking my right to pursue available alternatives to foreclosure. 

Highlighted below are some of the more egregious and erroneous actions perpetrated in the very short span of my seeking loss mitigation assistance. I have provided all documentation to support and bolster each claim in my charge against SLS. 

XX/XX/2018, I submitted to SLS an RMA application seeking a short negotiated payoff ( charge-off ). On XX/XX/2018, SLS reviewed the remainder of my submitted documents, and the application status updated to complete. ( SLS did not meet regulatory guidelines by failing to provide written notices as well as requests to have this confirmation in writing ) XX/XX/2018, SLS representatives falsely stated that XXXX XXXX does not allow short negotiated payoffs, the subject property is in an equity position, and that I would have to submit another application that does not select short negotiated payoff as an option. Despite their false assertion, I knew that charge-offs, its definition, and implementation are part of XXXX XXXX Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide chapter 9210.1. 

XX/XX/2018, the outcome of the Foreclosure Settlement Conference, held at the XXXX Supreme Court, was a signed agreement that SLS would provide a full interior/exterior appraisal to compare our vastly differed values accurately. The property value of my interior/exterior appraisal is $ XXXX whereas SLS 's desktop estimate was $ XXXX. SLS and its representatives had full disclosure of the preexisting interior damage before the RMA application yet they did not communicate this information to XXXX XXXX contrary to its ' Seller/Servicer Guide chapters 8403.1 and 9202.5. 

On XX/XX/2018, the BPO company, hired by SLS to perform the interior/exterior appraisal, informed me, via phone, that they will not schedule an appraisal until SLS confirms that they will either provide a safety mask ( for mold throughout the house ) or compensate them for their purchase of a mask. ( A hazard distressed BPO servicer is required as stated in XXXX XXXX Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide chapter 9210.3 ( 2 ) ) During a self-initiated phone call to SLS on XX/XX/2018, I discovered that SLS stopped processing my RMA application, no agent was assigned, no valid, verifiable explanation available as to why. Since XX/XX/2018, there were no requests for me to supply any additional information, no denial notices, written notice of loss mitigation options available, or the right to appeal any adverse decision made. ( Violation of RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41, b, c, d, e, h ) On XX/XX/2018, SLS representatives attempted to initiate dialogue with me to present what they called an " alternative settlement proposal. '' Within their letters, they would make the following claims : 1. XXXX XXXX doesn't accept short negotiated payoffs but has secured a one-time approval 2. The settlement is based on the lien amount only 3. Their exterior-only appraisal is $ XXXX ( $ 100K less than previously asserted yet in clear opposition to the Court instruction and agreement to conduct an interior appraisal ) 4. They have approval from XXXX XXXX to sell the property for $ XXXX 5. XXXX XXXX XXXX stance is that their contractors can do the needed repair work at the subject property ( sight-unseen ) for $ 75K less than the itemized contractor estimate supplied in my RMA application which also would include expenses not provided in my report. With each correspondence, under threat to proceed to litigation, the time to accept or respond to their offer was 15, 10 and 5 days. 

On XX/XX/2018, SLS attempted to validate their reason for not performing an interior appraisal as due to the presence of extensive mold. However, this was not new information. The Court understood this fact beforehand and therefore instructed SLS also to provide a full-appraisal similar to the one I had supplied with the RMA application to which SLS agreed and signed off. Though SLS and their hired BPO Company both knew of the extensive damage and presence of mold, they have attempted to provide their land-only BPO as reliable and accurate. Within the report, they entirely omitted any mention of the preexisting hazards. Though the subject property is a single family house, their BPO reclassified the property as vacant land and used a wide range of nonqualified varied comparables that include commercial property, multi-lot, unlicensed parking lot and non-existing property. Most notable is that report lists the overall property condition as " good. '' SLS 's actions and inactions have obstructed my physical possession of the property as it was originally willed, impeded means of foreclosure redemption and has left the property uninhabitable and its contents nonredeemable due to contamination from toxic high levels of black mold. 

To date, multiple requests have gone unanswered for any valid reason for my stopped RMA application. No explanation provided as to why I have been subjected to deceptive, misleading statements and practices. I've not received the non-proprietary documentation of XXXX XXXX approval to sell for $ XXXX or their contractors work estimate for $ XXXX. No explanation is given as to if SLS still intends on using their BPO as an acceptable accurate document. No answer to my notice of error letter submitted on XX/XX/2018 XX/XX/2018

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation