Consumer complaint received 09/21/2016 about Mortgage (FHA mortgage) with Ditech Financial LLC (CA).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: I purchased my home XXXX XXXX, then lost my job XXXX XXXX. I made {$99000.00} last year, and was unemployed from XXXX XXXX until XXXX XXXX. I do n't have much work experience except for the last company I was with for 4 years, and my highest level of education is an XXXX from a XXXX college. I have been employed with XXXX XXXX since XXXX XXXX making about {$XXXX} a month gross income. My monthly loan payment is {$1600.00} which I am currently about 90 days behind. Ditech ( account # XXXX ) services my FHA loan, and they claim XXXX XXXX is the investor. I tried to apply for a principle reduction program with Keep Your Home California ( KYHC ) ( account # XXXX ) and they verified Ditech works with them, and I am approved for their principle reduction program, but as I was finishing with the loan application process KYHC informed me Ditech sent them a letter stating my investor objects to working with KYHC and that put a stop to my application. 
I contacted Ditech and asked to speak with a supervisor who informed me everything looks fine on their end, and they have no record of sending KYHC anything of the sort. He verified XXXX XXXX is the investor and suggested maybe because XXXX XXXX is a government entity and so is XXXX that they may not work together. I then contacted XXXX XXXX who informed me they are in fact not an investor, they only guarantee the loan, and they have no problem working with another government entity. 
After verifying multiple times with XXXX XXXX ( ext XXXX ) and a representatives named XXXX, XXXX and XXXX they had all told me everything looks " fine '' in their system, it showed them I was in the process with KYHC and there should not be anything obstructing it, no one could even see that Ditech sent KYHC a letter stating they or the investor objected to working with Keep Your Home CA. So I started the application process over again, and notified Ditech I was doing so. 
With everything submitted to KYHC, approved by them for the principle reduction program they submitted my application to their underwriting. I notified Ditech this was happening, and they seemed 100 % on board with helping me by working with KYHC. 
I received a call today from XXXX with KYHC stating they again received a letter from Ditech stating my investor will not work with them, putting a stop to my application. 
I contacted Ditech around XXXX this evening ( XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ) and spoke with XXXX ( ext # XXXX ) who again verified for me that nothing looks wrong with my account with them ( besides the 3 month delinquency ), it still shows I am working with KYHC and as I was in the process of explaining what happened when I mentioned KYHC submitted my application to underwriting XXXX replied " we have to wait for everything to be processed '' I then told him about the letter that was sent by Ditech stating my investor will not work with KYHC and after extensively looking at my file he replied " Nothing has been sent on your behalf from us '' he recommended I call KYHC and informed me I only have 14 days left to contact a HUD approved agency. XXXX along with others at Ditech keep suggesting I form a repayment plan with them which I financially can not do. I contacted a HUD approved agency ( HOPE ), who informed me I may not qualify for a home loan modification program due to my income and expenses. 
I do n't understand why no one at Ditech can give me an answer as to why this letter was sent, or why my investor XXXX XXXX will not work with Keep Your Home California. I have a XXXX year old son to support and I need to keep my house I worked so hard to purchase. I need Ditech to work with KYHC and to stop giving me and them the run-around. I need answers as to why this letter was sent, and why no one at Ditech seems to know about it. I need a solution to stay in my home, so I can provide shelter for my son and myself.

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