Consumer complaint received 10/26/2016 about Mortgage (Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)) with SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (CA).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: I am contacting you to inform you of the unethical and illegal business practices of Select Portfolio Servicing. They are violating the California Homeowners XXXX rights, they are breaking the rules and guidelines for XXXX, and are engaging in a shell game with distressed borrowers and now have a sale date set for my home on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I began trying to get them to review my documentation nearly two years ago and have gotten the runaround. Over the last six months I have REALLY focused and pushed them and have been told at least six different times that they just needed XXXX more thing and then after they got " XXXX more thing '' told me a week later that they need " just XXXX more thing. '' This is not about documents that expire. This is about intentional misrepresentation and fraud. I have never once actually spoken with my relationship manager, instead I deal with a revolving cast of characters who totally lie and contradict each other. I have this information documented. I have been contacted by the XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney because they have received dozens if not hundreds of similar complaints are investigating SPS for these business practices. 

I submitted a full package to SPS in XXXX, and followed up regularly. I was told on XXXX XXXX that they needed updated bank statements and some clarification on our roommates. I was told that was ALL that was needed in order for the file to be considered complete and go to an underwriter for review. A couple of weeks later they told me they needed XXXX tax return signature and XXXX return, then once sent I would have a full package. This was sent in on XXXX XXXX. When I called in a couple of weeks later I was told that now they needed a bank statement showing my husband 's unemployment going into his account, which was sent on XXXX XXXX. I spoke with relationship manager XXXX XXXX who told me I was missing some other documents as well. I explained they had already been sent and while on the phone with her emailed the original package. XXXX reviewed the documents and stated that I had a " full package '' and everything that the underwriter would need. Of course when I checked up on XXXX XXXX I was told that SPS did NOT have a full package, because they needed another bank statement that showed the receipt of unemployment, which contradicts what I was told on XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX a statement of my husband 's UE debit card was provided to SPS and I was told the file was complete and going to an underwriter. 

I followed up again and on XXXX XXXX was told that SPS needed bank statements showing two months of rent received. The XXXX bank statement showed a deposit for the rent of {$900.00} on XXXX XXXX as well as a deposit for rent of {$900.00} on XXXX XXXX. The XXXX bank statement satisfied the requirement. I followed up on XXXX XXXX and SPS stated they saw the XXXX rental deposits for XXXX ( satisfying the condition ) but since they were not both CIRCLED they were not going to COUNT IT!!!! So still no full package, I sent in bank statements with both rent deposits circled on XXXX XXXX AND WAS TOLD THE FILE WAS COMPLETE AND GOING TO UNDERWRITER I followed up a few days later and was TOLD I WAS MISSING SOMETHING. THIS TIME IT WAS THE XXXX BANK STATEMENT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DID NOT GET PAID EXTRA RENT?? SPS had XXXX bank statements that were within the time frame and parameters and that is the requirement, as well as deposits reflecting two months of rent received. THAT SATISFIES THE CONDITION! but they still did not submit to an underwriter. I spoke with XXXX XXXX ( ext. XXXX ) yesterday and he stated that since I had a sale date and they had never conducted a review with an underwriter since I started the process in XXXX XXXX that my review was closed for having an incomplete package and that my house would be sold on XXXX XXXX.

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