Consumer complaint received 2016-08-19
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
SPS Servicing is the Servicer on my mortgage. XXXX XXXX is the lender of my mortgage. XXXX has held homeowner in extending processing for over 16 months. SPS the servicer is not evaluating documents properly. Homeowner has submitted the XXXX requesting modification over three times and the same results : lost paperwork, or denied without explanation. 

The most recent denial was on XXXX. Homeowner has generated a XXXX Report, data collection date of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and shows homeowner can possibly qualify got a modification. Homeowner has been in default since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 

Homeowner is formally appealing the denial based on errors in home value, income and comparable recent sales : recent comp is {$430000.00}, sold in XXXX, XXXX. The income, DTI and LTV Loan to Values used by the services in the denial of the RMA application are in error. I have provided a recent XXXX Report dated XXXX XXXX to show more than XXXX errors on the processors side : 1. The estimated homeowners value is overstated ; off by {$130000.00} 2. Current street value of the home is {$430000.00} as of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 

The servicer has commenced double tracking while homeowner was acting in good faith under the XXXX States Attorney Generals Agreement : the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement. 

The servicer ' is discriminating against homeowner claims, in a form of reverse discrimination ; holding the mortgage in extended processing, denying a loan modification while homeowner is qualified, lost documents when homeowner has already provided. 

This homeowner, feels that their case has been unfairly treated for the following reasons : 1. No active single point of contact, constantly changing, when calls made to the single point of contact, routine routed to the collection department, never the same contact person. 
2. A Single point of contact was assigned ; calls were made to the point of contact : the calls were never returned by the contact. Calls returned were from the collection department and never the same so called : " relationship manager ''. 
3. The servicer has held the homeowner in extended process in bad faith, during which the value of property has increased and fallen for 940 days from XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 
4. On the last XXXX application : all requested documents were provided as requested. Homeowner has confirmation via fax that documents were received by the service, bank claims that documents lost. 
5. Homeowner has made numerous calls ( XXXX ) inquiring on status of application, as a foreclosure date has been set and reset ; calls were routed to next available collection department agent, comments were : A ) wrongfully advised that documents were not submitted, or B ) documents were submitted, or C ) resubmit documents because documents lost, or D ) the foreclosure date is set and homeowner is responsible for not providing the requested documents : these XXXX points are causing a state of confusion and terror to the homeowner. 
6. Servicer started a double tracking procedure upon the notice of default. The foreclosure agent was aware of the loan modification in process, and moved forward with the double tracking anyway. 
This is a clear violation under the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement ; specifically double tracking while homeowner provided all documents under good faith. 
7. Homeowner has contacted the foreclosure agent before the foreclosure sale : that the sale was extended to another 30 days. Servicer never advised homeowner of the extended sale date. 
XXXX. As of the above CFPB complaint date above, servicer has not advised or confirmation that the foreclosure date of sale is on hold. 
XXXX. Homeowner is in a state of fear created by the collection tactics by Servicer and or the foreclosure agent. 
XXXX. Homeowner was not advised of their HAMP/Department of Justice modification guidelines or options.

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