Consumer complaint received 2025-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Problem with personal statement of dispute
Company: CMG Financial Services, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is a follow up submission regarding Case Number XXXX. XXXX response dated XXXX XXXX, 2025 did not address the primary concern I raised in my original complaint. My complaint explained that XXXX outsourced all secure message servicing, including allXX/XX/XXXX related communications and California Military Families Financial Relief Act processing, to overseas personnel in XXXX and other foreign locations. Every secure message I submitted beginning on XX/XX/scrub> 2025 was handled by staff who were not trained in XXXX, federal mortgage servicing standards, or Californias military relief statute. XXXX response entirely avoided this issue and provided no explanation for why protected military servicing functions were assigned to offshore contractors rather than trained U.S. based personnel. 

Federal law requires that mortgage servicers maintain adequate, competent, and properly trained staff. Under XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( XX/XX/XXXX ) through ( XX/XX/XXXX ), servicers must employ personnel who can assist borrowers with legal protections, including XXXX related requests. For VA backed loans, the VA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requires that SCRA matters be handled by staff who are knowledgeable and trained in military protections. XX/XX/XXXX outsourcing of all secure message operations to foreign contractors who were unfamiliar with XXXX and U.S. mortgage law violated these servicing requirements. This is the central issue in my complaint, and XXXX did not acknowledge or respond to it. 

Because XXXX assigned all secure message communication to overseas personnel, I had no ability to reach trained staff through written channels. While XXXX overseas, I was forced to make international phone calls to speak with U.S. based employees who were actually trained to handle XX/XX/XXXXmatters. This resulted in international calling charges that were entirely caused by XXXX servicing model. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX, an act is considered unfair when the injury is substantial, not reasonably avoidable, and caused by the companys practices. The international calling charges meet all of these elements because I could not avoid them due to XXXX refusal to allow secure message access to trained personnel. XXXX declined to reimburse these costs but did not address the reason the expenses occurred, which was the result of outsourcing protected military servicing functions to untrained offshore staff. 

XXXX response also did not address how this outsourcing caused delays and inaccurate statements regarding my XXXX and California military deferment rights. XXXX staff repeatedly misinterpreted bothXX/XX/XXXX requirements and California law and demanded documents that are prohibited under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. These errors would not have occurred if XXXX had complied with federal and VA requirements for trained and competent personnel. By ignoring the outsourcing issue entirely, XXXX failed to respond to the substance of my complaint.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation