Consumer complaint received 2018-10-18
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: GA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other type of mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
Formal complaint that Select Portfolio Services has violated consumer protection filings : Violation of module 8 OF CFPB Examination procedure - Loss Mitigation ( BREACH OF FAIR DEALING - RESPA VIOLATION ). 
Refused to submit loss mitigation application to the US Governments making home affordable program. 

Per CFPB mortgage servicing procedures ; The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and its implementing regulation, Regulation X, impose requirements for servicing transfers, written consumer information requests, resolution of notices of error, force-placed insurance, early intervention and continuity of contact for delinquent borrowers, loss mitigation procedures, general servicing policies and procedures, and escrow account maintenance. 

I am currently facing foreclosure because of several mishandlings of my mortgage - one of the primary reasons for this is because my modification application was juggled for 12+ months and never formally submitted for the united states government making home ( MHA ) affordable program. I incessantly requested and applied for an in house modification AND MHA assistance for several months before being denied because of said missing documents that I had continuously provided.I formally requested submission of the Making home affordable program through my servicer, but my servicer held my application and demanded repeated resubmission of duplicate documents which forced me to miss the MHA deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. 

I followed up directly with the consumer relations manager XXXX XXXX of the MHA/hope program ( XXXX ) and he informed me that several loss mitigation representatives did not submit any application for me prior to the program deadline. He informed me that he would be able to submit a retractive application with the assistance from my servicer. I contacted my servicer requesting they submit my application retroactively to the MHA/Hope department but my servicer ( SPS ) never did and now my family is facing foreclosure because my MHA application was juggled between several different representatives/managers at SPS - to avoid exhausting all loss mitigation procedures which in turn directly violate default servicing/loss mitigation/early intervention procedures. 

Per module 8 Loss Mitigation, Early Intervention, and Disparate Impact in Loss Mitigation An examination of whether a servicers loss mitigation program results in adverse impact on a protected class will rely on procedures outlined in the CFPBs ECOA Examination Program Manual, including the ECOA Baseline Review Modules, and the Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures.

Examiners, in consultation with Headquarters, should : 9. Obtain information sufficient to determine whether loss mitigation workouts have been provided to consumers in compliance with ECOA and Regulation B. For example, this may involve an analysis of the distribution of protected class members in the pool of delinquent borrowers versus the distribution of protected class members receiving a range of loss mitigation outcomes, including : reinstatement, repayment plan, forbearance, loan modification, short sale, deed-in-lieu, and foreclosure. 

10. Obtain information sufficient to determine whether loan modifications have been provided in compliance with ECOA and Regulation B. For example, this may involve an analysis of processing times and loan modification attributes including interest rate, principal, and monthly payment reductions for protected class members when compared to non-protected class members. 

CFPB Mortgage Examination Procedures Servicing CFPB XX/XX/2014 Procedures 19 11. Obtain information sufficient to determine whether the rate and timing of foreclosures are in compliance with ECOA and Regulation B. For example, this may include analysis of the representation of protected classes in the group of seriously delinquent borrowers versus their representation among borrowers who lose their homes to foreclosure. 

To complete a disparate impact analysis of a servicers loss mitigation program, and determine whether a facially neutral policy or practice that has an adverse effect on a protected class meets a legitimate business need that can not reasonably be achieved by a less discriminatory alternative, refer to Section B of the CFPBs Fair Lending Examination Procedures and consult with Headquarters. 

It has been found that my servicer is in direct violation of these requirements and I am seeking assistance/relief with your assistance.

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