Consumer complaint received 2016-07-10 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Select Porfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) works for our Bank ( s ) as the mortgage servicer for their Mortgage Loans, billing the Banks customers like us, as a collection agency, and processing our Assistance Review Applications for loss mitigation and Foreclosure Prevention. 
In our case, SPS has been processing our Assistance Review Application for the best part of a year. My wife and I requested an Assistance Review last XXXX 2015 when our income increased to prevent a foreclosure on our home of 17 years. We originally submitted over XXXX ( XXXX ) pages of documents that SPS requested including their Application and Affidavitt. Since then, SPS has requested additional documents " the Required Information '' on a continued basis, more often than a on monthly. In many cases they request additional documents that we sent and SPS received 30 or 60 days prior. We always mail the documents they request with a detailed cover letter via Registered Mail with Return Receipt required ( see Attachments ) so we can verify if and when SPS received them. However, the request for " additional information '' keep comming week after week and month after month. Each time SPS claims " we have performed an additional rewiew and have determined that the submitted documentation is insufficient or additional information is needed '', and that " Before we ( SPS ) can begin the evaluation process, you ( my wife and I ) are required to submit a complete application. '' While all of this is very burdensome and frustrating for us as borrowers, and though it could be possible that SPS loses a lot of our documents on a regular basis ; a more likely explanation deserves to be checked by CFPB, as we have heard that this same frustration happens to other borrowers in our same position. It appears that there is a system of DUAL TRACKING that the Banks are using to file and continue a Foreclosure Action against their borrowers in the Courts while a separate entity such as SPS is processing their borrowers ' Assistance Review Applications. This serves the purpose of circunventing or nullifying the USA Department of the Treasury, Office of the Controller of the Currency ( OCC ) program of Foreclosure Prevention that states that " preference should be given to activities designed to keep the borrower in the home. '' In our case, SPS, on behalf of our Bank ( s ) starts and continues processing our Assistance Review Application while XXXX ( XXXX ) files a Foreclosure Action and moves it through the Court while ignoring a previous Assistance Review Application ( ARA ) that we had filed with XXXX ( see CFPB Cases # XXXX & # XXXX ). XXXX then " passes '' our ARA to SPS to delay it until the Trial date approaches so SPS can complete and reject our ARA a few weeks prior to the Foreclosure Trial and our qualifying for Loss Mitigation is not an issue to continue the Trial. After we filed our two CFPB above for DECEIVING BANKING PRACTICES and VIOLATION of an OCC Consent Order, our Foreclosure Action was transfered or assigned to XXXX ( XXXX ) effectively changing or " passing '' both the servicer of our Mortgage Loan to SPS, and the Bank holding the note to XXXX ( see CFPB Cases # XXXX & # XXXX ). 

This orquestrated sequence of operations and changes of institutions takes us to today, when SPS, after almost ten ( 10 ) months of processing our Assistance Review Application, have finally proclaimed that they have received all the documents needed to evaluate our Loss Mitigation Assistance, as last time, it happened only weeks before our Trial Date. 

We PRAY that CFPB checks the actions of SPS as well as the Banks involved in this Complaint ( and others shown above ) and disrupts this pattern of circunventing and deceipt being used by the Banks and Mortgage Servicing Companies like SPS.

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