Consumer complaint received 2015-11-05
Company: Servis One, Inc., Titusville, PA Branch
State: TX
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
Filed a complaint to BSI dated XXXX, but the main issue was totally left unaddressed. 
" Upon reviewing BSI 's response, the main issue to my complaint was left unaddressed. BSI primarily focused their response on the things that they tried to do, rather than address the problems that have occurred. I feel that BSI is trying to remove them from all liability by brushing aside the root of the problem. I am fully aware of the deferment agreement dated XXXX XXXX, 2015. However, my complaint refers to my diligent effort to try to work with XXXX XXXX XXXX to resolve my mortgage troubles, in XXXX 2015, which BSI made no mention of in their response. Your records should and will show that I have and am still communicating with XXXX regarding my mortgage. In the CFPB response letter, BSI claimed to have made " many attempts to offer financial assistance ... Unfortunately, no further workout options were explored and no payments have been made. Therefore, the attached Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate was sent '' on XXXX XXXX, 2015. I will restate my original complaint again. I have been working closely with XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXX 2015. BSI claimed that no further workout was explored, when in fact a viable option was not only explored but was also offered by XXXX XXXX. In XXXX 2015, XXXX XXXX offered a plan to allow me to pay around {$7000.00}, due by XXXX, to reinstate my mortgage and get my loan back on track again. XXXX XXXX was very considerate to give us until XXXX XXXX to reinstate the mortgage and to hold off the foreclosure proceedings. However, when I spoke to her on the last week of XXXX so that I can schedule the reinstatement, she advised me to set the funds aside so that she could request figures from my district tax to determine the full reinstatement amount. I had waited for the reinstatement figures for over a month. Your call records should clearly show that I called XXXX XXXX every Monday XX/XX/XXXX to follow up on status. I spoke to XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX and was advised that the figures have not come in yet and she was going to put in another request. XXXX XXXX called me the very next day, XXXX XXXX, and gave me very disheartening news. She told me no further options would be considered because I already had a previous modification XX/XX/XXXX and a deferment XX/XX/XXXX. She claimed to have no idea about this at all. She asked why I did n't tell her. I do not know anything about BSI 's modification or workout policies. How am I supposed to know what type of information to disclose to her unless I am being asked? I 'm not the underwriter and also, she has my account information in from of her. Why did n't she look up that information prior to offering me the option to reinstate, months before? Nearly 2 months have passed since I was ready to make my reinstatement payment, XXXX XXXX was now requesting that I make at least 5 months of payment, rather than the XXXX that we had previously agreed to. I requested a lower amount as I was only prepared to make the XXXX payments as she had originally offered. She outright refused any other term to help me save my home. I either pay this amount or surrender my home. That was my only XXXX options. At the end of XXXX, XXXX XXXX advised me that my account had not been referred to foreclosure yet. I continued corresponding with XXXX XXXX via email throughout the month of XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, she stated that my account was moved into foreclosure status in XXXX when I was unable to reinstate my mortgage. This all seemed very confusing as XXXX XXXX 's email appear to contradict itself. I feel BSI lied, mislead and coerced me into giving up my home. My complaint was centered on the issue that came after the agreement XXXX XXXX and I made in XXXX 2015. Because of this proposed agreement by XXXX XXXX, I did exactly wh

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