Consumer complaint received 2022-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Complaint/SPS/ XX/XX/XXXX I have been corresponding via mail, uploads, and phone calls with Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) for the last 6 months and can not get a direct answer to my question. I have sent very specific letters to them with supporting documentation concerning the HAMP-PRA XXXX  XXXX ) and asking why it was not applied to my account. It is very clear at this point that no one who has reviewed my letters has any extensive knowledge of HAMP, so they keep ignoring my direct question about why the HAMP-PRA was not applied to my 0 % Balloon when I clearly had met all the requirements. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent another letter asking for a copy of their written retroactive PRA policy that the HAMP Supplement Directive 10-14 required them to submit to the Federal government. I want to see for myself what they were supposed to do to identify my account and apply the PRA to my balloon as I met the on-time interest bearing principal payment requirements. They either ignored their HAMP contract terms with the government or I somehow fell thru the cracks. By XX/XX/XXXX my 0 % $ XXXX balloon should have been zeroed out as I had 3 years of on-time payments and was still severely underwater on my mortgage. 
The responses I have received from SPS are a denial for a short pay based on XXXX prices that show I have equity in my property, so they suggest if I dont like having a $ XXXX balloon, I can just refinance my mortgage with someone else. It was SPS that required me to fill out their mortgage assistance application asking for a negotiated payoff ( short pay ) and submit all current financials just to get assigned a relationship manager to look at my HAMP-PRA request .

Once I was assigned a relationship manager, she said she would send the HAMP PRA request to the correct SPS department. She advised keeping the short pay request active to go to the investor, just in case they agreed, as the result would be the same : to eliminate the $ XXXX Balloon. After that phone call in early XXXX, I could never get an update on my specific HAMP-PRA request XXXX In XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX all my calls/emails were ignored. 
Once SPS had said the investor denied a short pay request because I was not in foreclosure and I had equity, that letter gave a mailing address for an appeal. I finally thought I would get someone higher up that would understand HAMP. I clearly stated my case again, but the response again ignored my main question. 
Their XX/XX/XXXX reply again said I had equity, so they had no obligation to do a short pay. The letter also stated the dates I received my incentive payments for my modification in years 1 thru 6 and said those terms were outlined in the copy of my modification agreement they had enclosed. 
I pointed out in my XX/XX/XXXX response that the modification agreement I signed did not in fact include any language about the incentive reductions to principal for on-time payments. That $ XXXX incentive for years 1 thru 5 was mentioned on a modification summary sheet on the back of the HAMP acceptance letter I received on XX/XX/XXXX but was not incorporated into the official modification language. The $ XXXX incentive payment for year 6 and the recast did not even exist when I signed my modification on XX/XX/XXXX. That was a retroactive HAMP update issued in XXXX ( XXXX ). Even though that $ XXXX and recast in year 6 was not part of my original modification, per HAMP rules SPS applied it to my account.

I did not have to request any of these HAMP pay for performance incentives ; SPS identified my account as qualifying and applied them. Why did they not do the same for HAMP-PRA ( XXXX )? The HAMP update ( XXXX ), issued XX/XX/XXXX, officially announced the PRA that would apply to the 0 % balloon. I closed on XX/XX/XXXX, and I had asked for the PRA at the bottom of my hardship letter enclosed with my HAMP application submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was speaking to a SPS representative in finalizing paperwork in anticipation of closing. I asked about the PRA and if I should wait to close. She said not to wait as the official language would not be finalized until XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), and it would absolutely be applied to my account retroactively if I qualified. She said my modification would be structured in anticipation of the PRA balloon. Once I got the modification agreement, I saw it had indeed been structured with the underwater part of my principal set aside in a $ XXXX balloon at 0 %. So, I felt comfortable closing knowing that if I made all my payments on time I would get the PRA applied to the balloon. 
I did not realize SPS had not taken off the balloon until I requested a payoff letter in XX/XX/XXXX. I had followed the advice of the letter SPS sent in XXXX when they recast my loan. SPS said to continue making the higher payment to pay off my loan faster and pay less interest. By doing so, I have shortened the term of my mortgage and if SPS does not remove the $ XXXX balloon per the HAMP-PRA rules, I am looking at being thrown out of my house when I am XXXX because I can not pay $ XXXX in a lump sum nor qualify to refinance. The SPS phone representative told me Dont worry SPS will just do another modification when the time comes. BUT the written letters SPS sends says they dont have to help me in any way because I have equity. Which means to me if I cant qualify to refinance, SPS will just foreclose on me to get the $ XXXX they should have removed in XXXX. 
Since HAMP-PRA ( XXXX ) indicates the $ XXXX balloon should have been zeroed out by XX/XX/XXXX as I was still severely under water and had 3 years of on-time principal payments, I have enclosed a printout from my county website that shows the Market Value ( aka Just Value ) from XXXX to present. If SPS had zeroed out the balloon in XXXX, it would not matter that I have equity in my home in XXXX. 
Either SPS does not know how to answer my question as to why they did not apply the HAMP-PRA, or they feel they can get away with getting an extra $ XXXX because they didnt follow the HAMP rules 9 years ago. Was SPS allowed to pick and choose which rules to follow? They followed the pay for performance incentive rules and the recast, but not the principal reduction of the balloon. Can CFPB find out the exact reason why? Can CFPB get them to zero out the $ XXXX balloon? 
After SPS received my XX/XX/XXXX letter, their response was to ignore all the pointed questions I again asked and to simply send a boilerplate letter that they rejected my letter because I need to plead my case only by filling out their required form. They then enclosed the same form that I filled out in XX/XX/XXXX that is meant for people in foreclosure looking for a solution. In other words, SPS wants me to start all over by trying to fit my HAMP-PRA request into a cookie cutter box that has already proven it does not apply to my circumstance and has wasted the last 6 months with not even a glimmer of resolution.

Please can you help? Can you get me a copy of their written retroactive PRA policy that the HAMP Supplement Directive 10-14 required them to submit to the Federal government? I want to see the words on the paper of what they were required to do. Can you review that policy and find someone at SPS who even knows what I am talking about and get them to respond to my repeated questions? I have uploaded all the letters I sent SPS and the documents that support my case. Hopefully CFPB can get them to honor the HAMP-PRA rules. Thank you

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