Consumer complaint received 2020-10-30
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: PA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
Please refer to prior complaint XXXX, which was not answered by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo submitted a response, but it did not actually address what I complained about. Specifically, please refer to my " feedback '' regarding their response, which states my concerns in a way I am hoping Wells Fargo can comprehend. For your ease of reference, I am also copying and pasting that feedback here : THE COMPANYS RESPONSE ADDRESSED ALL OF MY ISSUES No ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The company 's response fails to address, in any meaningful or material way, the substance of my complaint. Instead of actually processing what I was saying, Wells Fargo, in essence, simply regurgitated information that, had they read what I actually wrote, or had the individual who contacted me ( Ms. XXXX XXXX, who is handling my complaint ) actually listened to, would have realized I was already aware of. Because Wells Fargo has repeatedly demonstrated that they are incapable of comprehending anything longer than a few paragraphs or more complicated than simply explaining what function escrow serves, I will present what I am complaining about in simple points : 1 ) Your escrow statement gave an option that was not even lawful for you to present ( i.e., pay the escrow shortage in a lump sum ). Again, please refer to the CFPB 's Supervisory Highlights for XXXX XXXX, section 2.5.4. 
2 ) I understand that what you are doing ( i.e., having me pay the escrow shortage over 12 or more months ) is lawful. Since XXXX XXXXWells Fargo does not understand that, here is the citation : Section 1024.17 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) ( B ).

3 ) Despite point " 2 '' above, Section 1024.17 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) ( A ) states : " The servicer may allow a shortage to exist and do nothing to change it ... '' THAT is what I am asking Wells Fargo to do. 
4 ) I understand what the difference between a shortage and a deficiency ( XXXX, if you are reading this, both terms are defined in Section 1024.17 ( b ) ). If your escrow statement indicated there would be a deficiency, then I would want you to adjust my payment. However, it indicates there will be a shortage, and thus I am asking Wells Fargo to exercise its option under the law ( again, see Section 1024.17 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) ( A ) ). 
I UNDERSTAND THE COMPANYS RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT Yes ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I understand the response, see prior comments. However, the response illustrates that the institution either willfully or negligently failed to address my complaint. 
THE COMPANY DID WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO WITH MY COMPLAINT No ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Ms. XXXX has failed to return calls on multiple occasions. When I last spoke to her on XX/XX/XXXX, she indicated she would be talking to her supervisory and calling me back, and then never did. I attempted to call her later that day and then again today ( XX/XX/XXXX ). A few more thoughts on Wells Fargo, Ms. XXXX, and the obvious lack of any Federal Consumer Financial Law ( FCFL ) training at Wells Fargo ( again, I will keep these brief to aide with Wells Fargo 's reading comprehension issues ) : 1 ) The response implies, and Ms. XXXX actually stated, the incorrect notion that PA law allows for what they are doing, when in fact PA law is mute, and thus RESPA controls. This is not a major point but illustrates they do not actually understand the regulations in play or how they apply. 
2 ) Related to " 1, '' above, Ms. XXXX indicated that Wells Fargo was " required '' to bill me for the shortage amount over the course of 12 months. Again, they are ALLOWED to do so, but that is almost the opposite of " required. '' The fact that I was given clearly erroneous information would have surprised me if it was not already apparent Wells Fargo does not understand the law. 
3 ) Ms. XXXX told me in a phone call on XX/XX/XXXX that I can not rely on things I read in " magazine articles, '' and was referring to the CFPB Supervisory Highlights report for XXXX  XXXX. I literally had to explain that the CFPB publishes this document and that it is not " a magazine. '' This is absolutely SHOCKING to me. This individual, whose main job functions apparently include responding to CFPB complaints, literally has no idea what the Bureau does, and had NO IDEA that a Federal government agency published this report. 
4 ) Ms. XXXX repeated to me several times that the escrow statement indicated I would be deficient, however, in discussing with her, she effectively conceded she was unaware of the language in Regulation X that defines these two terms in a very distinct and meaningfully different way. She literally stated " they are saying you will be deficient, '' when the escrow statement in fact shows a shortage, not a deficiency. 
On a final note - I was forced to remit XXXX XXXX mortgage payment because it is due XX/XX/XXXX, and I am quite certain Wells Fargo would charge me a late fee and credit report me if I did not remit it, but please be advised that is by no means a concession in any form that I agree or am complacent with the outcome of this issue, which in my mind is very much unresolved.

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