Consumer complaint received 2026-04-21 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Carrington Mortgage Services , LLC Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Loan Number : XXXX Property Address : XXXX East XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, WA XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Complaint Summary This complaint is submitted regarding Carrington Mortgage Services ' failure to properly evaluate loss mitigation options for a XXXXguaranteed mortgage loan. As a Veteran borrower with a XXXX mortgage, Carrington is in violation of VA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and federal loss mitigation rules ( Regulation X ) by failing to conduct a complete and accurate evaluation of home retention options. The borrower has demonstrated the ability to resume regular monthly mortgage payments and repay the delinquent balance over a 12-month period. Carrington has repeatedly denied this request without proper evaluation, using contradictory reasoning and incomplete processes. Key Issues 1. Incomplete Evaluation of Repayment Options Carrington denied the repayment plan request without conducting any meaningful financial review : - No financial documentation was requested - No affordability analysis was conducted - The denial was based on a single verbal question rather than the formal evaluation required by the VA " waterfall '' process under VA XXXX XXXX XXXX - Carrington denied the 12-month repayment request solely based on a borrower 's inability to meet a 6-month term, without evaluating ability to repay over a longer, sustainable timeframe This reflects an incomplete loss mitigation evaluation in direct violation of regulatory requirements. VA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX explicitly states : VA encourages servicers to consider extended terms up to 24 months for a Repayment Plan, to allow a more affordable payment for the borrower. If the borrower can afford the servicer 's terms, then the servicer offers the borrower a Repayment Plan. The borrower requested a 12-month repayment plan, a term well within the 24-month window the VA explicitly encourage s. Carrington 's refusal to evaluate this option, or any option beyond 6 months, directly contradicts this VA guidance and demonstrates a failure to apply the full range of tools available under the VA waterfall process. 2. Misrepresentation and Contradictory Application of VA Policy Carrington representatives, including a VA technician, stated that an active bankruptcy is an " automatic rejection '' for a repayment plan. This directly contradicts VA policy, which permits home retention options during Chapter 13 bankruptcy when the mortgage is not included in the repayment plan. Furthermore, Carrington 's own conduct contradicts this position : - A 6-month repayment plan was verbally offered, and this offer is documented in recorded calls - Written correspondence confirms evaluation of a 6-month repayment plan - Despite these offers, Carrington later reversed course and rejected all assistance These statements directly conflict and suggest inconsistent, arbitrary application of policy. 3. Failure to Consider Material Information, Chapter 13 Status The borrower 's mortgage loan is * * NOT * * included in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy repayment plan : - This has been communicated to Carrington multiple times - This has been confirmed by the borrower 's attorney - Mortgage payments are being made outside of the bankruptcy plan Despite this, Carrington appears to be applying bankruptcy-related restrictions that do not apply to this situation and incorrectly labeled the account for " liquidation only '' without a proper formal review. 4. Refusal to Escalate for Formal Review Front-line agents and supervisors have refused to escalate the borrower 's file or allow a formal review. Carrington has failed to offer any pathway to a complete loss mitigation evaluation as required under Regulation X and VA XXXX. 5. Deficient Record-keeping and Communication Carrington was unable to locate or confirm VA correspondence unless the borrower provided the specific email address used by the VA. This indicates potential deficiencies in : - Loan file maintenance and record-keeping - Internal communication processes between servicing departments and VA correspondence Impact Carrington 's actions have caused direct and serious harm : - Blocked access to a reasonable and sustainable repayment solution that the borrower has clearly demonstrated the ability to fulfill - Created unnecessary and preventable risk of foreclosure on the borrower 's primary residence - Caused significant financial stress during a period of serious medical hardship in the borrower 's household

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation