Consumer complaint received 2023-10-24
Company: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.
State: DC
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Sub-issue: Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan

Complaint:
INTRODUCTION My wife and I are co-owners of a property in Washington DC, which is subject to a mortgage that is managed by PennyMac Loan Services , LLC . 

Since XX/XX/2023, when we first made the request, we have been seeking to have someone from Pennymac sign a one page document ( along with us as co-owners ) that is being required by the DC government as part of a permitting requirement for a home improvement project. This is a routine administrative requirement imposed by the District of Columbia so that we can complete our screened in porch project. Since XX/XX/2023, we have been directed through a confusing maze of dead ends trying to reach someone from Pennymacs offices who can assist us and sign the form. As of today ( XX/XX/2023 ), we are still waiting for a signature from Pennymac. We have explained that if the form is not signed and submitted to the DC government in the next few weeks, i.e., in XXXX, it will endanger our existing permitting for the project and we will have to re-draft and resubmit permits. As such, this is a critical matter. We are concerned about the loss of permitting, and as we move into colder months, we are concerned about the exposed insulation and exposed wiring in the unfinished porch area causing damage. 

The amount of time that has passed and our numerous attempts to seek resolution demonstrate that we are not being treated fairly as an honest contracting party for what we consider to be a basic request for a signature from XXXX. The relief we are requesting is simply a signature on a form. 

BACKGROUND We are in the process of a home renovation project including the addition of a new screened in porch connected to the rear exterior of the house. As part of the permitting process, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is requiring that we create a single updated Record Lot for recording with the XXXX  government, where there is a pre-existing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Lot that conflicts with an earlier original Record Lot. XXXX  is holding up the inspection and approval of our construction until this issue is addressed by submitting a subdivision plat application with the XXXX  XXXX. The form requires the signatures of all owners and, if the property is subject to a mortgage, from an authorized representative of the mortgage company. This is unfortunately just an administrative requirement that DC is mandating to correct its records, and it is essentially holding our minor construction project XXXX as a result. 

Since XXXX, we have been asking our mortgage company to sign the subdivision plat that we need to submit to the local city government in Washington DC. We have explained, over and over, to Pennymac reps, why this subdivision application will not subdivide or add or change any existing geometry to our property boundaries. Rather, we are just simply cleaning and creating a new record lot, which DC has required as a condition of a city inspection needed to complete construction on our screened-in porch. We have submitted with this Complaint, three PDFs documenting correspondence we have had with a XXXX XXXX XXXX of Pennymac ( and others ) along with our DC registered land surveyor, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is serving as our agent and who will be submitting the paperwork for us with DC once we have Pennymacs signature on the form. 

DESCRIPTION OF CONTACT ATTEMPTS On XX/XX/2023, we first attempted to contact Pennymac concerning this issue. We called the service number ( XXXX ) XXXX and were directed to an operator who we explained the issue to. The same day, we sent correspondence via Pennymacs secure messaging system online, providing the signature page. This amounted to sending two messages through Pennymacs messaging center, and calling for customer support twice. We were promised a call back on Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, which we did not receive. 

On XX/XX/2023, we received a XXXX  XXXX package containing correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Department which directed that we execute a XXXX  XXXX Borrower Application for Partial Release or Easement. We immediately contacted XXXX XXXX at the phone number listed in the XXXX  XXXX package, and explained that we were NOT seeking a release of any lien and we [ were ] not trying to subdivide our property [, ] as we recounted verbatim in a followup message that we sent through Pennymacs secure messaging system. On the same date, we emailed XXXX XXXX with the same clarification, and signature request. 

On XX/XX/2023, with no response having been received from XXXX XXXX or Pennymac, we wrote to XXXX XXXX to followup. XXXX XXXX responded by directing our attention to the XXXX release package that she had sent us, disregarding the fact that we had told her that the lien form was not applicable. Later the same day, we responded to XXXX XXXX again, explaining that her XX/XX/XXXX letter was sent based on the misunderstanding that we were seeking a lien release, and that we were seeking to sell off a sub part of our property. Again, as we explained on the phone to XXXX XXXX, we are not seeking to do either of those things. The issue is that the dimensions of our tax lot and the underlying record lot do not agree. Therefore, XXXX is requiring a new record lot for the permitting process associated with our screened in porch construction. The paperwork that was sent by Pennymac on XX/XX/XXXX, clearly pertained to an entirely different issue. 

On XX/XX/2023, XXXX XXXX wrote that she had reviewed [ our ] request with management and was advised to obtain clarification why a new survey needs to be signed, lines are moving therefore, we are either releasing or gaining property. That same day, XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX with a lengthy email, explaining in detail why this conclusion was incorrect. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, almost XXXX weeks later, XXXX XXXX finally responded, but not with a signature. Instead, XXXX XXXX still appeared to be confused and under the misapprehension that we were seeking to change the boundaries of our property. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we held a TEAMS meetings with XXXX XXXX where XXXX XXXX explained the issue ( with documentary survey records and exhibits ) and explained why we were not changing any property boundary lines. 

On XX/XX/2023, with no response having been received from Pennymac, XXXX XXXX wrote to XXXX XXXX seeking an update. That same day, XXXX XXXX wrote back explaining that Pennymac was referring the matter to a XXXX XXXX, and that [ XXXX ] omeone will be reaching out to you soon. 

On XX/XX/2023, with no response having been received from Pennymac, XXXX XXXX again wrote to XXXX XXXX seeking an update. 

On XX/XX/2023, XXXX XXXX responded that the file had to be referred to another department and that [ y ] ou should be hearing from the attorney assigned to the case soon. 

On XX/XX/2023, with no response having been received from Pennymac, we contacted XXXX XXXX again. We explained that we were growing increasingly concerned that there appears to be no timeframe for a resolution of this matter, and we were confused by the reference to referring the matter to a " XXXX XXXX. '' We explained that more than two weeks had passed since XXXX XXXX advised us of that referral, and no one from Penny Mac had contacted us, or provided a substantive update. We stated that we would welcome the opportunity to speak with the attorney assigned to the case. '' We explained that the amount of time that had passed for what we consider to be a basic request suggested that we were not being treated fairly. We also explained that we are concerned, as we approach the winter months, that we have been unable to close in our screened in porch and are left with exposed insulation and electric that our substantial investment in improving our property will be damaged. We reiterated our request that she kindly provide the phone number and email of the assigned attorney. 

On XX/XX/2023, we sent a request for a status update and attached a PDF record of our correspondence to Pennymac via their secure message service on-line. 

On XX/XX/2023, having received no response from Pennymac to either of these communications, my wife and I attempted to find contact information for Pennymacs legal office, to which ostensibly XXXX XXXX had referred our issue. It is impossible, apparently by design, for an individual calling Pennymac to actually reach its legal office, as contact with this portion of the company is not offered as an option in their support number. In addition, none of the correspondence that Pennymac has ever sent us has included contact information for their legal office. In conducting online searches, we identified, and then contacted a XXXX XXXX XXXX, based on information designating him as a chief legal officer of Pennymac, and with contact information listed on the California XXXX XXXX website. When we contacted XXXX XXXX at the phone number listed on the California XXXX XXXX website, he hung up on us after we explained that we were Pennymac customers. 

We then emailed XXXX XXXX at the Pennymac email address listed on the California XXXX XXXX website, explaining that multiple emails sent to XXXX XXXX at Pennymac had gone unanswered, as has an inquiry we had sent through the Pennymac secure message service. We asked that he provide us with the name and contact information for the assigned attorney from the Pennymac XXXX XXXX, or simply asked that he direct that individual to contact us. 

Later that day, we were contacted XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who explained that the matter had been referred to his office for review and advisement. 

On XX/XX/2023, my wife and XXXX XXXX a TEAMS meetings with XXXX XXXX and another attorney from his firm where XXXX XXXX again explained the issue ( with documentary survey records and exhibits ) and explained why we were not changing any property boundary lines. 

That same day, my wife sent correspondence documenting her account of the meeting writing to memorialize our conversation, for my own benefit, and for the benefit of my husband, who apparently was experiencing technical difficulties this morning, and could not hear our discussion. If this account is incorrect in any respect, please let me know. XXXX XXXX XXXX indicated that our current deed is consistent with the record lot change that DC is requiring. However, XXXX XXXX XXXX firmly refused to provide a timeframe for resolution of this matter. We explained that we are obviously very frustrated with our treatment by Pennymac, and are very much hoping that we can get things back on track, and that delay to resolving this matter past the end of the year will result in the loss of our permits, and possible damage to our property during the winter months. 

Since then, we have had no response. 

We are attaching three PDFs of correspondence documenting the contacts described above. We are also including an explanatory PDF exhibit prepared by XXXX XXXX entitled Exhibit for Subdivision Plat for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which was presented to XXXX XXXX. Finally, we attach the one-page document, titled notarized that we are requesting XXXX sign XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation