Consumer complaint received 2016-09-20
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: MD
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
I developed a cash flow problem in my XXXX business. I contacted my bank, Wells Fargo. They said, no problem. Just fill out a loan application. I did. Two months later they turned down my loan ap for {$15.00} XXXX By then I was behind in my mortgage. I asked for a mortgage mod. They told me my debt was already too high and my income too low. I began working with XXXX XXXX at Wells to fix my problem. Over 13 months I paid off entirely all XXXX of my Wells accounts and XXXX more or the remaining XXXX LOC/CCs balances. Over {$40.00} K worth of debt paid off from XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. But my income was low. So I began working on collections and adding patients. No matter what my debt or income, in XXXX opinon it was never enough. By XXXX XXXX when we met with a mediation judge on this matter I was certain I had met minimum HAMP 1 mortgage mod requirements for income, which, in my case were roughly $ XXXX/month -- very easy. Wells told the judge, no, that I was still less than $ XXXX/month short on income. The judge suggested we resubmit a loan app. We did. Wells turned it down. Why? My application team stated that Wells never read the application -- it was turned down after 3 days. Later, I spoke with XXXX at XXXX. She said the problem was Wells shorted me by & gt ; {$300.00} on my SS income -- had that not been done I would have qualified. But, in addition, my efforts to raise my cash flow were bearing fruit. My XXXX + XXXX + XXXX ( estimated ) averaged $ XXXX/month, or well above guidelines. Wells ' position : They were Wells Fargo and they did not have to follow guidelines. If they wanted to cut my SS income by $ XXXXmonth, that was their right. If HAMP guidelines permitted the homeowner to resubmit a package, their position was they made the guidelines -- HAMP did not. The federal government did not either. 

Bottom line : Wells stretched me out beyond the 8 month limit where I could talk to XXXX and not be foreclosed on by a ruse of 'we will work with you. ' They gave great advice, which I followed. I wrote regularly to XXXX XXXX to inform him of my progress in reducing my debt, per his advice ( many letters available on this point ). My 'revolving ' debt by the XXXX will be {$40.00} XXXX lower than when I started ; my XXXX lines with Wells are all paid off ; and I will carry only XXXX lines of the original XXXX into XXXX. Thank you, XXXX XXXX! And my deposits for the last 3 months will be about XXXX X the average of my income for XXXX. Result? According to Wells, that is not enough ... .even though HAMP 1 guidelines suggest an income of {$8600.00} would qualify me for a HAMP 1 program. 
My conclusion : Wells strung out the counseling process ( 'We will work with you ' ) to the end of foreclosing on my home of 30 years. I entered into this process in good faith. I closed out XXXX or my XXXX lines and all XXXX of Wells ' at their encouragement. And I raised my XXXX monthly income of ( round numbers ) $ XXXX/month to approximately {$17000.00} for the 3 months ending XXXX XXXX. I did what I promised. Wells? They did not operate in good faith. They did not, for instance, disclose that I could work with XXXX to avoid falling into their trap of running the clock until they could foreclose. They said they would discuss options to avoid foreclosure. I made numerous requests ( see letter ). Wells? They said " nothing '' was available to me. 
When I called XXXX I was told Wells was in special as a financial institution, that they made their own rules for HAMP 1 qualification ; your SS income was what they decided your SS income was ; they were regulated by no one ; and after 8 months of being behind in your mortgage you had " no hope '' but to declare Chapter XXXX bankruptcy and have your attorney negotiate with them. 
The only question I have at this point before I call a bankruptcy attorney is this : Who did Wells pay to become an absolute power in the world?

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation