Consumer complaint received 2020-08-29 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is being made through CPFB after numerous inquiries since XXXX, XXXX have been made with our previous mortgage company, Citizens One Home Loans and our current mortgage company/lender, XXXX and servicer, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. We contacted a representative at Citizens One by telephone in XX/XX/XXXX, who informed us that Citizens One had forwarded the complete electronic mortgage file to the lender, XXXX and their servicer, XXXX XXXX during the sale of our mortgage in XXXX, XXXX. She stated the complete electronic file would have included all documentation regarding HAMP. There was no follow up to our telephone call by Citizens One regarding our request for a complete review of our Home Affordable Modification Program ( HAMP ) and the principle reduction alternative ( PRA ) program. 

It would appear to us that if our complete mortgage electronic file was forwarded from Citizens One to XXXX XXXX during the sale of our mortgage, it should have included all documentation regarding the PRA/Forebearance including our original PRA/Forbearance notification letter of XXXX, XXXX and related documentation on the subsequent investor incentive payments to Citizens One and/or XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we sent a follow up letter to Citizens One and after they researched our request they informed us on XX/XX/XXXX that we should contact the new servicer, XXXX, for a copy of the document requested. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we notified XXXX XXXX ( our current loan servicer ) by letter with a request to make complete review of our Home Affordable Modification Program ( HAMP ) file record to locate a copy of this XX/XX/XXXX letter that we received from Citizens One informing us of a PRA of {$100000.00} under HAMP. I asked them to forward us a copy of the letter. However, XXXX has responded by letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that they were unable to locate in the records forwarded from Citizens One that HAMP letter you purportedly received. The XXXX response letter adds that if you are able to provide additional documentation XXXX can investigate the matter further. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we sent a second letter to Citizens One along with whatever documentation we could produce regarding this matter. Citizens One replied by letter on XX/XX/XXXX indicating they had no information regarding the principal reduction alternative and suggest that we if have additional information they could look into this matter further. 

Both companies have not provided basic answers to our questions regarding the PRA program of our HAMP account, nor have they responded to our questions regarding ancillary information or documentation that could be available regarding possible Citizens One investor incentive payments from a separate ledger in which they may have received from the federal government regarding the PRA. They have both indicated they have no record of the PRA Forbearance letter dated on or about XX/XX/XXXX. 

We have informed them that we previously received a PRA Forbearance letter dated on or about XX/XX/XXXX. We have been unable to locate the original letter. However, the letter indicated that we had reached a milestone in the HAMP program by having made the monthly mortgage payments since XXXX, XXXX and the letter congratulated us on having reached this point in the HAMP. The letter also indicated that if our monthly mortgage payment are made in a timely fashion for 36 months the original principle reduction amount of {$100000.00} ( non-interest bearing amount ) would be reduced to XXXX under the principle reduction alternative. 

The information on the PRA letter of XX/XX/XXXX was different from previous correspondence we received from Citizens One regarding the Pay-For-Performance payments we received towards the interest bearing principle. We had previously received notices regarding applying {$1000.00} to our principle ( interest bearing amount ) each year from XXXX to XXXX. There was also a letter we received towards the end of XXXX from Citizens One indicating a payment of {$5000.00} would be applied because we had continued our monthly payments in the HAMP program. We received a total of {$10000.00} applied to the interest bearing principle. However, we took notice the XX/XX/XXXX letter regarding the PRA forbearance that indicated the principle reduction amount of {$100000.00} ( non-interest bearing ) would be extinguished if we completed the mortgage payments during the 36 month period. 

We have recently conducted additional research regarding the matter and believe that we qualified for the principle reduction alternative. It appears to us that measures to maintain our HAMP account should have been implemented by the original lender, Citizens One, and/or the new servicer, XXXX, to complete the PRA program. We also question why our mortgage was sold by Citizens One in XXXX, XXXX with 9 months to go, and prior to the completion of the 36 month period, under the PRA requirement.

We believe we qualified for the PRA based on the criteria required under the HAMP approval process in XXXX, XXXX. We also believe that we qualified based on the criteria required for the PRA in which we owed significantly more that the home was worth, our homeowner 's loan was prior to XX/XX/XXXX, the first mortgage amount was less than {$720000.00}, we had the original mortgage payment over 31 % of our gross monthly income, we were in arrears with our mortgage payments and we had sufficient and documented income to support the new modified payment that reduce our monthly payment in XXXX, XXXX to {$1300.00}. 

We bought our current home on XX/XX/XXXX through lender, Charter One, that was name-changed to CCO Mortgage and later name-changed again to Citizens One. The original loan amount was actually {$650000.00} under the Charter One Home-to-Home program that covered our previous home and our present home. Our previous home stayed on the market for an additional 4 months in which we were paying 2 mortgages during that time. The original price of our current home was {$450.00} and after settlement costs/payments from the proceeds form the sale of our previous home in XXXX, XXXX, we showed a balance of {$350000.00}. Plus Citizens One gave us an immediated home equity loan up to {$44000.00}, shortly after we moved into the new current home in XXXX, XXXX. 

Our HAMP application made through Citizens One Home Loans was approved for XXXX, XXXX to begin with the HAMP program XX/XX/XXXX after having completed a trial period of three consecutive monthly mortgage payments. The actual Home Affordable Modification Agreement was signed and dated on XX/XX/XXXX showing a total modified balance of {$330000.00} ; consisting of a new deferred principle balance of {$100000.00} ( non-interest bearing amount ) and a new principle balance of XXXX ( interest bearing amount with a beginning interest rate of 2 % ). There was also an outstanding lien balance {$44000.00} against our property that was accumulated through the Citizens One home equity account at the time we filed for HAMP. We also noticed that the Citizens One 2nd mortgage lien amount of {$44000.00} extinguished after we completed a couple of years in this federal government HAMP program. 

When we filed for Chapter XXXX bankruptcy in XXXX, XXXX after I became unemployed in early XXXX due the downward economy caused by the mortgage/Banking crisis and my wife was the only one working in the family. At the time of modification application in XXXX, XXXX, her gross salary was {$4200.00} monthly. 

We believe that Citizens One and XXXX would have had a legal obligation under federal law to properly administer our HAMP in a timely fashion. We also believe that Citizens One and/or XXXX benefited by receiving additional PRA investor incentive payments through the HAMP/PRA during the 36 months from XXXX, XXXX to XXXX, XXXX, when we were required to make our monthly mortgage payments. 

In our XX/XX/XXXX letter to Citizens One, we asked them to look for ancillary documentation connected to the PRA Forbearance letter that we received on or about XX/XX/XXXX. Specifically, we asked about any investor incentive payments that the federal government ( US Treasury or XXXX XXXX XXXX ) would have made to Citizens One and/or XXXX in three successive payments each year from XXXX to XXXX. If Citizens One pursued the information contained in their XX/XX/XXXX letter regarding PRA Forbearance and requirements, we would think that they would've received these incentive payments that are probably contain on a separate payment ledger received from the government. 

Our question regarding incentive payments to the lender and/or servicer was based on information provided by the IRS and later verified through the Treasury website. 

The IRS web-page titled Principal Reduction Alternative Under the Home Affordable Modification Program indicates in-part as follows : In connection with every HAMP modification of a loan that is not owned or guaranteed by XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, to encourage participation in HAMP, the government provides incentives to the investor ( that is, the holder of the loan ), to the homeowner, and to the servicer. If a HAMP modification of such a mortgage loan includes a PRA principal reduction, the government makes additional incentive payments over three years to the investor. ( These additional incentives are called " PRA investor incentive payments. '' ) The size of the PRA investor incentive payments depends not only on the amount of principal reduced but also on the loan-to-value ratio and the loans payment history before the HAMP modification. The PRA investor incentive payments range from 6 % to 21 % of the principal amount reduced ... 

Therefore, it is also our understanding that the federal government, under PRA, would have made additional incentive payments over the three year period from XXXX, XXXX to XXXX, XXXX. We believe Citizens One and/or XXXX Loan would have benefited from the PRA incentive payments as our mortgage was sold in XXXX, XXXX, which is 9 months prior to the ending of our PRA period on XX/XX/XXXX. Under the PRA period from XXXX, XXXX to XXXX, XXXX, we have complied with the government rules that required us to make the 36 consecutive monthly mortgage payments in order to benefit from the PRA in this matter. 

Please note that under the homeowner 's incentive program of Pay-For-Performance where we received credits totaling {$10000.00} from the years XXXX through XXXX without having to provide any HAMP documentation to Citizens One. In fact, we have never previously had to provide any documentation while receiving proper benefits that the government provided under HAMP. It is also our view is that the HAMP program is administered by the Lender/Servicer, who may have received incentive compensation to administer this HAMP program and should have sufficient documentation in our mortgage file to activate the PRA/Forbearance that should have reduced it to XXXX  around XXXX, XXXX. 

A follow recent up at the Treasury website regarding HAMP and the PRA indicates the mortgage company has the responsibility to preserve all documention regarding HAMP. We're not sure if Citizens One has complied with the Treasury Department 's requirements. Based on Citizen One 's response to dismiss our questions regarding HAMP, we are now wondering if Citizens One forgot to enter the necessary requests to the federal government to complete our principle reduction alternative under our HAMP account. 

We have complied with all requirements in HAMP/PRA and ask that CPFB give this inquiry a thorough review. We are very concerned with these two mortgage companies and request that CPFB take an in-depth look into this matter. We have been given the run around too many times to expect that Citizens One will even actually look into our inquiry. We believe the CPFB should request and review our complete HAMP/PRA file in this matter to inform us what mistakes have taken place regarding our HAMP account. All indications regarding the PRA process indicates the {$100000.00} ( non-interest bearing ) should have been reduce to XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX. It is now 3 years later and the two mortgage companies have done nothing regarding our requests for answers in this matter. 

If we are not provided an adequate response with verified information/documentation to our inquiry, we may need to contact the US Treasury Department for a further review. Someone needs to take a closer look at the information and documentation in our HAMP file. 

Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation