Consumer complaint received 2016-05-02
Company: Servis One, Inc., Titusville, PA Branch
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
BSI continues to dodge questions and continues to not take any responsibility for blatant violations or accountability. 
First of all XXXX XXXX I do not think you understand the law. Also you are constantly dodging the questions. 10 times I have asked about the online access and not once have you addressed that. 2nd I understand the loss mitt file was denied. I am not talking about XXXX I am talking about BSI so if you could please stop dodging your responsibilities that would be great. Since BSI decided to deny loan mod application I am allowed to appeal which I did which you received on XXXX/XXXX/16. I received confirmation it was received on XXXX/XXXX/16 by BSI is date confirming receipt. So from that day of my appeal XXXX has 15 days to respond to me which it still has not stating needing either more information or why it was denied again. Instead you filed a NOD on XXXX/XXXX/16 which is DUAL TRACKING VIOLATION and sent to my attorney. You may try and deny those facts but those are the facts and in writing!!! The NOD was filed 10 days after confirmation of my appeal on the denial. I do not have excessive obligations and there will be a lawsuit on this now. In regards to your REINSTATEMENT I will pay the XXXX But I will not pay the attorney FEES of XXXX or your just FEES LINE which gives no description just trying to pad your money of XXXX and I do not agree with unpaid late fees of XXXX. These fees are extortion and fraudulent. Also the max attorney fees allowed in CA is XXXX This is the law and clearly another violation. 
violation of state usury laws unfair and deceptive acts and practices unjust enrichment negligent servicing breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. 

under, the first lien loan modification. 
( d ) If the borrower 's application for a first lien loan modification is denied, the borrower shall have at least 30 days from the date of the written denial to appeal the denial and to provide evidence that the mortgage servicer 's determination was in error. 
( e ) If the borrower 's application for a first lien loan modification is denied, the mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or, if a notice of default has already been recorded, record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee 's sale until the later of : ( 1 ) Thirty-one days after the borrower is notified in writing of the denial. 
( 2 ) If the borrower appeals the denial pursuant to subdivision ( d ), the later of 15 days after the denial of the appeal or 14 days after a XXXX lien loan modification is offered after appeal but declined by the borrower, or, if a XXXX lien loan modification is offered and accepted after appeal, the date on which the borrower fails to timely submit the first payment or otherwise breaches the terms of the offer. 
( f ) Following the denial of a XXXX lien loan modification application, the mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the borrower identifying the reasons for denial, including the following : ( 1 ) The amount of time from the date of the denial letter in which the borrower may request an appeal of the denial of the XXXX lien loan modification and instructions regarding how to appeal the denial.That is the law and that is what BSI has violated. For some reason you believe I am. Also XXXX did not call me on XXXX XXXX. He called on XXXX XXXX and I returned call with no call back. I have all of the history of calls on my phone and phone bill so there is no reason to lie about this. There is also no denying the SPOC with having conversations with. I have kept every single voicemail and I recorded all messages I left for him. As stated I will pay the XXXX. And I can pay that now so denying loan mod because of excessive obligations was someone in your company not do

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