Consumer complaint received 2026-03-30 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Reverse mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Summary of Complaint Carrington Mortgage Services force placed windstorm insurance on my mothers FHA reverse mortgage despite having continuous proof of valid wind coverage through the condominium associations master policy. Carrington repeatedly sent false no evidence of insurance notices, ignored the evidence we provided, failed to identify any deficiency, and force placed unnecessary coverage totaling {$5400.00}. Carrington then initiated foreclosure solely based on these improper, servicer created charges. Carrington ignored the valid wind coverage that has been in place through the condominium associations master policy since XXXX even after providing the declaration page of the condominium windstorm associations master policy. Please see all notices Carrington sent as proof of generic and automated letters that did not address or explain any deficiency in the wind policy. This document comes directly from Carrington after a request was made concerning legal action. There own evidence shows they did not address the specific issue of deficiency and only sent automated letters which we responded with proof of what they asked for, a wind mitigation policy. My Mom needs your intervention. Carrington is foreclosing on a XXXX widower who has maintained her condo since XXXX paying her hazard insurance, association dues, and taxes required by her reverse mortgage provider. Carrington Mortgage Service LLC created this situation by failing to provide proper notice of its requirements and deficiencies in order to cure. XXXX conduct violates : 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ( Regulation X ) HUD HECM servicing requirements Florida XXXX 626.9551 ( 1 ) ( b ) and ( c ) Florida Statute 626.9541 ( 1 ) ( o ) Florida Statute 624.155 HUD oversight is urgently needed. ________________________________________ XXXX. Continuous Wind Coverage Was Maintained The condominium association has maintained a master windstorm policy covering the property since XXXX. We provided Carrington with : XXXX policy XXXX policy XXXX policy XXXX policy Carrington never disputed that coverage existed. ________________________________________ XXXX. Carrington Sent False No Evidence of Insurance Notices For nearly two years, Carrington sent repeated notices stating : We do not have evidence of wind insurance. This statement was false every time it was sent. We repeatedly provided : The master windstorm policy Multiple declarations pages Written confirmations from the association Email submissions Fax submissions Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ( b ), a servicer must have a reasonable basis before force placing insurance. A servicer can not claim no evidence when evidence exists. This is a violation of : 1024.37 ( b ) no reasonable basis 1024.37 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( v ) accuracy requirement Official Interpretations duty to evaluate evidence HUD servicing rules prohibition on misleading communications A notice can not be clear and conspicuous if it is false. ________________________________________ XXXX. Carrington Failed to Identify Any Deficiency or Standard Carrington later claimed ( in XX/XX/XXXX ) that the master policy lacked betterments & improvements coverage. However : This alleged deficiency was never disclosed in any notice. Carrington never stated the master policy was insufficient. Carrington never identified any standard being applied. Carrington never gave the borrower an opportunity to cure. Under 1024.37 ( c ) ( 2 ), a servicer must identify : The specific missing information, and The specific deficiency in the borrowers insurance. Carrington identified neither. This created a notice loop where Carrington : Told us to provide evidence We provided the evidence They ignored the evidence Repeated the same false notice, again and again. This violates Regulation X, HUD rules, and Florida law. ________________________________________ XXXX. Violations of Florida Statute 626.9551 ( 1 ) ( b ) and ( c ) A. Unreasonable Disapproval of Borrowers Insurance ( XXXX ( XXXX ) ( b ) ) The statute prohibits a servicer from unreasonably disapproving of a borrowers insurance. Disapproval is automatically unreasonable if it is not based on : Reasonable standards Uniformly applied Relating to the extent of coverage required Carrington : Never identified any standard Never identified any deficiency Never applied any standard uniformly Never disclosed the alleged betterments & improvements requirement Thus, the disapproval was automatically unreasonable and unlawful. B. Prohibition on Extra Charges ( 626.9551 ( 1 ) ( c ) ) The statute prohibits requiring a borrower to pay : a separate charge to substitute the insurance policy of one insurer for that of another. Force placed premiums fall squarely within this prohibition when the borrower already has valid coverage. Carrington charged {$6100.00} for unnecessary, duplicative coverage. ________________________________________ XXXX. Improper Force Placed Insurance Carrington force placed wind insurance from XX/XX/XXXX through XXXX despite : Continuous wind coverage Multiple submissions of proof No identified deficiency No notice of any new requirement No opportunity to cure This violates : 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ( b ) no reasonable basis 1024.37 ( c ) ( 2 ) failure to identify deficiency 1024.37 ( d ) inaccurate and misleading notices HUD HECM servicing rules strict compliance required Florida Statute 626.9551 unreasonable disapproval Florida Statute 626.9541 ( 1 ) ( o ) unfair force placed insurance practices ________________________________________ XXXX. Foreclosure Initiated Based on Improper Charges In XX/XX/XXXX, Carrington initiated foreclosure solely based on the force placed insurance charges. This foreclosure is improper because : The charges were unlawful The borrower was never in default The default was servicer created HUD compliance is a condition precedent to foreclosure Carrington violated HUD, RESPA, and Florida law HUD intervention is needed to prevent further harm. ________________________________________ XXXX. Harm to the Borrower Carringtons conduct caused : Financial harm Emotional distress Legal expenses The threat of losing her home Stress to a XXXX XXXX XXXX borrower This situation was entirely avoidable. ________________________________________ XXXX. Requested HUD XXXX XXXX. Investigate Carringtons force placed insurance practices Including false notices, lack of disclosure, and failure to evaluate evidence. B. Review the force placed policy and charges totaling {$5400.00} These charges appear unnecessary and improperly applied. XXXX Require Carrington to remove the improper charges The borrower should not be billed for insurance she already had. XXXX Require Carrington to correct the loan account and halt foreclosure activity The foreclosure is based on charges that should never have been assessed. ________________________________________ XXXX. HUD RULES 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ( Regulation X ) * * Reject an insurance policy or unreasonably disapprove the insurance policy provided by a borrower for the protection of the property securing the credit or lien. For purposes of this paragraph, such disapproval shall be deemed unreasonable if it is not based solely on reasonable standards, uniformly applied, relating to the extent of coverage required and the financial soundness and the services of an insurer. * * The statute does not allow a lender/servicer to reject or disapprove a borrowers insurance unless : XXXX. The disapproval is based solely on reasonable standards XXXX. Those standards are uniformly applied XXXX. The standards relate to the extent of coverage required XXXX. The standards relate to the financial soundness and services of the insurer A lender can not comply with these requirements unless it : Identifies the standard being applied, and Identifies the reason the borrowers insurance is being rejected. Otherwise, the borrower has no way to know : What standard is being used What part of their policy is allegedly deficient How to cure the alleged deficiency Whether the standard is reasonable or uniformly applied Thus, the statute functionally requires the lender/servicer to disclose the reason for disapproval. Why this is a notice requirement in practice To disapprove a borrowers insurance based solely on reasonable standards, the servicer must : Tell the borrower what standard is being applied Tell the borrower why their policy does not meet that standard Give the borrower a fair opportunity to cure If the servicer does not identify the reason : The disapproval is automatically unreasonable under the statute Any force placed insurance charge is unlawful The servicer violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ( Regulation X ) Carrington : Never identified the alleged deficiency ( betterments & improvements ) Never disclosed the standard they were applying Never explained why the master windstorm policy was insufficient Force placed insurance anyway Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ( Regulation X ) Their disapproval was not based on reasonable standards Their disapproval was not uniformly applied Their disapproval was automatically unreasonable Their force placement was unlawful XXXX. Requested HUD Review and Resolution I respectfully request that HUD : XXXX Review of Carringtons servicing conduct for HECM compliance XXXX. Require removal of all force placed insurance charges and related fees totaling over {$12000.00} XXXX. Direct correction of the borrowers account XXXX. Require cessation of adverse actions related to this servicing error XXXX. Provide HUDs determination regarding appropriate corrective action

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation