Consumer complaint received 2018-01-19
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX XXXX, a division of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) was the original servicer of XXXX XXXX loan. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, facing foreclosure scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, as to his personal residence, submitted a HAMP loan modification application to XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX acknowledged receipt of the HAMP loan application. XXXX requested additional documents from XXXX XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, our office notified XXXX that we were the authorized representative for XXXX XXXX and submitted the requested additional documents on behalf of XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX confirmed our authorization as representative. A signed confirmation was returned to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Thereafter, our office served as the single point of contact. Despite XXXX confirmation that our office was the authorized representative and single point of contact XXXX ignored cease and desist demands and continued to contact both our office and XXXX XXXX directly. 

Thereafter, XXXX requested additional bank statements to be submitted by an XX/XX/XXXX deadline. Documents were submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite the timely submission, XXXX denied the loan modification application stating they did not receive a complete application for a modification from you before midnight on the seventh ( 7th ) business day prior to the scheduled foreclosure sale date of the property. 

Upon disputing the untimeliness decision, XXXX agreed to review the matter and postponed foreclosure. Additional documents were requested, including P & L  statements, paystubs, tax returns, etc. XXXX XXXX complied with such requests. 
Citing untimeliness ( of which our client categorically denies ), XXXX requested XXXX XXXX submit a second HAMP loan modification. XXXX XXXX complied and the new application was timely submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. Upon receipt of the RMA, XXXX claimed that the documents submitted were illegible and therefore the RMA was untimely. Despite our office serving as the authorized representative and single point of contact no notice of illegibility was provided. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, our office sent a notice of dispute regarding denial of the second HAMP loan modification. After endless changes in customer contact managers, documents requests, and providing those requests in a timely manner, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX request resubmission of a third RMA application citing XXXX XXXX failure to state the city and state of his residence and HOA fees were missing! ( XXXX XXXX denies as the HAMP loan application and all previous documents clearly stated his address, city, and state as well providing documentation as to the HOA ). 
Pursuant to XXXX request to submit a new RMA application on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted a third HAMP loan application with documentation. As before, upon submission XXXX responded with numerous excuses while rejecting documents. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX purportedly denied a modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ( HAMP ) stating that XXXX XXXX was unqualified citing in performing our underwriting of a potential modification we could not reduce your principal and interest payment by at least 10 %. 

Additionally, XXXX reasoned that the NPV input value did not qualify. However, and most importantly, XXXX invited XXXX XXXX to provide written evidence that one or  more of the NPV values was incorrect. Our office timely appealed the NPV input value calculation. No decision was provided by XXXX XXXX as to XXXX XXXX response to the NPV input value calculation. 

Instead of providing any response, XXXX notified XXXX XXXX directly ( ignoring our office authorized representative and single point of contact ) stating that they were no longer servicing XXXX XXXX loan and any further requests for assistance would have to be directed to Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ( SLS ). Effective XX/XX/XXXX, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC was to be the new servicer of XXXX XXXX loan. At no time did SLS did communicate with our office as to any change in servicing of the XXXX XXXX loan. It was not until a foreclosure notice was taped to XXXX XXXX residence on XX/XX/XXXX that our office became officially aware that SLS was, in fact, the new servicer. Despite our office serving as authorized representative and single point of contact, no notice was provided. 

Facing repeated denials of HAMP loan modifications and numerous threats of foreclosures, XXXX XXXX, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, filed a lawsuit in XXXX County Superior Court, XXXX XXXX v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. case no. : XXXX. Upon filing of the lawsuit, SLS counsel stated that if they were to drop the lawsuit, a loan modification would be approved. 

In reliance upon SLS counsels representation, three ( 3 ) trial monthly payments were timely submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Despite having made the three ( 3 ) trial payments, XXXX XXXX HAMP loan modification was rejected. This time, SLS reasoned that XXXX XXXX failed to timely respond citing that the first trial payment was written from credit card check rather than a personal bank account check. XXXX XXXX will testify that he was never aware of the returned first trial payment check as it was sent to an outdated address of his litigation counsel. 

Two additional HAMP loan applications have been submitted in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. To date, our office has received no acknowledgement of either loan application submissions. Having been ignored, XXXX XXXX respectfully requests Consumer Federal Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) for assistance in investigating this matter and ultimately receiving a HAMP loan modification for his residence.

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