Consumer complaint received 2016-06-08
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint:
OCWEN over charged me every month after OCWEN posted the {$76000.00} from Keep Your Home California in XXXX 2016. Instead of doing the recast paperwork in XXXX 2016, OCWEN got very busy taking my name off the loan, ruining my credit by removing the loan from the credit bureaus, locking me out of my account, taking my name off the account and hounding me mercilessly to send the homeowner 's association master insurance policy over and over for months, only to say they did n't need it after all when I asked XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX to make OCWEN stop. 
OCWEN suddenly stopped asking for the policy they did n't need, reversed the reversal of the assumption and started trying to repair my badly damaged credit. OCWEN took it 's time with the recast, forcing me to pay a higher amount each month until they could get around to the matter. Then OCWEN blamed me, the same way they blamed XXXX and XXXX ... OCWEN always blames the parties they are working with on any given issue. They have never taken responsibility for their mistakes. 
The delay in the recast was obviously caused by OCWEN having a field day blowing up our lives. The could not handle all that destruction AND do the recast paperwork properly, so they just concentrated on the destruction, taking my name off the loan and making a huge mess that would be hard to clean up. 
OCWEN instructed me to only talk to XXXX XXXX when they decided to reverse the damage. I, the Department of Justice and CFPB are all being asked by OCWEN to believe that OCWEN 'S decision to reverse the damage is because of my " displeasure ''. I have never heard of " displeasure '' being a cause of action or a reason for any business transaction. I also never have heard of a company asking an individual what amount of money they would want to settle out of court being " conversational '', just chitchat. 
XXXX XXXX, on three occasions, asked me how much I would want to settle out of court. Because of his settlement questions, I told attorney 's I was speaking to about this matter that OCWEN seemed to be pressing to settle out of court, but only verbally and that I would ask OCWEN to put it in writing. I gave a deadline of Friday XXXX XXXX, 2016 so that this would not drag on for months like ever matter with OCWEN does. On Friday XXXX XXXX sent the same XXXX pages he sends to answer any question, the same " one size fits all '' pile of public documents that we are supposed to believe excuse any action OCWEN has taken and will take. On Monday XXXX XXXX explained that the settlement talks that he initiated were " just conversation ''. I had not initiated the settlement talks. I was actually surprised when XXXX XXXX kept asking me to give a specific amount I would like to receive. After OCWEN caused a horrific amount of stress in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I told XXXX XXXX I would accept a settlement. Again he asked how much. I took him serious, as my OCWEN contact. I think OCWEN needs to start telling the truth. Why did they put my name back on the loan. What law did they realize they broke? Why did OCWEN torment me further with this fake settlement offer? I have requested no to speak with XXXX XXXX from now on since everything he says might be " conversational '' and not to be taken seriously. In court I imagine OCWEN attorneys will say, " Oh, XXXX was just personally curious about how much you would like to settle this matter, he was not representing OCWEN when he put you through all that. It was just " conversational '' XXXX '' I think OCWEN did something wrong, something illegal and attempted to cover it up with XXXX pages of public documents that do not excuse those actions. I think OCWEN 'S use of the word " displeasure '' as if it is a legal term, is also a red flag indicating something illegal was done. No one reverses actions because of " displeasure ''. Actions are reversed because they were found to be mistakes.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation