Consumer complaint received 2017-06-16 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Hello, We are the XXXX working on trying to do a short sale on this house. We have been attempting to do this now with Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) for almost 3 years. Most recently, we had an approved short sale at $ XXXX and the buyer walked in XX/XX/XXXX due to the condition of the house. We put the house back on the market and got a full price offer on X/31/2017. However, and this is the complaint being filed, SPS claims that they have 30 days to verify a file from the last time a document is put in the file, but they are twisting the verbiage of the rules that the CFPB put in place. The 30 day clause is so that they will provide a timely answer when sellers are trying to do a workout option, but SPS twists it around and says that each time there is ANY new document in the file they get an additional 30 days. In this case here, they had a complete packet on X/XX/2017 and the buyer came up to their new value of $ XXXX and I confirmed on a recorded conversation that the file was complete and that we would have an answer by X/X/2017. However, when there was no answer by the XX/XX/XXXXI called SPS daily and finally on theXX/XX/XXXX they told me that the packet was now complete and we would have an answer by XX/XX/XXXX. The ONLY change was one item on the HUD they did not approve and we changed it and sent it back in. They can not take another 30 days just because there was one item changed on the HUD. If every time there is one little change they want an extra 30 days to review the file then everything will be expired and they will NEVER get anything accomplished. <P/>Specifically, I am formally demanding that an investigation be started in their business practices regarding short sales. After reading the rules by the CFPB it is clear to me that servicing companies are supposed to review documents in a timely manner and then give a decision within 30 or give a written reason why they can not. The 30 day rule was not put in place to give negotiators at the servicing companies extra time to delay the process. As an authorized third party we can not speak to their underwriting department and it is impossible to escalate a file with SPS. <P/>In this case, the buyer, based on the recorded conversation with their representative XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, went ahead with her loan process and gave notice that she was moving. Now, if we can not close by the end of XXXX she will not have a home to live in because she was relying on information from SPS. Further, when I explained that I have a recorded conversation with their representative stating that we would have an answer by XX/XX/XXXX, I was simply told that she should not have stated that. Well, if I go into a XXXX - XXXX store and the clerk tells me that sodas are on sale for {$.00} then they are liable to sell me the soda for that price and the same principle applies here.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation