Consumer complaint received 2018-03-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)
State: IN

Complaint narrative:
My mortgage is currently serviced by Bayview ( BV ). XXXX XXXX, which is the single point of contact assigned to our account. My loan is backed by XXXX   XXXX ( XXXX ) and is currently delinquent. On many occasions, I have sought loss mitigation efforts with BV and contacted XXXX XXXX regarding the same. BV, has refused to process my loan modification and issue unclear underwriting determinations. Per E-3.4-01, Suspending Foreclosure Proceedings for Workout Negotiations ( XX/XX/2016 ), When a delinquent mortgage loan is referred to a law firm, the servicer must continue to work with the borrower to bring the mortgage loan current or finalize a workout arrangement up to the date of the foreclosure sale, unless the servicer has determined that all workout options are not feasible, to make a reasonable effort to modify the loan. Since the loan is insured by the XXXX, this regulation applies, as well as the liability reporting valid information to HUD / FA. It is clear that violations of the False Claims Act ( FCA ), 31 USC 3729 - 3733,  since they knowingly withheld information and reported false records to a Federal Government Agency. 

BV, has also advised that they refuse to offer a standard foreclosure mediation, which is a requirement per Indiana law. This is a clear violation of Indiana Code 32-30-10.5. Per the IN statute, clear notification must be sent to the home owner, giving the option for standard foreclosure mediation. BV, has set a foreclosure sale date for XXXX, during the period where mediation and loss mitigation should be occurring. 

BV, is in clear violation of False Claims Act, RESPA law and IN Code 32-10.5. BV, has imposed a foreclosure sale date on XXXX. Overall, I feel deceived by BV, on a number of counts and I am seeking your assistance on this matter. 

While trying to acquire information on these workout programs BV, agent XXXX XXXX violated the FDCPA, failing to properly verify 3rd party or state the mini Miranda prior to disclosing personal account information on his call on XXXX. The mini-Miranda is merely one element of the substantial, complex regulatory requirements set forth by the FDCPA. For collection agencies, ensuring the appropriate use of the mini-Miranda and other communications is a critical component of regulatory compliance, and for consumers, its a valuable protection against unfair and deceptive debt collection practices. The FDCPA requires that a collector make meaningful disclosure of their identity when calling a debtor ( 15 USC 1692d ( 6 ) ) and that whenever communicating with a debtor, must disclose that the call is coming from a debt collector ( 15 USC 1692e ( 11 ) ). Therefore, on its face, this appears to be a violation of these two sections of the FDCPA. After all, they called, they spoke to the debtor, and they failed to identify who they are or that they were a debt collector. A collector can not pick and choose which sections of the FDCPA are better to violate. They can not violate any section. 

You can reach me via email at XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation