XX/XX/XXXX, we began to get behind on our mortgage payments because my business failed and I was clinically depressed. We spoke to our lender, Wells Fargo ( WF ), for help. We began the modification process on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX with an agency called XXXX. Over the next weeks we put together the documents WF requested ; they were available for review as early as XX/XX/XXXX. We were notified on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX that a mediation conference was set for XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. With two months until the meeting, our expectation was that WF would review our case and be prepared. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, WF sent an email, through our councilor at XXXX, requesting XXXX additional documents not asked for in XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. We uploaded the documents, my wife 's most recent paystubs for XXXX jobs, a few hours after the request. When we arrived at the XX/XX/XXXX meeting WF had not reviewed our case despite having months to do so. Instead, they offered us a Streamlined Modification ( SM ) which could have been offered outside of the mediation process. As a result of their lack of preparation, the session was largely a waste of time which we paid for. We decided not to take the offer at that time and agreed to reset the meeting for XX/XX/XXXX so that WF could review the paperwork and consider us for a standard XXXX Modification. We asked about making payments on the loan so we would not accrue more debt, but were told that we could not make payments or it would end the modification process. When we met on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX XXXX still had not reviewed our paperwork. Again, they requested additional documents days before the meeting. At the meeting we were informed that WF offered another SM at a higher interest rate than the one made in XX/XX/XXXX. We requested a third meeting so we could talk to the underwriter after they had formally reviewed our files, but the mediator and the bank 's lawyer protested, so we were given no choice but to receive the certificate of compliance and end mediation. Because we could not make payments during mediation, when it concluded we had accrued more debt. In XX/XX/XXXX WF ordered an appraisal of our home that came up with the value of {$240000.00}. The balance of our loan is {$210000.00}, so this value put us at less than XXXX % equity in the property. Under this scenario the XXXX guidelines allow the lender to adjust the interest rate, which they did on the original Streamlined offer. Then, just one month later, WF had another appraisal done ; this time the value came out at {$290000.00}. This new value was to WF 's advantage. Now that our equity was over XXXX %, the XXXX guidelines did n't allow for lowering the interest rate. They do, however, allow for forbearing some portion of the principal. When we pointed this out to WF, they refused to consider it. Not only does it feel that they manipulated the appraisal process to their benefit, but it seems WF also selectively interpreted the XXXX guidelines to their advantage. We appealed WF 's decision. WF sent us a letter denying our appeal and saying : " you are still eligible for the same loan modification program you were originally offered. " The original offer was the one made on XX/XX/XXXX. We were willing to accept this offer with its reduced interest rate of 3.5 %. WF refused to offer this to us and said that they were referring to the offer made in XX/XX/XXXX. WF refused to adjust the modification to provide us with the " original offer '' as stated in their letter. They also refused to send us a written explanation. We feel that WF manipulated the mediation process to their advantage, deliberately delayed to cost us more money on both the mediation meetings and our loan. We feel they arbitrarily interpreted the guidelines to their advantage and negotiated in bad faith by not making us a timely SM offer and not reviewing our information before each mediation session.