Consumer complaint received 2026-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: CMG Financial Services, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX for a documented pattern of unresponsiveness through their secure messaging portal, retaliatory phone contact resulting in unreimbursed international calling costs, supervisor obstruction, and systematic failure to provide substantive written responses except when formal regulatory complaints are filed. I am a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX currently stationed XXXX Due to my XXXX, I am limited to written communication and can not conduct loan servicing business by phone. I have communicated this limitation repeatedly and in writing through XXXX secure messaging portal. The following is a documented chronology of XXXX conduct : XX/XX/year> : Despite repeated written instructions requiring all communication to be conducted in writing through the secure messaging portal, a CMG XXXX named XXXX placed an unsolicited phone call to my international mobile number. My carrier, XXXX, charges {$3.00} per minute for international calls. I submitted a written request for reimbursement of the {$3.00} charge incurred, written confirmation that future communication would be limited to the secure messaging portal, and formal notation that the repeated phone contact despite written instructions constitutes retaliatory conduct against a XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> : I followed up asking whether my XX/XX/XXXX message had been received. No substantive response was provided. XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX responded with a generic acknowledgment stating my account was under review and requesting more time, without providing the name of an assigned supervisor, a resolution timeline, or any response to my reimbursement request. XX/XX/year> : I followed up citing RESPA and VA loan servicing regulations, requesting the name and contact information of the assigned XXXX and a confirmed written resolution timeline. XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX responded stating a XXXX would contact me through the secure messaging portal by XX/XX/year>. I asked for the XXXX name, noting that the previously assigned supervisor, XXXX XXXX XXXX, had ceased responding and had blocked my emails. XX/XX/year> : No XXXX contact was made through the secure messaging portal as committed in writing. XX/XX/year> : I submitted a formal follow-up documenting the missed XX/XX/XXXX commitment and again requesting a written response. As of the time of this filing, no substantive response has been received. This conduct implicates the following legal authorities : 1. 12 C.F.R. 1024.36, which requires a servicer to respond to written requests for information within established timeframes. XXXX. 12 C.F.R. 1024.38, which requires servicers to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve accessible communication with borrowers. XXXX. 12 C.F.R. 1024.35, which requires servicers to acknowledge and respond to notices of error in writing within specified timeframes. XXXX. 50 U.S.C. 3901 et seq. ( SCRA ), which prohibits conduct that imposes additional burdens or costs on servicemembers in connection with their financial obligations. XXXX repeated phone contact after written instructions to the contrary, resulting in unreimbursed international calling fees, constitutes exactly this type of prohibited conduct. XXXX. 38 C.F.R. 36.4350 et seq., governing VA loan servicer obligations to borrowers with XXXX loans. Of particular concern is the documented pattern in which XXXX provides only generic, non-substantive responses through its secure messaging portal but provides substantive responses when formal CFPB complaints are filed. This two-tiered response practice effectively forces XXXX servicemembers and other borrowers who can not communicate by phone to escalate to regulatory bodies to obtain basic servicing responses, imposing disproportionate burden on the most vulnerable borrowers. Additionally, the documented obstruction by supervisor XXXX XXXX XXXX, who ceased responding and blocked my email communications, represents a separate and serious failure of XXXX obligation to maintain accessible escalation pathways for borrowers.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation