Consumer complaint received 2026-04-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Application denials
Company: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding Carrington Mortgage Services ( XXXX ) and its repeated misrepresentation of loss mitigation decisions involving my VA-backed home loan. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a loss mitigation evaluation denying all VA-related options. The denial explicitly stated : VA Denied Request and We are unable to extend you this offer because the XXXX Department of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) denied your request for mortgage assistance. This statement represents that XXXX submitted my request to the VA and that the VA reviewed and denied it. Relying on this representation, I did not appeal the decision at that time. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the VA directly and was informed that there was no record of any request, communication, or contact from XXXX regarding my loan. The VA explained that when a modification falls outside standard guidelines, the servicer must submit a letter of exception for VA review, and that no such request had been received in my case. Based on this information, I resubmitted a loss mitigation application to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and included a written explanation of the proper VA process. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from XXXX denying my request for a Short Sale. I did not request a Short Sale at any point and would never since my house has at least {$300000.00} in equity. This letter contradicts all of the other XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX which state I am eligible for home liquidation. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX again denied all XXXX options. The denial stated that XXXX had requested VA pre-approval and that VA determined the modification was not the most appropriate solution. I again contacted the VA and was told that no request or communication had been received from XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted XXXX to clarify the denial. During that call, XXXX representatives made multiple statements that I have since confirmed are incorrect, including : XXXX. That a new law in XXXX limits VA loan benefits only to the veteran and excludes surviving spouses. XXXX. That I must personally submit a letter of exception to the VA. XXXX. That the VA is the loan holder and makes final decisions on loss mitigation. The VA has confirmed that these statements are inaccurate. I subsequently obtained a Certificate of Eligibility as a surviving spouse, confirming my eligibility for VA loan benefits. I submitted a third loss mitigation application in XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX again denied all XXXX options, this time stating that I must complete a fully qualifying assumption outside of the loss mitigation process. This explanation is inconsistent with VA guidelines and contradicts prior explanations provided by XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, an attorney representing me from the XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted a Notice of Error to XXXX regarding the continued improper denial of my loss mitigation applications. XXXX acknowledged receipt of this Notice of Error but has failed to provide a substantive response. Instead, XXXX has repeatedly delayed its response by sending letters extending its timeline. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX stated it would respond by XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX further extended the response date to XX/XX/XXXX. Most recently, XXXX stated by phone that a response would not be provided until XX/XX/XXXX. These repeated delays exceed the response timelines required under federal mortgage servicing regulations and applicable state law. XXXX has therefore failed to properly respond to a Notice of XXXX within the timeframes required by law. XXXX has repeatedly : XXXX. Stated that the VA denied my requests when the VA confirms no request was ever submitted. XXXX. Provided inconsistent and inaccurate explanations of VA loan rules. XXXX. Failed to properly evaluate my loss mitigation applications. XXXX. Failed to timely respond to a Notice of Error as required under federal servicing regulations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation