Consumer complaint received 2017-09-18
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: CO
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Investigation took more than 30 days

Complaint:
1. My husband and I purchased a home in XXXX, Arizona in XX/XX/XXXX while stationed at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Arizona. When we notified in XX/XX/XXXX that we had Permanent Change of Station assignment to XXXX XXXX XXXX, we immediately tried everything we could to apply for housing assistance, deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure and short sale to prevent a foreclosure. We were assured that we were great candidates for housing assistance and deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure due to our military status and the nature of our move ( military requirement ). We faithfully made our home payments all the way up to the month we were required by the United States XXXX XXXX to move to XXXX, where we had to pay for a rental property there. Additionally, we called and submitted paperwork to Green Tree Servicing ( DITECH ) every month concerning our situation from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX hoping for assistance but only received a response back once a home payment was missed. In XX/XX/XXXX, after we arrived in XXXX, we were notified that we were in fact not good candidates for housing assistance, deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure nor short sale and were left with our only option, a foreclosure. 

2. In XX/XX/XXXX, our family was reassigned to the United States XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and very shortly thereafter, I was tasked to deploy. A requirement for my deployment was a higher level security clearance which initiated an investigation. The foreclosure listed on my credit report led the investigators to question my trustworthiness. As a result, my clearance was temporarily revoked and has yet to be reinstated. 

3. I disputed the DITECH bad debt figure on my credit report with XXXX for the following reasons : - Green Tree Servicing ( DITECH ) settled in a class action lawsuit with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) in which DITECH was found negligent of mishandling requests for mortgage short sales, loan modifications and tricked customers into paying convenience fees ( see Attachment 1 ). These actions were evident in our case by repeated switching of our case worker, consistent inability to communicate with them, and run-around for processing our requests for aid. Green Tree Servicing agreed to compensate borrowers who may have been harmed by unlawful practices. My family has endured the harm of these practices for the past five and a half years, which for the past year has culminated in the revocation of my security clearance and jeopardized my impeccable military career. 
- A differential balance at the very least should be represented. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Arizona sold four months after the foreclosure for {$110000.00} ( see Attachment 2 ). This should be removed from the total bad debt of {$160000.00} leaving a remaining figure of {$43000.00}. Additionally, I am advised by my financial counselor that Green Tree Servicing received tax breaks for the written off debt and gained even more than the {$110000.00} for the home. 

4. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a credit report dispute with XXXX requesting removal of the bad debt entirely or at least reflecting the differential balance of {$43000.00} as the bad debt. I received a notification on XX/XX/XXXX that the dispute had been processed and that updates were made. I contacted XXXX directly via phone on XX/XX/XXXX to clarify what updates were made as they were not clearly visible. The only updates made were to the date updated, changed from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, to the balance, changed from {$160000.00} to {$160000.00}, and to the ratings clarifying 30, 60, 90 days past due on home payments from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( see Attachment 3 ). All this seems to have done was allow DITECH and XXXX to say that they processed a dispute in a timely manner, not that they actually resolved anything.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation