Consumer complaint received 2026-03-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Failure to Conduct a Thorough Investigation and Provide Meaningful Responses I am concerned that the servicers responses to my complaint do not reflect a genuine or thorough investigation of the issues I raised. Instead, the responses appear to rely on generalized or scripted language that does not directly address the specific facts, documentation, and questions I presented. Throughout this process, I have submitted detailed information, timelines, and supporting documentation regarding my XXXX XXXX, loss mitigation applications, foreclosure activity, and eligibility for XXXX assistance programs. However, the servicers replies consistently avoid addressing the core questions and concerns raised. Instead of responding to the substance of my complaint, the servicer appears to provide standardized explanations that repeat general policies without evaluating the specific circumstances of my account. For example, I have asked clear questions regarding : My eligibility for XXXX loss mitigation programs, including the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) program and other veteran-specific protections. The servicers claim that a FINNS financial package was required XXXX days prior to the foreclosure sale, including the specific California statute or regulation supporting that requirement. Contradictions between the servicers stated foreclosure timelines and documented instances where foreclosure sales were stopped by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX within shorter timeframes. Inconsistencies in the servicers statements regarding my payment history, delinquency dates, and loss mitigation submissions. Despite these specific questions, the servicers responses do not provide direct explanations, documentation, or citations supporting their statements. Instead, the responses appear to repeat generalized foreclosure timelines and servicing procedures without addressing the discrepancies I have identified. A proper investigation should include a detailed review of the loan history, communications with the Department XXXX XXXX XXXX, internal servicing notes, and the documentation I submitted. However, the servicers responses suggest that my concerns were not evaluated on their merits and that the reply was generated as a routine denial rather than a meaningful review of the facts. As a borrower with a XXXX mortgage loan, I expected that my inquiries regarding VA programs and protections would be carefully evaluated. Instead, the responses I have received give the impression that the servicers primary objective is to defend its prior actions rather than to investigate whether errors occurred or whether veteran-specific loss mitigation options were properly considered. I am respectfully requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau require the servicer to conduct a good-faith and documented investigation of my concerns and provide clear, specific answers to the questions raised in my complaint. A proper response should include : Documentation supporting the servicers statements regarding delinquency dates and foreclosure timelines. The legal or regulatory basis for the claimed requirement of a FINNS financial package XXXX days prior to foreclosure. Confirmation of whether my loan was evaluated for applicable XXXX foreclosure-prevention programs. A clear explanation addressing the contradictions and inconsistencies identified in the servicers previous responses. At this time, the responses provided by the servicer do not appear to meet the standard of a thorough investigation or a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation