Consumer complaint received 2015-12-31
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MN
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I just disconnected from a Bank of America employee who identified himself as a supervisor with a first name of XXXX. ( spelling mine ). I had called several days prior regarding XXXX questions, XXXX about our HAMP modification that has been in place since XXXX of 2012 and the other regarding the escrow process on that HAMP modification. The escrow question had been included in my previous complaint registered with CFPB but not addressed specifically in BofA 's response and followup to that complaint. 
The specific question regarding the modification was whether or not we are expecting the XXXX XXXX 5 year and 6 year borrower incentives of {$5000.00} principal reduction each. My question in the original call days ago was two fold : A ) If we qualify, what do we need to do if anything to insure that it happens, and B ) If we do not qualify, what specific thresh holds did we not meet to prevent us from qualifying. The original BofA agent days ago said that he could not answer that but it would appear to him that we did not qualify because had we qualified it would have been mentioned in our actual signed modification. He offered to accelerate the question and have someone who could answer the question return my call within 24 to 48 hours. 
Today I received a call from a woman identifying herself as with BofA, with a name I do n't recall, who answered the question exactly as the man in the first call had : " You did not qualify for that program or it would be in your modification ''. I repeated several times that what I was asking for was a specific answer to what it was that we did not do or achieve that prevented us from qualifying and she replied that she could not answer that question. The went further to say, verbatim, " There is no answer to that question ''. When pressed to transfer me or forward the question to someone who had knowledge of the HAMP application process who could answer the question she replied, verbatim, : " There is no one who can answer that question ''. 
I asked her if she could transfer me to a supervisor, and she quickly obliged. A person named XXXX came on the line, identified himself as her supervisor, and asked if I 'd like to explain my question to him. I did just as I had to her and he repeated the exact same answer, that there was no one who could answer that question. I insisted that BofA provide me with a written explanation of the answer to my question and he refused. He then asked abruptly if I had any other questions he could help me with and I said yes there was the question of the escrow. He said " no, I mean any other questions that you had pertaining to this ''. ( my paraphrase ). I said that it does pertain to this as it was the second question that had been escalated for call back, which was regarding why escrow was zeroed out at the onset of a XXXX instead of pre funded as in any other type of loan. He became agitated with me three times in a row when I tried to explain that the question was pre-existing and never answered and threatened to hang up on me ( as had the woman who transferred me to him ) before I ever finished the question. I said goodbye and hung up on him. 
The escrow question, yet unanswered, is why was the escrow not prefunded as a requirement, which in our case would have been advanced and tacked onto the principle for purposes of the modification? Bank of America called me months after my CFPB complaint and told me they had agreed to my request in my other CFPB complaint ( not discussed here ), and asked if I had other concerns. I said yes, that the escrow question was still outstanding. " Would you like me to look into that as well? '' the woman asked on that call. " Yes please '' I answered. That was probably 3 years ago and I 've heard nothing since. I asked in that complaint and reiterate here that escrow be retroactively funded as it if it were a new loan

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation