Consumer complaint received 2025-05-22 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is being submitted based on concern that Mr. Cooper, a brand for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is likely in violation of consumer protection regulations and possibly other lending laws by implementing new conditions on existing loans and refusing to provide adequate support or representation from the company for issue resolution. This complaint is two-fold. The first is to resolve our immediate issue on the property owned by my husband and me. The second reason is to ask a watchdog group to investigate to ensure abuses aren't happening in a more widespread fashion. 

We allege Mr. Cooper, a brand for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, a mortgage services company, is generally unreachable and unresponsive. They have shown a pattern of providing inaccurate and inconsistent communication. Short of rendering a legal opinion, Mr. Cooper has demonstrated possible misconduct, incompetence, and/or negligence as our mortgage services provider. 

Shortly after Mr. Cooper acquired our property loan in XXXX, the company attempted to change the loan requirements without providing a legal basis, or even a consistent basis for introducing new terms. 
Mr. Cooper refuses to provide any reasonable or timely means to discuss or appeal their actions. 
Summary of complaints that will be supported in the transaction detail : 1. Mr. Cooper knowingly and admittedly sent false communication multiple times regarding the flood zone status of our property and has tried to enforce unwarranted new loan requirements more than once based on a pre-existing designation.

2. Mr. Cooper provides no reasonable means to have any form of dialogue despite the appearan
ce of a multitude of customer support options.

3. Mr. Cooper designs customer support solutions that only benefit them by automating one-way, static information while leaving no relevant option for actual representation or dialogue to occur. The phone system will acknowledge a callers requests to speak with someone, but will still loop the caller back into limiting, menu-driven choices. This is also true of their website chat feature. Email addresses for support have either been returned as undeliverable, or result in nothing more than an automated response or rejection of submission. 
4. As such, we allege that Mr. Cooper actually does not provide any common and reasonable methods ( phone, email or live chat ) for reaching a live support representative. They provide no effective dispute resolution channel. Even a ticket submission option via the Mr. Cooper portal triggered a response that altered the status to read only, disabling further replies.

5. In closing, Mr. Cooper is in a position of control over a large investment, ones home. There is a feeling of helplessness when there is no effective means to communicate or resolve issues with the company. Our history of transactions that follows will show Mr. Cooper has a pattern of misconduct and provides customers no method of recourse by obfuscating the process of connecting with a customer support agent. Mr. Cooper would make it appear there are many methods for contacting a representative, but each is a proverbial black hole, engineered to provide automated responses and efficiency only to Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper uses various and inconsistent means for communicating account changes or updates, some of which do not offer a notification but require a proactive search by the client to stumble across the update. ( i.e. A miscellaneous folder buried in a statements tab in an account portal vs. using the portals message inbox, or an email, etc. ). According to the internet, the inability to interact meaningfully or with an actual representative is not a unique problem to us. 

Personal transaction overview : Multiple times Mr. Cooper has erroneously communicated the XXXX flood zone designation of our XXXX XXXX property at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. The first time was in or around XX/XX/XXXX. Mr. Cooper has used an XXXX status change as a basis for requiring flood insurance in multiple communications, all of which threaten to force-write a policy. ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ). Within or in proximity to the same timeframe and usually in response to us disproving this, Mr. Cooper has in XXXX instances claimed that flood insurance was actually being required instead for a XXXX ( XXXX ) designation. Our history will also show XXXX time Mr. Cooper agreed they have no basis for requiring flood insurance, but XXXX months later started the cycle of requiring it again. 
XXXX. Per XXXX mapping, there has been NO designation area change for the property since the time of loan origination in XXXX of XXXX. It was ( and remains ) in XXXX XXXX XXXX and in a pre-existing XXXX zone. The loan did not require flood insurance for either reason at origination or for the XXXX years prior to Mr. Cooper acquiring it. There has been no known change to law that would require or even support Mr. Cooper forcing this change. 
Per our transaction record, you will find that Mr. Cooper does not provide a legal basis or explanation for changing the terms of the loan. 
You will see that they have purchased and cancelled LPI ( Lender provided insurance ) on the same day, XX/XX/XXXX. You will find they have increased the escrow payment required by {$1200.00} although the force-written policy was cancelled the same day it was acquired. Interestingly, we received the policy by mail. The cancellation notice is only in the miscellaneous tab of our statements and was not received via mail as the policy was. This leads me to wonder if they expected we would not find the cancellation and continue paying the higher monthly escrow in the absence of a policy? Would they still be charging this if we had not sent complaints and a ticket? ( all unanswered ) You will find numerous other errors made by Mr. Cooper and a refusal to provide standard customer support options. Whether requests, demands or eventual threats, Mr. Cooper does not offer any method that would support a dialogue. This leaves the property owner in limbo as to whether or not their requests for review or support ever reach a person. 

The following is a chronological account of our transactions to date with Mr. Cooper. We can provide full documentation and screenshots to support our claims. 
XXXX. Mr. Cooper acquired our mortgage loan in XXXX which was originated by XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for the property we own in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
2. We have remained in good standing with this loan and abided by all terms associated with the loan since origination regardless of mortgage service provider changes.

3. Upon origination of the loan and according to the loan terms we signed, there was no flood insurance coverage required and there has been no change to any designated area or flood zone associated with the property. 
XXXX. Our first statement from Mr. Cooper was for XX/XX/XXXX. As early as XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. Cooper sent a letter informing us that flood insurance was now required per XXXX guidelines due to a change in the XXXX flood zone designation to XXXX XXXX 
o This was patently false and disproved after much time and effort. This was the start of many inaccurate communications we have received and have had to disprove while under duress due to the threat of force-written policies within specific timeframes. 
XXXX. Although we had tried many times, in both XXXX of XXXX and XXXX XXXX, we were able to invest the XXXX minutes of effort both times to successfully circumvent XXXX XXXX automated customer service menu which discouraged reaching a representative. 
o The first representative initially defended the XXXX  claim, but then changed her stance to say flood insurance was required, not because of a XXXX flood zone designation, but instead due to the XXXX designation ( which is also referred to as XXXX ). 
o There has been NO change in XXXX designation from the time of our loan in XX/XX/XXXX with Renasant to the time Mr. Cooper acquired the loan from XXXX. We were intentional to ask, and confirmed at loan origination, that flood insurance was not required. It was not. 
o Further we were initially told by Mr. Cooper that XXXX required the insurance and then were told it was XXXX XXXX and XXXX, both of which we proved to be inaccurate. 
o Upon stating we would pursue a legal route while speaking with the second representative, XXXX, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, she empathized with us. She stated that Mr. Cooper intentionally makes it difficult to speak with someone and she hated the practice. She stated our appeal was not necessary as a letter from Mr. Cooper had already been sent to us detailing no need for flood insurance. I documented this at the time. 
XXXX. By XXXX XXXX, XXXX, we still had not seen the referenced letter so we emailed the only active XXXX XXXX email address provided, which is intended for insurance documents. ( It is important to note there was another email address offered in XXXX letter, but it was promptly returned as inactive. This shows the pattern of limiting customer outreach and support ). 
o We outlined the above information, along with a list of grievances concerning the experience of trying to appeal and resolve this matter. 
o We subsequently received a letter on XXXX XXXX, XXXX stating that Mr. Cooper had received proof of flood insurance and that there would be no additional charge to our account. 
o This was patently false as we did not obtain flood insurance. Given the number of inaccuracies experienced by then, we assumed this was how they documented things in their system to allow for resolution of this matter. 
XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, we received an updated letter from Mr. Cooper stating a review of our loan indicated flood insurance was required for the property due to being in a XXXX. 
o XXXX, this was and is not a new designation for the property. It existed at loan origination 5 years prior. The property was also built in XXXX and the designation was in XXXX, precluding it from qualifying for XXXX flood insurance. 
o There had not been any change to the XXXX or XXXX designation of the property since the time of loan origination. Requiring flood insurance represents a new loan requirement with no basis for doing so. 
o Immediately we attempted to reach a representative at Mr. Cooper via the customer service numbers found on previous communications and via XXXX searches as there was only a link to upload documents or email documents provided in the letter. 
o As the previous numbers were stuck in an endless loop of irrelevant menu options, we began internet searches for a way to reach a representative at Mr. Cooper. That search resulted in discovering a litany of complaints about a lack of representation from this company. Sources include XXXX and XXXX. 
o We began to document attempts to communicate, including the menu options presented via their customer support line. 
o The menu options are informational and support only one-way communication despite at times stating, " I understand you'd like to speak to an agent.... '' o As an example, the process of attempting to reach someone on XXXX XXXX, XXXX started at XXXX and ended at XXXX after numerous menu options failed to provide a relevant choice or access to a representative. 
o XXXX also attempted using the website chat feature for support on XXXX XXXX, XXXX as well. This was attempted from XXXX to XXXX and then abandoned when the familiar endless loop of menu options was presented electronically. 
o Lastly, we emailed our history of communication and documented facts to the email address designated for providing insurance documentation. 
XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, with no response, we repeated the attempts to reach someone via phone to discuss the matter and to understand the legal basis for the requirement of flood insurance. After a prolonged period of not reaching an agent, we abandoned this effort. 
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we once again received a letter stating flood insurance was required. This letter alleged that the flood zone designation had changed and we were in a SFHA with flood zone V, requiring flood insurance. 
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a second and final notice stating Map Panel Number XXXX Flood XXXX XXXX required flood insurance and that Mr. Cooper had secured temporary XXXX lapse insurance. We were given 15 days to dispute by having the map amended by XXXX. However, the XXXX map when properly sized didnt need to be amended. XXXX and our countys flood zone XXXX both showed the flood zone to be XXXX  with no changes since XXXX. 
XXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX we gathered all the supporting documentation again to prove no change to the flood zone and flood zone XXXX. We emailed the address intended for insurance documents to state again our appeal of the XXXX zone XXXX designation. We had already disputed the XXXX and XXXX XXXX insurance requirements and shown where the property does not qualify for NFIP based XXXX the designation of CBRS per XXXX and XXXX the designation for that area pre-dated our loan with already agreed upon conditions that did not include flood insurance! 
XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, in an inconsistent fashion, we received electronic communication via a miscellaneous tab in the account portal on our statements page ( vs. portal inbox, or a phone call or email despite demands to speak with an agent ). This communication seemed intentionally hidden. It acknowledged our XX/XX/XXXX complaint sent to the insurance documents email. Mr. Cooper asked for time to investigate through XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX via email, we received a communication titled " resolution ''. Upon opening the email, we were surprised to discover it was a resolution for a matter relating to a loan that was not our loan. The communication included details for this individuals loan on a property in XXXX XXXX 
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, communication was received from Mr. Cooper electronically, and later via mail, that stated several things. 
o This letter hoped to alleviate our concerns. 
o The letter stated that the XXXX letter stating XXXX flood zone XXXX  was sent in error as their lender provided insurance system didnt support XXXX  reasoning. 
XXXX. This can not be considered a simple mistake given the number of times we received letters stating the property was in an XXXX  flood zone that changed. We pursued documentation to disprove at our expense of time and effort, all under the duress of an impending timeline, more than once! 
o The letter stated they agreed with our documentation concerning the flood zone designation and as such, this was not a basis for requiring flood insurance. 
o The letter stated that effective XX/XX/XXXX, flood insurance would be required for properties in a XXXX XXXX, but failed to provide any legal basis for this allegation. It was just stated as a matter of their policy to secure their interest in the loan. 
o The letter addressed a typo made by me in the XX/XX/XXXX communication concerning the exorbitantly high XXXX premium. 
o The letter stated that XXXX had not been obtained and to avoid this, we must provide proof of insurance. No timeline was provided. Since they asked to research our complaint through XX/XX/XXXX, it seemed reasonable wed have time to find a way to address. 
o The letter appeared to come from a XXXX XXXX and listed a phone number with a XXXX area code, but was sent from an unmonitored email address. 
XXXX. Less than XXXX hours later, on XX/XX/XXXX, communication was received from Mr. Cooper and later via mail that XXXX insurance was force-written on our loan. Per the policy it was obtained for being in XXXX XXXX XXXX, not due to being in a XXXX zone. This policy was also cancelled on the same day. Despite the policy cancellation, Mr. Cooper increased our XX/XX/XXXX payment from {$1500.00} to {$2700.00} for an escrow shortfall that shouldnt exist since there is no policy and was no policy for any appreciable amount of time. 
o In the time since, we have called the XXXX area code phone number and left voicemail multiple times. All calls have gone unanswered. No return calls have been received. 
o We have emailed the address for insurance documentation with our latest appeals and then threats to pursue legal action and to file complaints. All have been unanswered. 
o We have provided all our documentation about flood zone status to our XXXX XXXX as they have indicated other residents have had requests for help with Mr. Cooper. 
o We have spoken to our insurance agent who agrees that based on the facts, there is no basis for a flood insurance policy. 
o Before we even mentioned who our mortgage services provider was, our insurance agent asked if this was Mr. Cooper based on their experience having to assist in these instances, indicating a business practice vs. isolated incident. 
o Our insurance agent also contacted Mr. Cooper on our behalf to try to remedy the issues. 
o XXXX XX/XX/XXXX we opened a ticket via the portal to dispute the increased XX/XX/XXXX payment which elicited an automated response to give Mr. Cooper 7 days to investigate. The response then closed the dialogue box to disallow further communication. 
o XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX, we have not been presented with any opportunity to have a dialogue with Mr. Cooper. XXXX received no status update. XXXX received no evidence of a legal basis for requiring flood insurance. XXXX received no dispute resolution over flood insurance. XXXX received no resolution to the increased XX/XX/XXXX payment. XXXX received nothing to indicate Mr. Cooper takes any accountability for any of the errors that have been made or will act in good faith to prove they have a legal right to institute new conditions on an existing loan. 
o We have no confidence in communication we receive from Mr. Cooper related to this matter. We fear the extent and the scope of the demonstrated incompetence and possible misconduct Mr. Cooper could have on our credit and finances. We fear for other individuals who XXXX be bullied into compliance. We fear that without the ability to access support, individuals could have irreparable harm done to their credit, finances, or even lose their property.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation