Consumer complaint received 2017-08-16
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other type of mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
Current Servicer as of XX/XX/XXXX is SPS - Prior Servicer : XXXX - Investor - XXXX My loan servicer, XXXX, intentionally, deceptively and unfairly steered me into default ( 90 days delinquency ) and caused me to lose good standing in MHA/HAMP and a principal reduction I was entitled to in the MHA/Making Home Affordable program on my Tier 1 Loan Modification. They then immediately sold or transferred the servicing. The loss of good standing caused me to lose my principal reduction and incentive payments of nearly {$360000.00} as per my HAMP Loan Modification Agreement dated and notarized on XX/XX/XXXX. If it werent for their misconduct and having to rely on their misrepresentation I would have been able to make a decision to pay the arrears to catch up and prevent the 90 day delinquency. They have admitted fault and apologized but left it to SPS to  correct. They had a duty to provide me with accurate and truthful information. I had entered into a repayment plan twice due to some complications and recurrence from a long term XXXX I still suffer from ( XXXX XXXX ). At these times I was never 90 days delinquent. I had concerns that if I didnt pay the arrears in full and went into the repayment plan that I would lose my principal reduction. I informed XXXX the repayment plan they were suggesting and offering would take me past 90 days delinquent and would cause me to lose my principal reduction/good standing. I was told by the XXXX customer service representatives I would not lose good standing in the MHA program if I accepted their repayment plan as you are exempt from losing the principal reduction as long as you are in a repayment plan. I confirmed three times with them and managers that if I accepted their repayment plan and terms that I would not lose the principal reduction and good standing. ALL times I was reassured that as long as youre in a repayment plan going past 90 days will not cause you to lose your principal reduction. This is all logged into the system notes as verified and read out loud to me by XXXX representative/mod specialist XXXX XXXX. After entering and accepting the repayment plan they immediately retracted and cancelled the principal reduction at 90 days delinquent, citing that I had lost good standing. I called and was told by XXXX employees that they saw in the system all the notes and that the representatives and management did confirm to me in error that I would not lose good standing/principal reduction. They acknowledged their error and said it would be fixed but that on the XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX just a couple days away the loan servicing would be transferred to SPS. XXXX XXXX ( modification specialist at CHASE ) admitted fault and acknowledged it was CHASEs error. He apologized and advised me that since servicing was switching to SPS that the investor would have to be informed via SPS to correct the error and if they didnt correct it I could retain an attorney. He said they are welcome to call him and he will verify everything in the system as the notes from everyone who confirmed this misstatement was logged but that I couldnt get me a copy of it. He gave me the names of the representatives that confirmed to me the wrong information and read the notes out loud to me. I called SPS about this after they took over servicing XX/XX/XXXX and no one would call XXXX to verify the error. They said they didnt have the notes as it was proprietary information. They told me to file a notice of error with SPS. I did several times and was denied any action or change. No one at SPS ever called CHASE or got the notes or cared about this error enough to investigate it. They responded with the fact that I was 90 days delinquent and lost good standing. I have been misled and lied to and fraudulently cheated out of my principal reduction and steered into default. Where are the XXXX funds that would have paid for the principal reduction? Did XXXX keep them? How did SPS benefit from this transaction? Were they in collusion with CHASE to keep the terms of their financial transaction of this transfer? Something is very suspicious about how this happened as the CHASE representatives were clearly coached to inform borrowers about not losing principal reduction and good standing when in a repayment plan that takes you past 90 days delinquency. Even the managers confirmed it. Who was communicating this incorrect and fraudulent information to this department? And furthermore why was I put into the HAMP/MHA instead of the National Mortgage Settlement XXXX was a part of ( they owned my loan/investor ). They didnt even suggest this to me as an option after they steered me into default. Did they change servicers quickly in a matter of days to prevent them from issuing a principal reduction under another lawsuit they were obligated to? Were they hand picking mortgages based on what gave them the most profit? This is clearly a trend at that time and I suspect these deceptive practices are more widespread. XXXX EMPLOYEES : XXXX XXXX CAS- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) CAS XX/XX/XXXX She documented notes in XXXX system that my principal reduction wouldnot be affected due to 90 days delinquency as long as I was in repayment plan. XXXX XXXX XXXX Modification Specialist XXXX XXXX stated it was XXXX error and they were at fault. He said he can be reached anytime and will verify this information of the error is correct and will read all notes to confirm in hopes of helping to getting this reversed and error fixed.. He apologized and advised me that since servicing was switching to SPS that the investor would have to be informed via SPS to correct the error and if they didnt correct it I could retain an attorney. He said notes were in the system but that he couldnt give me a copy of it.

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