Consumer complaint received 2023-12-28
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NY
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Sub-issue: An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief

Complaint:
CFPB Complaint in Response to XXXX Letter dated XX/XX/XXXX This letter is in response to XXXX XXXX recycled redundant non-substantive findings after another hollow disingenuous investigation of the facts. At the outset, XXXX acknowledges receipt of my hardship letter and request for a modification on XX/XX/XXXX but does not respond to the first modification request until XX/XX/XXXX ( 5 months later without an explanation for the delay ). 
Interestingly, notwithstanding multiple requests for a modification from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, as well as in XXXX CFPB complaints, XXXX has NOT included a single document submitted by the borrower for a modification, nor is there a single document of the alleged investor guidelines used as the basis for the denial. Instead, the review repeatedly concludes ad nauseam that you did not meet the requirements for a particular program or you did not meet the investor guidelines, but does NOT provide any written documentary evidence of what the investor guidelines were. 
Sadly, XXXX has not and can not provide a good-faith basis for the denial supported by documentary proof of the investors guidelines together with the borrowers records submitted with the multiple modification applications. The XX/XX/XXXX alleged review refers to the identical letters it sent with its alleged reviews dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both of which are devoid of the written investor modification guidelines or the borrowers documents submitted with the modification requests. 
XXXX claims the loan was a private loan that did not participate in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) but does not provide any written proof of the same. Even assuming the investor did not participate in XXXX, that does not relieve the investor of its duty to provide proof of the investors written guidelines together with the multiple modification documents submitted by the borrower. 
It is well established that the wrongful denial of my multiple requests for a modification fits squarely within the period between XXXX and XXXX wherein Wells Fargo failed to detect errors in its automated system to determine whether consumers in default would be eligible for loan modifications with XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, or under the XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). 
Equally untenable is Wells XXXX  allegations that it was unable to reach me. I responded to all of its calls and letters. Wells Fargo has failed to mention which documents were not provided. 
Further, as mentioned in my complaints CFPB Case Number XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX argument that XXXX XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX was based on the XXXX  is equally meritless because the XXXX  valuation took place more than 7 years after multiple wrongful modification denials beginning in XX/XX/XXXX. Wells Fargo can not hide behind a denial directly related to its XXXX years of dilatory actions and wrongful denials.

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