1 ) Attached is the XX/XX/XXXXstatement for this loan. Again, Key Bank has charged an " Attorney 's Fee '' on this account. In addition, it has raised this fee unilaterally to {$20.00} from {$15.00}. Key Bank has admitted this fee is not actually related to any legal expense but is actually related to its claimed right to charge a monthly inspection fee, unilaterally, while it attempts to accrue interest income to destroy equity ( i.e. predatory servicing ) before foreclosing as a way of avoiding payment to the debtor of the equity in the property.

I believe either unnecessary legal fees or inspection fees charged to the debtor while Key Bank neither complies with its federal regulatory and federal and state statutory obligations to allow and consider loan modification options nor foreclosing if such obligations do not apply to the bank, do not constitute " necessary collection expenses, '' the only additional fees allowed by Key Bank 's loan contract with the debtor.

I have already complained to the CFPB regarding this misrepresentation ( I think CFPB Case XXXX. ). I believe the CFPB should be concerned about this systemic Key Bank procedure, since I believe Key Bank is doing so to make these expenses more credible to a state judge as being reasonable collection expenses by misidentifying them as legal expenses. This is highly relevant when the debtor defaults by failing to answer a foreclosure complaint ; Key Bank probably will be able to pass off these expenses to a state judge as being " reasonable collection expenses '' whereas monthly inspection expenses would appear unnecessary and ridiculous, even without opposition from the debtor.

I believe these expenses should not be charged unilaterally at any price Key Bank wants, since these expenses, in New York State, must be approved by a state judge in a foreclosure proceeding before being assessed.

2 ) Attached is the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX statement also. I spoke with XXXX at Key Bank on XX/XX/XXXX at the XXXX  phone number provided regarding the fact that no notice was delivered to the house with Key Bank 's phone number in the month of XX/XX/XXXX, as their representatives have done every month, so that one of these charges, even if you think it is appropriate to allow Key Bank to charge these fees before they are allowed by a state judge, appears to be bogus, i.e. their representative did not actually inspect the property but billed Key Bank for the inspection, nevertheless.

3 ) Attached also is a series of photographs from XX/XX/XXXX provided to me in Key Bank 's response to CFPB Case XXXX. InXX/XX/XXXX, I complained to the CFPB to provide notice to Key Bank that its representatives or assigns are NOT allowed on the property ( That to do so, is trespassing, a criminal violation in the State of New York. ) with the sole exception of serving legal process. One month later, as you can see from reviewing Pages One and Two of the series of photographs, Key Bank 's representative entered the property without serving legal process. On Page Three and Page Four, you can see, again Key Bank 's representative entered the property, including the backyard.

4 ) I would also point out the photograph of the photo of the electric meter in the lower left corner of Page Three : Key Bank has argued that the property was " abandoned, '' and that is why it had the right pursuant to New York State law to break into the property ; one of the criteria in evaluating whether a property is vacant or not is if there is utilities present ; the fact that the electric meter is operating is an indication to the CFPB that such argument, made by Key Bank to the CFPB to justify its criminal violation in a previous complaint in early XX/XX/XXXX, was frivolous.

5 ) I call the CFPB 's attention to the two photographs on the bottom of Page Four, which show a notice put on the door, I assume, with a claim that Key Bank has a right to inspect the property without owner permission. There is a process for such inspection under New York State law but that process is only allowed by the state court judge overseeing the foreclosure proceeding, several steps into the foreclosure process, after the mandatory settlement conference. Laughably, Key Bank 's representative put a notice on the door, as if that notice allows Key Bank to ignore the notice Key Bank had already received through the CFPB that entry to the property for any other purpose other than the service of legal process is trespassing, a criminal violation in the State of New York. I also should point out that that notice was actually not left on the door : The representative put the notice on the door, photographed the notice and then removed the notice, because it was not on the door when I came home, whereas the notice to call Key Bank was there. I submit that perhaps Key Bank knew what it was doing was illegal but thought it could provide this information to a state court judge in a default proceeding to make it appear that it was complying with state law, but doing so in a way I would not know of the bank 's criminal act so I could not file a complaint about it to the appropriate legal authority.

Key Bank 's representative, XXXX, a supervisor in the same department as XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXXclaimed that because the house is " in foreclosure, '' " Key Bank has the right to enter the property at any time. '' InXX/XX/XXXX, the house was not in foreclosure, and even in foreclosure, Key Bank would need permission to enter the property from the state court judge overseeing the foreclosure. Key Bank met neither of these standards before it violated New York State criminal law by entering the property without owner permission. I offered to photograph the property for the same fee the third-party is charging Key Bank in the manner it wants, with the fee being credited to the balance on the unpaid balance of the loan. XXXX  hissed that such offer was " unacceptable. ''