Consumer complaint received 2016-05-29
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: OR
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint:
Dear CFPB, I would like to file a formal complaint with Ditech Financial LLC, a company that recently purchased my mortgage from the XXXX. The first payment to Ditech in the amount of {$1800.00} for XXXX was processed on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. As a person aware of Ditech deceptive and unfair accounting processes, I wanted to make sure my next payment arrives exactly on the due date - XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, which happens to be Sunday. The check was sent by the XXXX XXXX XXXX and, as the bank 's records indicate, the payment was received and processed on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Yet, the Ditech records show that the payment was applied on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The issue is the entire payment was applied towards the principle. The problem I have with the assumption made by Ditech is, assuming that XXXX/XXXX/XXXX was the date the payment was received, it would still be logical to treat it as a regular payment ( not extra payment ) for the following reasons : a ) the check arrived on Saturday and the payment was due Sunday - USPS does not deliver regular mail on Sundays and b ) the payment was for the amount due rounded up to the nearest dollar. I understand that extra payments are always applied to the principle. In this situation, I would have expected Ditech to make a contact to ensure the payment is not mishandled. 
I have received a phone call from Ditech on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX trying to collect the " past due '' amount and the late fees. I have, however, declined a generous offer of making a full payment that covers not only the " past due '' amount but also a late payment fee and {$19.00} convenience charge. After providing the dates of when the payment was sent, received, and processed, the agent agreed that the funds were applied incorrectly and stated that the issue will be resolved within 2-3 business days. 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I receive a letter dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX stating that I am past due and the late payment fees of {$0.00} are included in the total amount I have to pay ( {$1700.00} ), which does not match the amount due on any of the statements - my total due ever month is {$1800.00}. Moreover, the payment history on my account # XXXX also shows a payment of {$1800.00} processed on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX {$1700.00} of which was applied towards my principle, escrow, and interest and {$110.00} allocated to " unapplied amount '' bucket. Both dollar figures add up to the monthly amount due and suggest that Ditech failed to apply an arbitrary amount of the payment I did not make. It is worth mentioning that this payment did not decrease my overall balance. Currently, I have a payment of {$1800.00} scheduled to be delivered and processed on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for XXXX. 
Today, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, after noticing that the misapplied funds problem was not resolved, I took the following actions on Ditech 's website : 1 ) Submitted a complaint to Ditech 2 ) Made an additional payment of {$1800.00} to avoid delinquency reporting to credit bureaus The extra payment made several hours ago still appears as " pending '', which raises a concern that I my credit history may still be affected as Ditech 's poor accounting practices. The confirmation number for the payment is XXXX. 
In summary, I have made an extra payment for the total amount due for XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX after paying it in full on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The company failed to resolve misapplied funds within 2-3 business days as promised on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, forcing me to make yet another payment. I have received a letter asking me to pay past due balance of an arbitrary {$1700.00}. I have also noticed and documented fictitious payment transactions on my account that do not decrease my overall balance. How can Ditech be XXXX compliant with such poor accounting practices? 

Thank you.

Company public response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation