Consumer complaint received 01/19/2018 about Mortgage (FHA mortgage) with MIDFIRST BANK (MD).
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint: This is to request that CFPB follow up with XXXX XXXX, via an investigation, to insist that they remove unfair, unwarranted preservation fees from my account. I reached out to CFPB for help ( See CFPB Case # : XXXX ). After CFPB intervened, I received the photos and notes associated with the actions XXXX contractors took on my property. The photos and notes are startling, and prove that XXXX and its contractors violated my rights by entering my condo without my knowledge or permission to perform work that was unnecessary ( inside and out ), and then applied exorbitant charges to my account. For example, they charged me {$400.00} for grass cutting when homeowners are not even responsible for grass cutting in my community. XXXX XXXX  documentation further validates their reprehensible business practices, and supports why XXXX should not have charged my account {$1300.00}. 

Now that the evidence is available, I need the CFPB to analyze XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, response and communicate with them directly to provide them the opportunity to resolve this issue by removing preservation fees from my account. CFPB already has all the documentation associated with my original complaint. Below, I addressed the inaccuracies in XXXX XXXX most recent response to CFPB. Please contact me directly if you have any questions. 

RESPONSE TO INACCURACIES IN XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX LETTER TO CFPB XXXX most recent letter to CFPB, dated XX/XX/XXXX, included inaccurate statements, apparently to attempt at justifying their unethical ( and potentially illegal ) actions. Below are my responses to those inaccuracies according to their paragraphs to avoid providing personal information. 

RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH # 3 : My husband and I contacted XXXX numerous times using a variety of methods beginning approximately late XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, response to one of our inquiries was a document that referred to the charge as Total Miscellaneous Fees Due : {$1200.00}, which did not outline what the fees represented. XXXX opens its XX/XX/XXXX, document by stating that it was In response to an item of correspondence we received Also, in XXXX, my husband spoke with a representative who said that he did not know what the charges were for, which XXXX listed on our monthly bill as, Total Fees and Charges, {$1200.00} ( no note or explanation ). The rep recommended we fax our inquiry to XXXX to obtain an explanation. After XXXX did not respond to our fax, we continued to call back and re-fax, and kept being transferred to different divisions, and told different answersnone of which resulted in an explanation of how these charges were derived. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX provided a list of Fees Assessed which had increased from {$1200.00} to {$1300.00}, and under Fee Description showed Property Preservation, and still did not identify what property preservation fees actually represented. XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response to my XX/XX/XXXX fax was a table that included work their contractors performed. In my letter to XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, I addressed why each item was unwarranted. Despite CFPBs intervention, XXXX still has not responded specifically to the fact that the actual work on their table was not valid for my property. 

RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH # 4 : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, response to my XX/XX/XXXX, letter deferred to preservation statements within my Deed of Trust as their justification for performing the work, instead of addressing my questions regarding the bogus tasks completed. In fact, XXXX actions as my lender were not in compliance with the terms and conditions of my loan documents. The statements related to preservation do not give XXXX the right to enter and manipulate my property, then charge me exorbitant prices for unwarranted work. The Deed of Trust states, Lender may take reasonable action to protect and preserve such vacant or abandoned Property. XXXX actions were clearly unreasonable as evidenced by their photos and notes. They did not contact me at all to determine whether my property was vacant or abandoned. My contact information has been the same for over 22 years and XXXX did not write one letter or make one phone call to ask me the status of my property. It is not reasonable to perform an inspection of someones property without contacting them first. They have no problem sending my bill timely each month. Their notes indicated that they knocked on the door to determine vacancy before entering. That is not a reasonable approach for XXXX to use to determine whether property is abandoned. It is not reasonable to determine that a property is abandoned just because it is vacant. Further, this paragraph of XXXX letter states that my loan was delinquent for three months and that is a false statement. It is not reasonable for XXXX to use false statements to justify their unsavory actions. Its interesting that XXXX never mentioned that it in any previous correspondence over the past several months. I wonder how many other victims have been affected by their disgusting tactics.

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