Consumer complaint received 2016-01-16
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: Onity Group Inc. (NJ)

I am following up on my complaint filed to you regarding Ocwen Loan Servicing. It is my understanding that regardless of any outcome, they are simply regarding the matter ''closed. '' I strongly disagree ; the matter is far from closed. 
While we have been negotiating for more than six months, I believe Ocwen has failed to negotiate with me in a truthful manner. 
Through mediation on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, we reached an agreement that called for a principle reduction of some {$170000.00}, for a loan of XXXX, at 2 % interest, for 40 years. Those terms were to take effect in XXXX of XXXX, after I had made XXXX trial payments of {$2500.00}. I made those XXXX payments. 
However, the contract I received from Ocwen differed greatly from the agreement I was led to believe we had reached in mediation. Not only that, Ocwen had taken it upon themselves to change definitions. The contract I received called for principle deferment, with a balloon payment of some {$170000.00} at the end of the contract. That term, principle deferment, was never mentioned in any previous discussions with Ocwen and was not mentioned in our mediation session. 
At our second mediation session, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I objected to this switch. Also, the mediator agreed that principle reduction and principle deferment are XXXX different terms and should not be used interchangeably. In fact, the mediator said she had never seen any bank or loan service company try to use them interchangeably. Principle reduction is what it mean, XXXX principle reduction, she said. 
When questioned, Ocwen 's legal representative replied that principle reduction and principle deferment were XXXX and the same. 
In addition, I presented a letter - dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX - from yet another Ocwen employee, an account analyst who signed his name as XXXX XXXX, stating that he would not be able to reply to my principle reduction/principle deferment complaint until XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Of course, that letter led me to believe I had until then, at least, to respond to Ocwen 's surprising offer. I asked for another month from that to consider, thinking perhaps the terms would change. Ocwen 's legal representative spoke on the phone with someone from the company, who said I had to accept or reject the offer by Friday, XXXX XXXX. 
I then asked how could the deadline be XXXX XXXX, when your own employee said he could n't answer until the XXXX? I was told, again, that my deadline was the end of the week. 
A third mediation session was scheduled for XXXX XXXX. I have since received another letter - dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX - from another Ocwen employee, an account analyst who signed her name XXXX XXXX, stating that she could not answer my complaint until XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I have to ask, what 's the point, if Ocwen has already ignored the work done by XXXX XXXX? 
I left that XXXX XXXX meeting with the firm belief that Ocwen has never negotiated in good faith, and that, although Ocwen may well consider the matter closed, it is anything but. 
I strongly believe that Ocwen has been unfair, deceitful, and abusive in its dealings with me. I believe Ocwen has violated the protections afforded to consumers as provided by Dodd-Frank. I believe that Ocwen wants to brush this aside. I believe that Ocwen anticipates that I will buckle under the pressure of the XXXX high stack of paperwork they have sent me. I will not. 
I would like, with the help of your office and the office of your ombudsman, to reach the legally correct outcome to this dispute and have Ocwen honor its original offer - a principle reduction of some {$170000.00}, a loan of {$400000.00} at 2 % for 40 years, with no balloon payment and no hidden/disguised principle deferment. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter.