Consumer complaint received 2019-11-08 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
The following complaint is in response to Wells Fargo 's letter by XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX regarding subject matter : Resolution to the inquiries received about account number XXXX In response to " Origination concerns '' ( ref page 2 of Mrs , XXXXXXXX XXXX letter ) : In regards to notary that you claim attested to my presence at the signing of the Open End Mortgage and that youve enclosed, thank you, my records show a different notary stamp one of which displays an expired notary date, therefore if there was a notary on hand I have no knowledge of such a person and furthermore I was whisked in and out so quickly by what I now know come to realize that they were nothing more than glorified con artists. So much so that I cant even attest to said signature or any one of the signatures for that matter as being authentic. 

Excuse my skepticism in regards to how my debt to income ratio was determined, but as Ive referenced further down in my compliant I have zero faith that Wells Fargo conducted a fair and unbiased modification review. You yourself stated within your latest response dated XX/XX/XXXX that the information provided in the both the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX response letters by supposed resolution specialists have no clue as to what your own modification terms mandated. I had to refute their continuous assessment that I was offered a fixed modification back in XXXX on several occasions via phone calls and follow-on complaints. Its like they had a predetermined outcome so looked for ways to make the narrative fit. Only now three months later do I get yes Mr. XXXX you are right the modification would have continued as a destructive loan that would have eventually bankrupted you and further destroyed your life. 



In response to " Concerns regarding 2010 modification '' ( ref page 3 of Mrs. XXXXXXXX XXXX letter ) : The modification that was offered to me in 2010, was done with no consideration to the then highly controversial and self-destructive pick-a-pay loan that due to its predatory nature would have ultimately lead to my financial obliteration as I was already gravely in debt while trying to make the ever increasing monthly mortgage payment. The so called 2010 modification exemption offered to me was not meant to provide any relief from my then dire financial indebtedness brought on by the yes, predatory pick-a-pay loan itself along with the housing crises. It was designed to merely to allow my outstanding overdue balance to be placed in the rears and continue with the same toxic and destructive note terms and agreements. Which if anyone had bothered to uphold the class-action pick-a-pay lawsuit settlement obligations would have known just how unjust the XX/XX/XXXX modification offer really was, especially with the stipulation of upon my approval of said modification and signature I was to have automatically waive any of my rights to bring suit against the mortgage lender as it relates to the loan note in question. 

Per the pick-a-payment settlement agreement, which your bank agreed to in order to not be found guilty of having supported, engaged in and played a part of the practice of predatory lending, was supposed to encompass a review that examined my financial state of being as result of the loan and not just merely what my current income was, which by the way had only been increased at that time due to my grave financial situation and the dire need to find employment elsewhere to try and stay afloat ... Your Company settled the class action lawsuit for XXXX XXXX in exchange for being exempt from any wrong doings, which everyone knows was all decided by a bunch of lawyers so your company would be held accountable, but not get wiped out completely. 

Regarding my house being a secondary home, it became a secondary home only after I was forced to leave it and find employment elsewhere to make ends meet, which drove me from my then primary XXXX  residency to XXXX XXXX where I took on 60+ work hour weeks to try and survive and support my family. Had your company bothered to read and consider my hardship letter at the time they would have known that and would have seen the mounting debt and harm that your loan had caused. 

The foreclosure sale may have been valid, but you neglected to try and workout any and all possible solutions prior to the foreclosure as was your responsibility per thee terms and agreements of the Pick-A-Pay settlement. 

Note : Wells Fargo concluded a separate agreement in XXXX with eight states over the pick-a-payment loansYes one the states was XXXX 

My request for a fair and unbiased review of the pick-A-Payment account is still being requested by me as I do not trust that Wells Fargos review process is without bias. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the loan in question did not put me in a state of financial hardship and that help other than the entrapment of the then proposed XX/XX/XXXX modification was not urgently needed at the time. Further the then XX/XX/XXXX  Modification was again not meant or designed to help bring any financial relief of any kind and in fact designed to ultimately come to the same foreclosure scenario without any legal leg to stand on. Please reference case Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, which I plan on mirroring upon your next non-accountability response, but for the moment please reference how expected my review to be conducted below. 

XXXX was a new proprietary modification program Wells Fargo created specifically for the settlement, and the step-by-step eligibility determination process for XXXX ( called the waterfall process ) was spelled out in the agreement. The bank was required to apply seven specific ( and rather complicated ) sequential steps until a debt-to-income ratio of 31 percent was reached for the borrower. But if the bank followed the waterfall and could not reach 31 percent, it was not required to offer a XXXX modification. 

In conclusion I would just like to say that I dont expect any real resolve from Wells Fargo at this level, but I do plan on taking my complaint and all the facts surrounding Wells Fargos handling of account XXXX to a much higher level of judicial review. With that said I highly recommend that Wells Fargo assigns a 3rd party independent reviewer thats appointed by XXXX district Attorney office to my case for a fair and just review Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you once again, XXXX XXXX

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