Consumer complaint received 2025-07-10 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
We enrolled in PHH Mortgages biweekly payment program for mortgage account with the understanding that this program would follow industry-standard accelerated biweekly mortgage termswhere XXXX half-payments annually result in XXXX extra payments per year applied directly to principal, thereby reducing total interest and accelerating the loan payoff. 

Beginning in XX/XX/year>, we authorized biweekly payments of {$2100.00}, equal to half of our monthly payment. At no pointin the biweekly payment authorization form, the mortgage documents, or in multiple phone conversations with PHH representativeswere we informed that payments would be held in a suspense account and not applied until a full monthly amount was accumulated. In fact, PHH representatives explicitly confirmed that we were enrolled in an accelerated plan and would benefit from the additional annual principal reduction. 

After noticing that our balance was not decreasing as expected, we contacted PHH and received a written response stating : Biweekly payments are considered partial payments. These are held in the suspense account until the full monthly payment amount is received. Once the full amount is available, it is then applied to the account. 

This response reveals for the first time that PHH has unilaterally implemented a non-accelerated structure, and withheld application of paymentscontrary to our understanding, the verbal guidance we received, and the terms disclosed in writing. 

Regulatory Concerns : This practice raises serious compliance concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus ( CFPB ) UDAAP standards : Deceptive Practices : PHH failed to clearly disclose in writing that payments would be treated as partial and held in suspense. The lack of clear language in the signed agreement and conflicting oral statements may mislead a reasonable consumer into believing they are enrolled in an accelerated plan, when in fact they are not. 

Unfair Practices : A consumer making accelerated biweekly payments in good faith is financially disadvantaged when those payments are not applied in a timely manner to reduce interest or loan term. The suspense account approach contradicts the reasonable expectations of a biweekly payment plan, especially when the servicer offers no transparent amortization schedule or clear notice of how payments are treated. 

Regulatory Disclosure Violations : Under Regulation Z ( TILA ) and Mortgage Servicing Rules, servicers must provide consumers with clear and accurate information about how payments will be applied. PHHs documentation does not disclose the use of suspense accounts, nor does it explain that no acceleration benefit is actually delivered unless explicitly requested or structured. 

Requested Resolution : Retroactive correction of payment application, applying extra biweekly payments directly to principal from the program start in XX/XX/year>. 

Termination of the suspense account model for our mortgage. 

Written confirmation that we are now properly enrolled in a true accelerated biweekly mortgage plan, with ongoing application of extra payments to principal. 

An updated amortization schedule showing our new projected payoff date and cumulative interest savings. 

A review of PHHs biweekly payment disclosures, scripts, and servicing practices for compliance with CFPB mortgage servicing guidelines. 

We relied in good faith on PHHs materials and representations. The programs actual structure contradicts both what was presented and our reasonable expectations, and we believe it qualifies as a deceptive and unfair practice under CFPB regulations. 

We are seeking resolution and accountability to avoid continued financial harm and ensure proper treatment of our mortgage payments.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation