Consumer complaint received 2024-10-13
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Onity Group Inc. (MI)

A complaint was opened XX/XX/XXXX and closed XXXX XXXX XXXX. Although I understand this may go down as a duplicate complaint and may be closed per cfpb protocol. My feedback dated XX/XX/XXXX did not include a couple of issues I believe would be pertinent to share. In regards to the relationship manager appointment that was scheduled XX/XX/XXXX ... .no voice-mail nor phone log provides proof that my relationship did indeed call. I called and requested to speak to her and was told a voice-mail was left. The phh ombudsman addressed this by telling u the steps that need to be taken to schedule an appointment ... .I want to clarify am appointment was made and the individual who took my call confirmed it. Then told me the only way to get another phone meeting with a relationship manager was on line. As " the system " would not allow her to schedule another. In response to the phh ombudsman regarding cell services may block an unknown number... yes that's true... but I've not had that issue.in response to the phh ombudsman of when phh generated my mortgage it was not XXXX ... it was XXXX XXXX. In response to the phh ombudsman reply stating I denied a voice mail to the phh ombudsman... ..this is where extreme clarity needs to be presented. When I called phh home retention department on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX that was my second call that day to confirm said appointment. The first was at XXXX when at that time I was told the relationship manager would call me between XXXX and XXXX confirming an appointment will occur. By XXXX I called again and was told a voice-mail was left ... .no such voice mail was left nor did my XXXX block the call... .tmobile never has and I had my phone on me the entire time ... as u know the extreme importance of follow up regarding my account is. Regarding the phh ombudsman stating on XX/XX/XXXX when she called me at XXXX XXXX XXXX.. ..she did not identify herself as an ombudsman. Her name and employee number was given. I was told by her that her purpose was to answer voice-mail only not to remedy accounts ... XXXX 's when the home retention number was given to me. It may sound petty to address this issue but I believe my integrity may be questionable in the eyes of those looking into my account reading a statement that says I denied leaving a voice mail with the ombudsman. Yes I did way back in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Again. I want to stress that the ombudsman did not identify herself as an ombudsman on XX/XX/XXXX. She stated her name employee number and her job was to only answer voice mails.. the person I spoke with a non relationship manager ... .on XX/XX/XXXX ... regarding my rm meeting stated she would leave a voice mail with another relationship manager and escalate a call XX/XX/XXXX ... .again I received a calXXXX XXXX XXXX by an employee who did not identify herself an ombudsman. My ombudsman voice mails were in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I encourage phh to pull the transcripts of those calls in question as the calls are said to be recorded for quality and training purposes