Consumer complaint received 10-03-2016 about Mortgage (Other mortgage) with Ditech Financial LLC (MN).
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint: XX/XX/2016 - XXXX XXXX representative XXXX XXXX contacted Ditech for a loan payoff amount and was told to send the request to the following fax number XXXX. 
XX/XX/2016 : XXXX XXXX requested a pay-off amount from Ditech to that fax number and included my authorization to release the information sign XX/XX/2016. 
XX/XX/2016 : XXXX XXXX again called to check the status of getting the pay-off amount and was told to send the information to a different fax number XXXX. She resent the request to that fax number and received a fax back saying she had to submit account number, social security number and written authorization for release - which had been sent in the request. Ditech then stated that the authorization that was sent had expired after 90 days. It was 8 days old at the time. 
XX/XX/2016 : XXXX XXXX contacted Ditech again and spent 1.5 hours on the phone attempting to get the payoff amount. She requested to speak with a manager and was refused. The representative at Ditech told her she was not seeing the authorization as received even though they had responded to it the day before. She sent the documents again to a XXXX at XXXX. XXXX noted she received the authorization but when XXXX tried to call her back she was told that XXXX was not noted on the file and they would not be able to contact her. 
XX/XX/2016 : I personally contacted someone I know at Ditech to see if they would be able to provide me with some assistance. She contacted the Director of Customer Service who did not return her call. 
XX/XX/2016 : My closing on the refinance was scheduled for Monday XX/XX/XXXX. Because of the 3 day disclosure requirement my closing was cancelled. I tried to call Ditech twice this day and sat on hold for 20 minutes each time before having to go. 
XX/XX/2016 : I sent a Notice of Error with a summary of what we had tried in an attempt to get the payoff amount and a request for the payoff amount immediately or at least a reason it was not being released. This fax was sent to XXXX per instructions on the Ditech website as well as in writing to a South Dakota XXXX . XXXX XXXX sent another request to Ditech for the payoff amount along with a copy of the Notice of Error and a note to " PLEASE ESCALATE. '' She received a fax back with the same language as their XX/XX/2016 fax requesting account number, social security number and written authorization for release. They also stated that the authorization that was sent had expired after 90 days. 
XX/XX/2016 : We resubmitted the request with the exact information they had requested along with a newly signed authorization form and a signed document from me requesting the payoff amount and begging for someone to help me. We have not heard anything back from Ditech as of this date. 
XX/XX/2016 : XXXX XXXX attempted to contact Ditech again and the message noted the hold time was 45 minutes which she could not wait. I again contacted my personal contact a Ditech and sent yet another request for the pay-off amount which was forwarded to their legal counsel with a personal letter from me requesting the pay off amount and that if I could not get any help I would be contacting the CFBP. 
-This process has cost me hours and hours of time and frustration. I have wasted at least 10 hours of work time on this issue and have not gotten any response from anyone at Ditech. I leave in 2 weeks and will be out of the country for a month. I have cancelled my closing once and if it does not happen before I leave the country this will cause me considerable financial hardship. Please note Ditech purchased my mortgage XX/XX/2016. My account is being handled by the bankruptcy department at Ditech for a bankruptcy filed 5 years ago and I have made every payment on time and in full. I understand bkr accounts can take longer but we are now at 14 days.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation