Consumer complaint received 2015-08-10 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I contacted Wells Fargo ( WF ) XX/XX/XXXX to inform them I would be unable to make my XX/XX/XXXX mortgage payment. The property was my primary residence for XXXX years but then became a rental due to market conditions when I had to relocate out of state. I did n't realize at the time that making it a rental would disqualify me from assistance programs - I was simply trying to make the payments. The property was listed for short sale and my short sale request was submitted to WF XX/XX/XXXX including an appropriate cash offer from a potential buyer. Months of documentation requests followed. XX/XX/XXXX I finally was told the short sale request was denied by HUD ( FHA loan ) due to monthly cash flow surplus. I disagreed with WF 's calculation and I was concerned they were including rental income when I no longer had tenants. After having difficulty getting in touch with anyone at WF ( I tried numerous numbers ) I went to HUD and they were able to escalate my case to a WF " supervisor ''. The supervisor researched whether or not rental income was included in the calculation. This took at couple of weeks. The supervisor contacted me and told me that rental income had been excluded. I informed him that I still thought the calculation was incorrect and asked him to walk me through the numbers used. When I heard the number being used for my monthly income I immediately disagreed. The supervisor put me on hold and looked into the number. He came back and told me that the income number was miscalculated and should be about {$500.00} less per month. I requested that he refile a variance with HUD since the previously filed variance was incorrect and overestimated my monthly cash flow substantially. He denied my request stating that HUD denied the variance because of surplus. I argued that had the variance contained the correct surplus, which again was substantially less, my chances of having the variance approved would be greater ( as a variance is a request for an exception ). He refused. Conversation ended and I contacted HUD to request their review ( still pending ). A week or so later I receive a letter from the WF supervisor that he is looking into my inquiry and needs a week. After that week passed he called and said he needed two additional weeks. This now puts me to XX/XX/XXXX. The supervisor called on the last day of the XXXX weeks and essentially repeated our previous conversation. He had only researched AGAIN that rental income had been excluded. I do n't understand why it took nearly a month to look at the same question. I informed the supervisor that we agreed on the rental income part but that per our previous discussion the income amount was miscalculated. The call had been recorded. I repeated my request for a new variance. He said no unless there is a change in circumstance. I said the change is that the calculation was wrong. He still refused. I feel like they are not even truly researching my case and I 'm frustrated that this supervisor is supposedly the highest level of review. They submitted what he admitted to being an incorrect variance and then refused to resubmit a correct request. In addition to all of this, and during the middle of the supervisor 's review, I was served foreclosure papers. It was my understanding that banks could not proceed with foreclosure if my case was still being actively worked as that would be considered dual-tracking. 
I have been extremely responsive throughout the process and I 've done everything in my ability to bring this to a close as a short sale. I am still awaiting HUD 's review results but I believe I ca n't get anymore help from WF. Their calculation of my monthly cash flow is incorrect ( the supervisor agreed income was miscalculated ), my request for a CORRECT variance to be filed has been denied and this process has taken months too long.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation