Consumer complaint received 11-01-2016 about Mortgage (Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)) with CITIBANK, N.A. (FL).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: Our firm, XXXX, is monitoring our client 's request for mortgage assistance with CitiMortgage ( " XXXX '' ) to help facilitate the process and ensure XXXX 's compliance with Regulation X. We previously submitted a complaint on our client 's behalf due to the repetitive and unnecessary document requests we were receiving from XXXX. Since then, XXXX still has not completed its review of our client 's request for mortgage assistance and continues to drag the process on by asking for more documents that were already provided despite informing the client that her application was complete twice before. 
We provided XXXX with the most recent batch of documents pursuant to its request via facsimile on XX/XX/2016. That same day, I called XXXX to verify the documents were received and find out if anything more was needed from our client to complete the Application review. The XXXX representative stated our third party authorization form was expired and we needed to submit a new XXXX. Later that day, we faxed XXXX the updated XXXX specific third party authorization form signed by the XXXX to the number provided by the representative. 
Then after still not receiving any update on the Application, we called XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX for an update on the Application review. We reached the assigned special point of contact for the XXXX 's loan and she stated she was on the other line assisting another customer and she would call the firm back. After not receiving any call back, we called XXXX again the next day for a status update. The assigned representative stated again that our authorization form was invalid for some reason but this time she claimed it was invalid because it was not signed by the authorized third party ( ie. our law firm XXXX. Even though XXXX previously spoke to our firm many, many times over the past 6 months using our prior authorization form, the representative was now claiming whatever we had on file was invalid without a signature from someone at our firm. The XXXX specific authorization form provided to us by XXXX in a different file does not even contain a line or space for someone at our firm to sign. Also, no other servicer has ever informed us that our own standard authorization form is invalid without the signature of someone at our firm. Even after explaining this is detail to the representative, she stated she would have to look over the file and call our firm back but still has not done so as of the date of this complaint. 
Because there is a foreclosure sale scheduled for the XXXX 's property on XX/XX/2016, we have tried several times to proactively reach out to XXXX to get a status update on the XXXX 's Application and have not been able to. We believe XXXX is now using this invalid authorization form scheme to delay the processing of the XXXX 's Application and block any efforts by our firm to assist the XXXX in applying for mortgage assistance to save her home.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation