Consumer complaint received 2016-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)
State: VT

Complaint narrative:
THIS IS OUR RESPONSE TO BAYVIEW CASE # XXXX INITIATED ON XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. BAYVIEW SENT AN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY STATEMENT. ON THIS STATEMENT WE SEE SEVERAL CHARGES : XXXX/XXXX/XXXX FIR {$27.00} LABLED XXXX. REPAYMENT, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX FOR {$25.00} LABLED MISC. CORP. DISPURSEMENT XXXX {$970.00} FOR TAXES PAID BY BAYVIEW XXXX XXXX XXXX THAT WE WERE UNKNOWN TO US AND UNAUTHORIZED, ON OUR MORT. STATEMENT IS A {$160.00} ESCROW ADVANCE LINE AND A # XXXX MISC TAX BILL LINE DATED XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX {$27.00} MISC. CORP. DISP., AND AGAIN ON XXXX/XXXX/XXXX FOR ANOTHER {$5.00}, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX {$75.00} XXXX & XXXX EXP. NOT AUTHORIZED AND TOLD BY XXXX XXXX THIS HAD TO BE DONE TO PROCEED WITH THE MOD., AND WE NEED TO PAY IT, AS OF TODAY WE HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT AS AGAIN IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX {$25.00} MISC. REPAYMENT, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX THE SAME {$75.00} AS XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX {$5.00} MISC. REPAYMENT FEE, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX {$140.00} ADJUSTMENT? DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT ALL OF THESE FEES ARE THEY ARE NOT IN ORDER AND SHOULD NOT BE ON OUR ACCOUNT. THESE FEES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND ARE FORCEPLACED, AS NO FEES WERE SIGNED FOR OR AUTHORIZED. RESPONSE # XXXX AGREE WITH BAYVIEW THAT THE ORIGINAL LOAN WAS ESTABLISHED BY XXXX XXXX AND SOLD TO THEM, WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING WRONGDOING ON THEIR PART WHEN OUR MORTGAGE WAS CONVENIENTLY SOLD, WITH THE SAME ISSUES THAT BAYVIEW IS NOW DOING. WE HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE XXXX OR A SISTER COMPANY AS THEY ARE PRACTICING THE SAME WRONG DOINGS. RESPONSE # XXXX XXXX XXXX MAILED XXXX & XXXX TAXES AFTER FILING OUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND LETTER OF WHY WE ARE APPLYING. XXXX/XXXX/XXXX REC 'D A LETTER THAT THEY REC 'D INFO AND WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT. XXXX/XXXX/XXXX REC 'D A LETTER STATING XXXX XXXX WAS ASSIGNED TO US AND WILL ASSIST THROUGH THE PROCESS. XXXX/XXXX/XXXX LETTER WAS REC 'D REQUESTING OUR INSURANCE, MAILED XXXX AS WELL AS XXXX QUARTER PROFIT AND LOSS REQUESTES BY XXXX XXXX BY EMAIL AND XXXX. SHE CLAIMS SHE NEVER REC 'D BUT WE GAVE TRACKING # WHEN OVERNIGHTED AND THEN SHE SEEMED TO REMEMBER ALSO INCLUDED WAS THE XXXX LETTER AND AGAIN XXXX TAXES. ON XXXX/XXXX/XXXX REC 'D A LETTER DATED XXXX REQUESTING OUR TAX ID, WE SENT BACK OUT BY MAIL THE SAME DAY AND ON XXXX/XXXX/XXXX REC 'D ANOTHER LETER ASKING FOR THE SAME INFO, AND WE SENT AGAIN. ON XXXX REC 'D A PACKET THAT BAYVIEW DID A OUTSIDE APPRAISAL. THIS WAS NOT KNOWN ABOUT OR ATHORIZED AND THEN WE WERE CHARGED THE {$75.00}. WE WERE DENIED A MODIFICATION THE FIRST TIME BASED ON OUR % NOT MEETING THEIR GUIDELINES, AND TOLD BY EFURU TO RE-APPLY, IN XXXX WE DID RE-APPLY AND XXXX XXXX TOLD US WHAT WAS NEEDED. BAYVIEW REPLIED PARTALLY TO INITAIL COMPLAIN THAT STAES DATES IN XXXX XXXX AND JUMPS RIGHT TO XXXX XXXX. WHERE ARE ALL THEIR INFO IN BETWEEN? WE HAVE COPIES IF THEY ARE NEEDE TO REFRESH THEIR MEMORY. I DID IN FACT QUOTE WE CAN NOT KEEP PAYING OUR ACCOUNTANT FOR INFO NEEDED, THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN NEED OF A MODIFICATION, BAYVIEW TELLS US XXXX THING AT A TIME THEY NEED AND PROLONGS THE PROCESS THIS IS WHERE INTENTIONAL STALLING COMES INTO PLAY. WE HAVE TO SEND OVERNIGHT SIGNED DOCUMENT/S BECAUSE THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NEVER REC 'D WHICH IN TURNS COST US MORE MONEY.XXXX REC 'D A REPORT OF OUR ANNUAL STATEMENT NO LETTER OF EXPLANATION, NO AUTHORIZATIONS, ( ESCROWED TAXES ) AND XXXX XXXX STATES XXXX XXXX AUTO GENERATED AND NOT TO WORRY WE SAID WE WERE CONCERNED AS IT WAS NOT AUTORIZED AND NOT MODIFIED.SHE ASKED FOR MORE BANK STATEMENT WHICH WERE SENT BY EMAIL ON XXXX/XXXX/XXXX AS WELL AS XXXX & XXXX QUARTER PROFIT AND LOSS ALSO SENT OVERNIGHT TRACK # XXXX. XXXX REC 'D DECLINE ONLINE CALLED XXXX XXXX AND SHE SAID WE ARE NOT DECLINED WE ARGUED IT IS ONLINE AND AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, SHE SEEMED TO FIND IT. SEVERL ATTEMPTS, MISLEADS AND INTENTIONAL STALLING AND XXXX DECLINES XXXX SPOKE WITH XXXX ON XXXX/XXXX/XXXX AND HE LED XXXX TO BELIEVE THAT IF WE DID NOT HAVE OUR {$5700.00} ON OUR XXXX 'S FROM THE ACCT.THAT SHOULD PASS US IN THE % TO BE MOD. WE ARE IN PROCESS OF LEASE TURN IN TO HELP US.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation