Consumer complaint received 2019-04-12
Company: KEYCORP
State: NY
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX I filed complaint # XXXX. I received no notification from the CFPB that KeyBank responded. Key Bank did send me a letter in which they claim that because the issues I brought up are part of the litigation, Key Bank is not obligated to respond to them. 

Two of the points I brought up are definitely not part of the litigation. 

1 ) Key Bank is unilaterally assessing fees before determination in state court as to whether they are entitled to these fees and in what amounts. This is not a part of the litigation, but a regulatory matter, and the CFPB should look into this. 

2 ) Key Bank did not respond to why the owner 's digitally photographing the property to satisfy any requirement for inspection under XXXX XXXX is, to use one of its representatives claims, " unacceptable. '' Atthough what fees that are to be allowed by the state court for these inspections would be included in the litigation, the question of why future inspections can not be done as I suggested is not part of the litigation but is a regulatory matter. The CFPB should look into this practice and demand an explanation as to why what I suggested is, " unacceptable. '' 3 ) Mr. XXXX XXXX misrepresentation of XXXX to the New York State court in its summary judgment motion that the publication date to your guidance document published in XXXX or late XXXX that included a discussion of the CFPB 's successor-in-interest regulations are, laughably, the date these regulations went into effect. Of course, we will be addressing this point in the litigation, but that is not relevant to the fact that CEO XXXX XXXX and Senior Vice President XXXX XXXX XXXX informed of this misrepresentation last month and have done nothing to correct it. That is, Key Bank corporate knew of Mr. XXXX XXXX misrepresentation in a case in which Mr. XXXX has requested summary judgment in a foreclosure action and chose to take no action to correct the tmisrepresentattion in the state court. I will attach a screenshot of the email, but the CFPB should look into this also.. In my opinion, it is not acceptable for a party to knowingly misrepresent the effective date of regulations which it violated. 

4 ). Key Bank 's failure to appoint a point of contact for the loan workout under its " continuity of contact '' obligation is a regulatory obligation independent of the facts of the litigation. The CFPB should look into this failure also, to make sure that Key Bank does not do this with other customers in pre-foreclosure. 

New Matter : I have played phone tag since XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX, the representative with whom Key Bank said I need to discuss the matter that as someone who has filed a Successor-in-Intrerest form, corroborated by XXXX in the Real Estate Operations department on XX/XX/XXXX, I am entitled to all future account statements. I spoke with her XX/XX/XXXX in the late afternoon, where she represented that Key Bank had no such obligation. Since Key Bank has received my successor-in-interest form ( I am a beneficiary of the estate. ), this is also a regulatory matter independent of the litigation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation