Consumer complaint received 2026-04-21 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Consumer Complaint Company : Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . Product : Mortgage Issue : Challenging the denial of loss mitigation options ( Deferral ) and misleading representative statements. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT : BAD FAITH SERVICING This complaint is filed to report a pattern of " Option Obfuscation '' and bad-faith servicing by Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . For over 18 months, I have proactively sought a Payment Deferrala standard XXXX XXXX loss mitigation toolonly to have my requests willfully ignored, suppressed in the administrative record, and retroactively denied based on delinquency manufactured by the banks own conflicting instructions. II. THE XX/XX/XXXX INDUCED DEFAULT In XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Wells Fargo seeking proactive hardship assistance while my account was current. Representatives XXXX and XXXX explicitly coached me into a default, stating that the bank could not offer assistance unless the loan was delinquent. I relied on this professional " coaching '' to my detriment, entering a manufactured default under the belief that it was the only gateway to the Deferral Option I had requested. III. THE " XXXX '' INCIDENT : WILLFUL SUPPRESSION OF OPTIONS ( XX/XX/XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I had a lengthy conversation with a representative named XXXX. During this call, I requested a Payment Deferral no fewer than three times. The Violation : XXXX responded dismissively, acting as if the deferral was not an available option for me, despite it being a core component of the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and Standard Deferral programs. Regulatory Breach : Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 1 ), a servicer must exercise " reasonable diligence '' in evaluating a borrower for all available options. XXXX refusal to even " open '' the deferral request in the system constitutes a willful failure of the servicer 's duty to evaluate the borrower for the least restrictive workout option. IV. RETROACTIVE RATIONALIZATION VS. REAL-TIME DENIAL In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo attempted to justify this 15-month silence by claiming the account was " too delinquent '' for a deferral. The Contradiction : This is a post-hoc rationalization. Had Wells Fargo processed my requests in XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, the " delinquency '' they now cite as a barrier would not have existed or would have been within the eligible thresholds. Accounting Fraud : By ignoring the deferral request, Wells Fargo allowed " Corporate Advances '' and legal fees to balloon, effectively " pricing me out '' of the very program I was asking for. V. VIOLATIONS OF XXXX XXXX XXXX GUIDE D2-3.1-01 XXXX XXXX requires a strict hierarchy for evaluating loss mitigation : Deferral first, then Modification. Wells Fargo skipped the Deferral evaluation entirely, moving directly to a Foreclosure Referral on XX/XX/XXXX, while my request for a deferral remained unaddressed. This is a violation of the Quality Right Party Contact ( QRPC ) standards, as a conversation where a borrower 's specific request is ignored is not " meaningful '' under the Guide.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation