My apologies, this is in reference to case/complaint no. XXXX, in which my dispute to Wells Fargo 's response was sent back to the bank. I needed to add crucial facts, as I was understandably anxious to respond back. This is my home. 

Wells Fargo is claiming to not have received my documentation for " re-entry '' until XX/XX/XXXX, although the counselor/representative at the HUD-certified organization XXXX said she has proof it was sent some time in XXXX ( I will be reaching out to her in attempt to obtain that proof ). It was not until l had not heard back and began to receive foreclosure notices that prompted me to panic and see what was happening. The lady at XXXX said it was definitely sent to the bank but that she 'll re-send everything again. Hence : the admission from Wells Fargo of the XX/XX/XXXX receipt date stated in the response. 

According to the same Wells Fargo 's response, although they admit to receiving my documents for " re-entry '' for the modification in XXXX they still " referred to outside counsel to initiate foreclosure proceedings '' in XXXX. Why is that if my docs had been received? 

As previously indicated, the income stated on Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX letter they attached did not include XXXX income as my additional source of income. Despite sending over all his available personal and financial information stating that was being used as he is a resident in my home permanently contributing. It was made to believe to be fine alongside his proof of residency, as requested. 

Also Wells Fargo 's response about the 3-way phone call on XX/XX/XXXX with the " Home Preservation Specialist '' XXXX and the underwriter says the bank says was " able to discuss the remaining financial information required to continue the review, '' despite not specifying what that was. I have no idea what the bank is talking about. I was misled to believe everything is in, as confirmed by XXXX when he called on XX/XX/XXXX and said the bank is " looking for the best modification and option for me. '' Not " we are pending this or that. '' And XXXX was supposed to be " escalation '' coming back with a " resolution '' for me. An outstanding item ( s ) would/should have been mentioned by him then. It was not. I was told NOTHING. 

The bank is claiming my income is not suffice, and did not provide a reason why XXXX 's income was not included since his information including bills were sent. The bank is also saying documentation is missing with nothing formally written or issued saying what was missing -- just " we were able to discuss the remaining financial information required. '' I need to know what exactly that was because it was NOT told to me at the time. I would have made sure that it was sent. I have spent a year faxing! 

The $ XXXX referenced expense is not an unreimbursed expense any longer after XXXX and needs to be corrected for current income calculation purposes. There had to be a misunderstanding. 

The concern and reason for this complaint was the fact the bank seems to find a reason, excuse or justification why something was not received, had to be re-submitted with a minor alteration, or an additional request for something completely different than originally requested which delayed or stalled the " completion '' of the package -- ultimately resulting in Wells Fargo saying the " loan was removed from review '' conveniently, therefore Dual Tracking could try to be ruled out since the package was not " complete, '' as required by California 's law. It just seems so calculated and strategic. 

This has to be thoroughly escalated and reviewed. Please.