Consumer complaint received 2026-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home 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: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
FORMAL ESCALATION, REGULATORY PRESERVATION, AND STATEMENT OF CONTINUING VIOLATIONS Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) CFPB Complaint No. XXXX ( Closed Without Resolution ) Borrower : XXXX XXXX Loan Number : XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX I. PURPOSE OF THIS SUBMISSION This statement is submitted to formally escalate and preserve claims arising from Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX ( SPS ) response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, which was closed without resolution despite XXXX response confirming facts that independently establish violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), Regulation X, the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and CFPB servicing standards. 



XXXX response does not rebut the violations raised. Instead, it admits a prolonged pattern of document churn, repeated reversals of complete application determinations, inaccurate credit reporting, and foreclosure-related activity during protected loss-mitigation periods, while relying on boilerplate assertions of compliance that are contradicted by the record. 



This conduct constitutes systemic non-compliance, not borrower error. 








II. SPS ADMITS A YEAR-LONG PATTERN OF ILLEGAL COMPLETE APPLICATION REVERSALS XXXX response confirms that between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, it issued at least eleven separate Complete Assistance Package notices, each followed by new Required Information Notices asserting that documents were missing after the application had already been declared complete.

This practice violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ) and CFPB guidance, which prohibit servicers from repeatedly restarting loss-mitigation timelines absent legitimately new information, re-requesting documents already received and acknowledged, and using internal further review cycles to delay evaluation or strip borrowers of Regulation X protections. 



Once an application is deemed complete, Regulation X protections attach. SPSs internal reversals do not lawfully suspend those protections. 



SPSs own chronology demonstrates document churn, not borrower noncompliance.

III. SPS REPORTED DELINQUENCIES DURING PERIODS WHEN ITS OWN STATEMENTS SHOWED {$0.00} PAST DUE SPS does not dispute that it reported 30-, 60-, and 90-day delinquencies during months in which the loss-mitigation application had been declared complete and SPSs own servicing statements reflected {$0.00} past due.

It is factually impossible for an account to be simultaneously {$0.00} past due on servicing statements and materially delinquent for credit-reporting purposes. 



Reporting delinquency under these circumstances violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and conflicts with Regulation X protections that prohibit treating a borrower as delinquent for foreclosure and reporting purposes during protected review periods.

SPSs refusal to correct this reporting, despite acknowledging the underlying timeline, constitutes knowing inaccurate reporting after notice. 








IV. SPS ISSUED NOTICES OF DEFAULT DURING ACTIVE LOSS-MITIGATION PROTECTIONS ( DUAL TRACKING ) SPS attempts to avoid liability by asserting that the account was not in foreclosure status. This is legally incorrect.

Foreclosure activity under Regulation X is not limited to scheduled sale dates. SPS admits issuing multiple Notices of Default and Right-to-Cure notices during periods in which the loss-mitigation application had been declared complete or appeal rights were pending.

Issuing default notices and advancing foreclosure posture during protected periods constitutes dual tracking under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) ( h ), regardless of whether a sale date was set.

V. SPSS LOSS-MITIGATION REVIEW WAS INTERNALLY CONTRADICTORY AND ARBITRARY SPS states that income was not required or considered as part of our evaluation.

This admission directly contradicts SPSs own conduct. 



Over many months, SPS repeatedly demanded and cited as missing federal tax returns, profit and loss statements, bank statements, rental income documentation, and occupancy verification. These income- and asset-based documents were repeatedly used to revoke complete application status and restart timelines. 



If income was not required or considered, SPS had no legitimate basis to demand these documents, condition application completeness on them, or use their alleged absence to delay evaluation. 



SPSs response does not explain why income documentation was repeatedly demanded if it was irrelevant, why application completeness depended on documents SPS now claims were not considered, or why months of delay were attributed to income and bank statements that allegedly had no bearing on eligibility.

The only reasonable inference is that SPS used income-related document requests as a pretext to delay, deprive the borrower of statutory protections, and maintain delinquency and foreclosure leverage.

This constitutes bad-faith document churn prohibited under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 and CFPB guidance.

VI. INVESTOR AUTHORITY DEFENSE WAS WITHHELD UNTIL AFTER MONTHS OF DOCUMENT CHURN SPS relies on investor authority limitations as grounds for denial, asserting it lacked authority to modify the loan. 



However, SPS did not disclose these limitations earlier, even after repeatedly declaring the application complete and continuing to demand documentation. 



Withholding known eligibility barriers while continuing document churn constitutes unfair and deceptive servicing conduct and deprived the borrower of timely, meaningful evaluation while creating artificial delinquency and credit harm. 








VII. REPAYMENT PLANS DO NOT CURE PRIOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS SPS references verbal and written repayment plans to deflect from the violations alleged. This argument fails.

Repayment plans offered before proper loss-mitigation evaluation or after the account had already been improperly defaulted and credit harm incurred do not cure or negate illegal document churn, inaccurate credit reporting, dual tracking, or loss-mitigation timeline violations.

The existence or withdrawal of repayment plans does not retroactively legitimize unlawful servicing conduct.

VIII. SPS FAILED TO ADDRESS CORE LEGAL VIOLATIONS SPSs response fails to substantively address why loss-mitigation timelines were repeatedly restarted, why complete application protections were disregarded, why delinquency was reported during protected review periods, why Notices of Default were issued after applications were declared complete, and why servicing statements contradicted credit reporting.

Instead, SPS relies on generalized assertions of compliance without factual reconciliation, which is insufficient under CFPB standards.

IX. FORMAL PRESERVATION OF CLAIMS AND REQUESTED ACTION This matter is now under regulatory escalation following SPSs failure to adequately investigate, correct, or resolve the violations identified after repeated notice. The issues described herein are being submitted to state and federal regulators for review and enforcement and are being preserved for further action as appropriate.

Based on SPSs admissions and failure to rebut the documented violations, all claims are formally preserved.

Requested action includes : Deletion of all derogatory credit reporting generated during loss-mitigation review periods Correction of internal servicing records to accurately reflect borrower compliance Written confirmation of all corrections Regulatory review of SPSs loss-mitigation and document-handling practices Supervisory or enforcement action as appropriate SPSs conduct reflects systemic servicing failures, not isolated error. The consumer harm is ongoing, substantial, and directly attributable to servicer-controlled delay and misreporting.

X. REGULATORY POSTURE AND USE OF THIS SUBMISSION This submission is intended for use in a new CFPB complaint based on failure to adequately respond and continuing violations, California Department XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, California Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX, RESPA Notice of Error escalation, and pre-litigation demand and discovery. 



All rights and remedies are expressly reserved. 

Dropbox link with all information attached. I only uploaded half to this file. I have other XXXX docs to upload. 

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX? XXXX & XXXX & XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation