On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX A telephone call with XXXX XXXX and the authorized 3rd party took place about the status of the loss mitigation process. XXXX concerns were raised. One being that the lender states that the investor of the loan is a private investor, XXXX XXXX, and therefore they do not have to participate in the Making Home Affordable Program. The second being that the review seems to never begin because every 2 weeks they come up with additional updated documents to request. 


PHH has advised the client multiple times that the investor of this loan does not have to participate in the HAMP program. Once via recorded telephone on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, again in a recorded conversation with XXXX XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, and once by written lender on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX that is attached, to name a few. This is simply a false statement. In XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX accepted {$15.00} XXXX in funds from the United States Government as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program 12 U.S.C. 5211. In XXXX XXXX, in connection with its acquisition of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX accepted another XXXX in TARP funds as well as a partial guarantee against losses on XXXX in mortgage-related assets. In XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX signed a contract with the U.S. Treasury Department agreeing to participate in HAMP - a program through which XXXX, as one of the servicing arms of XXXX XXXX XXXX, receives incentive payments for providing affordable mortgage loan modifications and other foreclosure alternatives to eligible borrowers. Since XXXX XXXX was acquired by XXXX XXXX XXXX prior to receiving the funds ( even receiving an additional XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX loans ) they are required to abide by the XXXX XXXX XXXX agreement with the U.S. Treasury to participate in the HAMP program. 

The second concern is that the lender is continually requesting updated documents over and over. The review started on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX with documents being submitted for the HAMP program. on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the lender advised of documents needed. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX all of those documents were returned to the lender. By XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the lender said via telephone the following corrections were needed : The paystubs did not list year to date income and new ones were required, hard ship letter is not readable, a financial worksheet form ( a completely unique form PHH came up with ), expense sheet provided was not hand signed, and XXXX and XXXX bank statements for XXXX accounts, with rental income circled on the bank statements. All these documents were completed and sent back on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the lender stated that they had closed the review on the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX because after they received the documents on the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, they required MORE additional documents that had not been returned by XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX they stated all that would be required to reopen the review would be a correction to the XXXX, a " Request for Work Out Option Form ( another form PHH came up with to make loss mitigation a never ending request of documents ), and a detailed hardship letter. The documents were returned to them on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX XXXX XXXX at PHH stated that now they want XXXX bank statements for all XXXX accounts, a MORE detailed hardship letter and an explanation letter explaining that the rental income that is received is done through a leasing company and they take out their various fees for repairs and costs through the deposits so the rental income deposits from the lease company does not match the rental agreements from the tenants. They have made actually completing a review virtually impossible by stating what is needed and then once returned days later, having a completely new list with no end in sight.