Consumer complaint received 2021-07-02
Company: Fay Servicing, LLC
State: PA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
Our mortgage was purchased by Fay Servicing from XXXX XXXX Loans on XX/XX/2021. Less than 30 days later, we were sent an ACT 91 notice. Before this time period, we had a forbearance with XXXX XXXX Loans, due to my wifes position as a bookstore manager for the XXXX XXXX Area Senior Center, being furloughed due to CoVid-19. I confirmed the information with XXXX XXXX Loans ( XXXX, ID # XXXX ) on XX/XX/2021. Our loan was labeled as a forbearance loan, not as a non performing loan ( NPL ). In discussions with Fay Servicing, they said our loan was in default- which was not accurate and certainly not in line with what XXXX XXXX Loans was stating. We applied for a modification to re-pay the forbearance, but were denied and only given the option of a deed-in-lieu. Prior to this, we had worked with a HUD-approved counselor ( XXXX XXXX ), who was also on the phone with Fay Servicing during the initial work. As our cash flow was positive ( even without my wife being at work XXXX, we were led to believe ( as was XXXX XXXX ), that a re-payment plan would be easily done. As we found out later, our loan modification was " essentially '' denied. We were offered the ability to walk away from our home of 30+ years, and at a value ( from Fay Servicing ) in excess of {$550000.00}, over a {$30000.00} forbearance. Also, on the initial paperwork, Fay Servicing stated that the forbearance amount was {$24000.00}, then it became {$30000.00}. What has also made matters worse is that Fay Servicing ( XXXX XXXX, Account Representative ), stated that XXXX had not sent over a completed file for our loan. This is in direct contradiction to what XXXX has stated. 

We have appealed their decision, and are currently waiting on them. As we wait for our appeal to be processed, I have also asked for the methodology as to why our loan modification was essentially rejected- that was over 3 weeks ago, and I still don't have an answer. My understanding is that Fay Servicing was required by both the law ( RESPA ) and their consent order [ XXXX ] to provide the documentation to us for review. As Fay Servicing is located in the Midwestern Region and XXXX XXXX, Regional Director is responsible for the entities under his jurisdiction- including Fay Servicing ( and Consent Order signatory XXXX XXXX ), Mr. XXXX should also be involved in deciding about the conduct of : Fay Servicing , XXXX XXXX , and all other officers and Board Members, as they all play a significant role in the Consent Order. 

Currently, I am teaching summer school ( hence a higher income ) and my wifes employer is allowing her to re-open her store within the next several weeks. Also, as my wife works part-time while waiting for her employer to green-light her store to re-open. Recently, within the last 2 weeks, her hourly pay was also increased. Further, I also work a job at night ( at the same store handling technology products [ computers, routers, modems, etc. ], and my hourly pay was also increased significantly. This has been communicated to Fay Servicing and they suggested we file the appeal, as well as an additional loan modification form. In the event our appeal is denied ( or time gets close on the decision ) we will be filing a second set of loan modification documents, demonstrating the additional income. 

At the heart of this case is a ( roughly ) {$3000.00} forbearance ( according to Fay Servicing ) on a {$550000.00} property. In our view, as well as XXXX XXXX, Fay Servicing is attempting to force us out of our home by leaving us no recourse. 

As an example of this type of behavior, just 1 day after filing a complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, my wife and I received a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, who is acting on Fay Servicing 's behalf and accelerating the note repayment and demanding full repayment of the note by XX/XX/2021. This is occurring even though we are still in the appeal process from Fay Servicing not allowing us any option other than " Deed-in-Lieu ''. This seems to be a clear violation of RESPA and provides evidence of the blatant use of " Dual Tracking ''. Further, we were told by Fay Servicing, that in the event our appeal was denied, and based on the new income figures for both my wife and I, we could re-file another Loan Modification to clear the forbearance. 

After a review of the Consent Order and Stipulations for XXXX XXXX which was signed by XXXX XXXX ( President and Owner of Fay Servicing ), it appears to be quite clear that Fay Servicing is back operating in the same methods that forced a Consent Order upon them. [ To be clear, Fay Servicing admitted to all of the charges that were brought against them in the Stipulations section. ] Further reading of the Consent Order, demonstrated that Fay Servicing 's monetary fine of approximately {$1.00} Million was primarily due to the size of the business. As we are now 3+ years into the Consent Order, and with Fay Servicing 's business earnings estimated to be in the {$100.00} - {$500.00} Million dollar range, and the company is conducting business in violation of the Consent Order. Based on these facts, the CFPB should employ all of the resources at its ' disposal, which could include ( 1 ) additional time extension on the original Consent Order, ( 2 ) the revocation of Fay Servicing 's ability to gain new business until all of the conditions under the Consent Order are met, ( 3 ) a significant monetary fine that will send a message to Fay Servicing- and others- that disregarding a Consent Order should not be considered as a business practice, ( 4 ) either a temporary- or permanent license revocation- of XXXX XXXX, as well as other members of the management team, who are directly responsible for the daily operations of Fay Servicing, ( 5 ) as Fay Servicing has broken the covenants in the Consent Order, and potentially committed felonies under US law, a referral the the US Department of Justice is also warranted , ( 6 ) either a partial- or complete- freeze on asset belonging to XXXX XXXX and other members of the management team. The reason for the asset freeze is all monies paid to these individuals from Fay Servicing were actually derived from their participation in illegal acts, ( 7 ) the requirement that all communications between Fay Servicing ( both internal and external ) be turned over to the CFPB for review to determine the actual amount of damage done to families across the United States, through Fay Servicing 's continuing illegal acts, and ( 8 ) if deemed by either the CFPB, Court Action, etc., the principals at Fay Servicing should be permanently banned from both the mortgage servicing industry, as well as any other financial services industries. Concurrently, the internal legal team should also be subjected to an ethics review board to determine if said individuals should be punished- up to and including disbarment.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation