Consumer complaint received 2019-07-29
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (NY)

XXXX reviewing review Wells Fargo 's response dated XX/XX/XXXX I cant help but feel absolute disgust and utter disdain for the way Wells Fargo representation has the audacity and contempt to accuse me of falsely claiming that I was NOT experiencing financial hardship during one of the most devastating financial crisis since the great depression. 

The letter states that the modification offered to me back in XX/XX/XXXX was done as a " favor. '' And aside from the modification consisting of confusing and inconsistent language that made constant reference to adherence to the original adjustable rate loan note, it was concluded only now after 30 days of in-depth review from my latest complaint that it was actually a fixed loan modification that was offered to me ... What!! The modification makes no reference to a fixed non-adjustable interest rate? If it had I would have accepted the then XX/XX/XXXX modification as my hardship was clear in stating that the current terms of the loan note were not sustainable and adherence to the then current terms of the note would prove to be destructive. Adding to the insult, Wells Fargo simply apologies for their incompetency and confusion offering no reconciliation or amends. Confusion of which they themselves needed additional time to review in order to figure out what was even being offered at the time Unbelievable! 

I've asked repeatedly for specific calculation details of how the proposed XX/XX/XXXX modification offering was developed and have gotten nothing more than high level gibberish that was based solely on my house to income ratio without any regard to my overall disclosed hardship and the obligation to provide underwater pick-a-pay customers victimized during the height of predatory lending era detailed reviews and consideration. 
With that said I do not understand the companies modification rational as per Wells Fargo Operation Manager XXXX XXXX Testimony of " Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Servicing '' dated XX/XX/XXXX they were to be committed to working jointly with the Attorneys General in eight states to further help at risks Pick-A-Payment customers due to the deceptive marketing practices of the loan. Please reference letters of correspondence with then Florida District Attorney XXXX XXXX. Binding letters provide assurances to Wells Fargos pick-a-payment Customers of its commitment to the adherence of the National settlement servicing standards. 
Again, the proposed XX/XX/XXXX modification was flawed as it took Wells Fargo complaint specialist over a month to figure out that they've assessed that the proposed modification was offering a fixed mortgage payment when the modification made no mention of a fixed payment of interest rate and on the contrary refereed to deferred interest liability as per the note defines as " date on which the interest rate could change '' with interest change dates occurring monthly and payment cap limitation applying. Yet somehow this language had conveyed fixed payments going forward for the life of the loan ... Really! Again zero accountability and creditable commitment for fair and reasonable resolve! 
In closing they have not addressed a XX/XX/XXXX Loan modification that was in itself destructive and the catalyst to my ultimate foreclosure and financial demise as it only would have protected Wells Fargo from any legal actions against them and provide no sustained loan relief. This was in direct contrast to the modification relief deemed acceptable and agreed upon by Florida 's DA XXXX XXXX. 

The ruling referenced below is the bases of my ongoing and non-wavering complaint : U.S. judge finds Wells Fargo breached XX/XX/XXXX mortgage settlement : By XXXX XXXX | NEW YORK, XX/XX/XXXX NEW YORK, XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo Bank breached a nationwide XX/XX/XXXX legal settlement involving adjustable-payment mortgages, a federal judge ruled, finding that the bank did not properly evaluate homeowners who applied for help to avoid foreclosures. 
In an order on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge XXXX XXXX in XXXX   California told Wells to meet with plaintiffs and find a way to remedy its violations, including steps to let some homeowners reapply for loan assistance. 
XXXX XXXX, spokesman for Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. mortgage lender, said the bank is reviewing the decision and will be working to provide additional information requested. 
" We're quite pleased, '' said XXXX XXXX, lead counsel for homeowners. " I don't know whether this is going to prevent foreclosures but it is certainly going to open ( Wells ) up to claims for damages from class members. '' The decision is the latest twist in a long-running dispute over the settlement, which resolved complaints about " pick-a-payment loans. '' Wells inherited a large portfolio of these loans with its XX/XX/XXXX acquisition of Wachovia Corp. 
The loans gave borrowers the option to initially pay less than the interest due, but the escalating payments that came later contributed to waves of home foreclosures in the XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXhousing crisis, which threw the country into recession. 
Plaintiffs ' lawyers for years have argued that Wells was not complying with its agreement to grant loan modifications potentially worth up to {$2.00} XXXX  to homeowners who took out the loans. The modifications were an important piece of the settlement, which also called for Wells to pay {$50.00} XXXX   to class members. 
In court filings, plaintiffs ' lawyers said Wells was not using proper methods to determine whether homeowners were at imminent risk of default and thus qualified for assistance under the settlement. 
The lawyers said thousands of homeowners were denied mortgage assistance because Wells used the wrong methods to gauge their financial hardships. 
In Wednesday 's ruling, XXXX chided both sides, saying they " seem to have almost no idea what, exactly, they agreed to more than four years ago. '' He concurred with plaintiffs that Wells breached the agreement by using " evolving and perhaps ill-defined standards '' in weighing applications for loan modifications. 
He told both sides to present joint or competing proposals for correcting the settlement violations within two weeks. 
The case is In Re : Wachovia Corp Pick-A-Payment Mortgage Litigation, U.S. District Court, XXXX District of California, No XXXX ( Reporting by XXXX XXXX ; Editing by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX )