Consumer complaint received 2018-01-03
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: MD
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
Our complaint is about the incorrect and misinformation provided by Ditech representatives when we were trying to pay on our loan and ultimately bring it up to date. The Ditech Representatives recommend we apply for loan mitigation which took months and now the mitigation was denied. Now we owe {$43000.00} and our home is about to be foreclosed. We could have paid the overdue amount in XX/XX/XXXX but we followed the recommendation of the Ditech Rep. 

After being in great standing with our loan for over 15 years, we had some misfortunes caused by loss of employment, medical expenses, and helping elderly parents with their finances. We had fallen behind in our payments but where in constant contact with Ditech on what we could pay. We were trying to make a payment every month to catch up. The first occurrence of incorrect information was made by XXXX at number XXXX ext. XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. She informed us that we needed al least a minimum payment of {$3600.00} by end of XX/XX/XXXX to avoid going into foreclosure. We provided the payment and made it on XX/XX/XXXX. We were told later the payment had been denied and had not been credited toward our account. We contacted XXXX asking her why the payment had been denied. She stated that she had made a mistake and due to the type of loan that we had, we needed at least half what we owed to avoid foreclosure. She said this was her mistake and she would try to find out what happened to our payment. At this time our goal was to come up with the remainder of the money to avoid going into foreclosure. The check was eventually returned to us. 
By XX/XX/XXXX we had the money ( {$23000.00} ) to make our loan current because they would not accept partial payments. We contacted Ditech for next steps. This is the next occurrence of misinformation and incorrect recommendations. This time we spoke to Senior Account Representative XXXX at XXXX ext XXXX. He strongly recommended that rather than tying our money up that we do a loss mitigation assistance process. He specially stated that we refinance the loan and add the current amount due to the end of the loan since we only had 13 years remaining on the loan. We asked should we just pay the overdue amount and make the loan current. He stated he had been a representative for over 15 years and this was a text book solution for our situation. 

At his recommendation we went through the loss mitigation assistance process and ask for a loan modification. We were found ineligible because even though we provided a signed contact of employment we were told they could not use projected future income. The Ditech representative we spoke to said we needed at least four weeks of pay stubs and the case would be reopened after the pay stubs where received. We provided the requested information ( pay stubs ) that verified a gross income of {$3600.00} per week and {$15000.00} a month on XX/XX/XXXX. Our combined verified monthly income totaled {$19000.00}. After we submitted the information, we contacted Ditech to ask the status of the mitigation. We were told the case had been closed and could not be reopened. We pushed back that we were told that once we sent in the verified income the case would be reopened. But now they were telling us we had to start the process all over again because 30 days had passed since the process was closed. We gave them the date when the letter was received and when we spoke to Ditech representative which was XX/XX/XXXX. It had not been 30 days. The 30 day time frame was XX/XX/XXXX. The Ditech representative said they did not have the XX/XX/XXXX letter in their system. They only had XX/XX/XXXX letter in their system. We told them we would send them the XX/XX/XXXX letter. The representative said that would not work because only what was in their system mattered. Our only course of action was to submitted the entire package again. We resent the entire package ( 96 pages ) on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX we received a letter stating we were ineligible for FHA standard modification due to Your front-end debt to income ratio is in excess of 40 %. We called XXXX XXXX to find out what is going on. She has not returned our call. 

This entire process could have been avoided if we had just paid the {$23000.00} amount in XX/XX/XXXX and not followed the recommendation of the Ditech Representative. It is very difficult to reach our Account representative XXXX XXXX at ext. XXXX and each time we called her we were routed to a different account rep. We had to explain our situation each time to the different representatives. This resulted in confusion and misinformation. The communication and information provided Ditech Representatives was misleading and wrong which resulted in us being in foreclosure.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation