Consumer complaint received 2026-05-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA 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: MD

Complaint narrative:
My FHA-insured mortgage on my primary residence was originally serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX approved me for an FHA Special Forbearance Plan covering 12 monthly installments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Under the plan, my contractual monthly Total Payment Due was {$0.00}. XXXX confirmed in writing that no late charges would be assessed and that I would be reported to credit bureaus as current and in a forbearance plan. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a written notice confirming that my FHA Special Forbearance Plan was complete. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a formal written notice stating : " We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX. '' The notice expressly acknowledged that XXXX was prohibited from initiating any foreclosure-related notice or filing while the complete application was under review, and committed to a decision no later than XX/XX/XXXX. Before XXXX completed the loss mitigation evaluation, my loan was transferred to Carrington Mortgage Services , LLC . The pending modification review had not been completed by XXXX before transfer. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( k ), Carrington was required as the transferee servicer to honor the complete loss mitigation application that XXXX received on XX/XX/XXXX, and to continue the evaluation rather than restart or cancel it. Carrington has since taken the following actions, each of which I believe violates federal mortgage servicing law and FHA loss mitigation requirements : ( 1 ) Carrington demanded lump-sum repayment of the entire forborne amount and threatened foreclosure. FHA loss mitigation guidance under HUD Handbook 4000.1 does not permit servicers to require lump-sum repayment of forborne amounts as a precondition for bringing an FHA-insured loan current. Multiple FHA loss mitigation options including the COVID-19 Recovery Modification, FHA-HAMP, Standalone Partial Claim, and Recovery Standalone Partial Claim must be evaluated before foreclosure can proceed. ( 2 ) Carrington cancelled my complete loss mitigation application without providing any written notice or written decision. During a phone call, Carrington informed me that my application had been cancelled because they had attempted to call me for a " second attestation '' and I did not answer. I never received any written request from Carrington for additional documentation, any written request for an attestation, or any written notice of cancellation. This violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ), which requires a written decision stating the specific reason for any denial of a complete loss mitigation application. It also violates 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ), which requires the servicer to provide written notice specifying what additional information is needed and a reasonable deadline to provide it. A missed phone call is not a permitted basis for cancellation under Regulation X. ( 3 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Carrington issued a Maryland Notice of Intent to Foreclose under Maryland Real Property Article 7-105.1 ( c ). The notice lists my Date of Default as XX/XX/XXXX a date that falls within my active XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan, during which my contractual monthly payment was {$0.00}. The notice claims my loan is 269 days past due and demands {$21000.00} to cure. Carrington appears to have re-characterized forbearance-period suspended installments as delinquent payments after taking over servicing, contrary to the written terms of the XXXX forbearance plan and contrary to XXXXXXXX XXXX written confirmation that I would be reported as current and in a forbearance plan. Carrington also elected not to offer prefile mediation. Under the Notice of Intent to Foreclose, a foreclosure action ( Order to Docket ) may be filed in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX. ( 4 ) Carrington has not provided me with a single point of contact for my loss mitigation file, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.40. ( 5 ) Carrington has engaged in conduct consistent with prohibited " dual tracking '' under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ) and ( g ) by issuing a Notice of Intent to Foreclose while a complete loss mitigation application received by the prior servicer on XX/XX/XXXX should have remained pending under federal law. The cumulative effect of Carrington 's actions is that an improperly calculated default has been used to initiate Maryland foreclosure proceedings against my primary residence, despite the existence of written documentation from the prior servicer establishing both ( a ) an active forbearance plan with {$0.00} contractually due during the disputed default period, and ( b ) a complete loss mitigation application that was pending evaluation at the time of servicing transfer. I have attached the following supporting documentation : XXXX FHA Special Forbearance Plan Approval dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Forbearance Plan Completion Notice dated XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX Post-Forbearance Acknowledgment of Complete Application dated XX/XX/XXXX ; and Carrington Notice of Intent to Foreclose dated XX/XX/XXXX. I am simultaneously filing a complaint with the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation and am submitting a Mortgage Assistance Application and formal cover letter directly to Carrington requesting reinstatement of my loss mitigation evaluation as of XX/XX/XXXX. Given that Carrington may file an Order to Docket in Circuit Court as early as XX/XX/XXXX, I respectfully request expedited review of this complaint. A few things this narrative does deliberately It opens with XXXXXXXX XXXX written record, not your hardship. Reviewers triage hundreds of complaints. The strongest hook isn't " I'm in trouble '' it's " the prior servicer 's written documents contradict the current servicer 's actions. '' That framing makes the violation pattern obvious from the first paragraph. It quotes XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX letter directly. That single sentence " We have sufficient information to evaluate you for a loan modification, and we consider your application complete as of XX/XX/XXXX '' is the most powerful sentence in your entire file. Burying it would be a mistake. Quoting it ensures the reviewer reads it. It numbers the violations. Reviewers love enumerated lists because they can map each numbered item to a specific regulatory citation and require Carrington to respond to each one. A flowing narrative is easier to wave away ; a numbered list is not. It puts the math dispute front and center. The XX/XX/XXXX default date during a documented forbearance period is the single most exploitable factual error in Carrington 's case. It appears twice once in item ( 3 ) and once in the closing paragraph to ensure no reviewer misses it. It closes with the urgency hook. The XX/XX/XXXX potential filing date is the single most important fact for triage prioritization. Putting it in the final sentence guarantees the reviewer sees it when deciding queue priority. No personal info, per the form 's instruction. No name, no address, no loan numbers, no SSN. The CFPB form collects all of that separately. This field is pure narrative.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation