Multiple loss mitigation reviews have been attempted in XXXX and XXXX where endless requests for documents caused the reviews to be closed. Once documents were submitted new requests were made and this went on for months. The financial situation changed and the borrower submitted a loss mitigation package to the lender on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX these documents were reviewed with the processor XXXX XXXX in a lengthy hour long conversation with an authorized 3rd party on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX detailed exactly what he would need and written explanations of the change in circumstance along with supporting documents. The change being that he now lives in the property, his wife and himself are separated and he no longer shares a bank account with her, he opened a new account, and the previous property that was included in the last review with rental income is his wifes property and he has no ownership or connection to the deed or the loan for the property, besides he lived in it at one time. These explanations were sent into them the same day requested, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. This request was never put in writing as required by 12 CF 1024.41 so the request should have been deemed to be complete. Calls daily following the submission of the documents was placed. XXXX XXXX advised on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX that he had not reviewed the documents but he set an appointment to have it reviewed and a call to be placed at XXXX XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX never called. At XXXX XXXX that day, a call was placed to him and when asked why he had missed his appointment he stated umm another call came up. His manager was then asked for. XXXX XXXX, got on the line and the change in circumstance was reviewed with her over the phone and the corresponding letter of explanations were discussed. She stated that he there was additional information that was being requested that was not advised previously ( utility bill ) but that they would move forward and send over a request to XXXX XXXX to see if they will postpone the foreclosure sale to allow for loss mitigation review with the change in circumstance. She as well, NEVER CALLED and missed her appointment for follow up. A call was placed to her on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and when asked why she never called she apologized and said her managers were still reviewing the change in circumstance to see if they have everything they need. It has now been 6 business days for reviewing the explanations and 10 business days for completion and nothing was ever put in writing for requesting information. When another representative attempted to assist they asked again for information that was explained could not be provided, like bank statements for XXXX for an account that was opened in XXXX. The package should have already been reviewed and a request in writing would have already needed to be made if it was not complete according to 12 CF 1024.41. 

They also are failing to follow the guidelines of 12 CF 1024.40 and provide continuity of contact. They are not following up with appointments and not communicating in a timely manner requests. It is because of this pattern of failed communication and not reviewing documents in a timely manner with written requests for additional documents, a completed loss mitigation review was not able to be done while eligible for the HAMP program. There is now a sale date of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and the package was submitted on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. No request for postponement has been made to the investor yet, because 14 days later they are still reviewing the package for completeness. They are purposely failing to provide a proper loss mitigation review in order to attempt to follow through with the foreclosure, and their handling of loss mitigation reviews have been incompetent and not following procedural guidelines during every attempted review. 

The borrower also did not receive any documentation in writing stating the last day eligible for loss mitigation review.