Consumer complaint received 2017-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
At the time that my mortgage on XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX CA XXXX was previously successfully modified by OCWENs Home Retention Division in XX/XX/XXXX, the Company continued to remain negligently unaware that the subject property was not located on one property parcel ( Parcel # XXXX ), but rather two ( Parcel # XXXX and # XXXX ). This is despite the letter that I wrote dated XX/XX/XXXX to OCWEN, in which I diligently attempted to make the Company aware of their quite consequential error. My letter was ignored, as were my attempts to make this reality known to Customer Relationship Managers over the phone. Thus, while OCWEN properly established an escrow account to ensure that XXXX XXXX property tax payments were made in full and on time for the lot with Parcel # XXXX, the same payments were entirely neglected for Parcel # XXXX. Over the ensuing years, this then negligently resulted in unpaid back property taxes totalling over 44K by XX/XX/XXXX, whensingularly through my initiative and over time in collaboration with the OCWEN Consumer Ombudsman Officethese overdue taxes were then paid off in full just prior to the property becoming legally subject to the Countys impending Power to Sell. Through the Companys negligent inaction, it had thus risked my familys home, our financial livelihood, and our well-being, not to mention the homes and well-being of our tenantsonly in the 11th hour doing the right thing and paying off the account. However, because to their neglect of this second parcel, at the time that the terms of my previous mortgage modification were finalized in XX/XX/XXXX, these terms neglected to take into account the ongoing tax costs associated with this second parcel. The resulting mortgage modification is thus fundamentally flawed and entirely for unnecessary reasons that rest on OCWENs past negligence and errors in properly managing their accounting for this property. While my current adjusted payment of {$2800.00} is indeed manageable for myself and my family on an ongoing basis, demonstrating the basic reasonableness of the financial analysis that led to it in the first place, now that the escrow account has undergone its review and needs to now be reimbursed for this single large payout of over $ 44Kthe result would be that our monthly payments would instead ratchet up to {$4200.00}. Not surprisingly, based on OCWENs own previous financial analysis, this amount is far more than we can sustainably pay on a monthly basis. Thus next month I am again facing a payment that I can not make, should not have to make, and will not makeall due to OCWENs past mistakes and poor accounting, not my own.
Due to the above reasons, OCWEN 's Consumer Ombudsman 's Office has agreed to serve as an internal liaison to their mortgage modification division, expressly to safeguard me from being legally responsible for the {$4200.00} XX/XX/XXXX payment that is currently about to unfairly come due. Instead, they have agreed to fasttrack my application so that it can go through with approval prior to the XX/XX/XXXX payment deadline. It is for these reasons that I found it especially disturbing to receive a letter from OCWEN dated XX/XX/XXXX which appears to once again resort to OCWEN 's corporate policy of general delay and obstructionism with regard to mortgage modification. While one hand is promising expeditious treatment for just reasons, the other is throwing up the needless redtape that so often characterizes OCWEN 's extremely poor track record of customer relations.
The letter claims that OCWEN is " not able to evaluate your request for mortgage assistance because you have not submitted all the required documents ''. It then goes into some detail about what supplementary info is still required : 1 ) " Please complete the enclosed Request for Mortgage Assistance Form ( signed and dated by all contributing parties '' = > No such form is " enclosed '' with the letter sent. This is also the name of the entire document, so essentially they are asking me to start from scratch, filling out the entire very lengt
hy application that they have then not bothered to provide.
2 ) " The following section should be resent : Borrower Acknowledgment and Agreement '' = > This is the name of Section 14 of the application document, only trouble with what they say is, it was filled out completely  and signed on XX/XX/XXXX and sent via email on XX/XX/XXXX to OCWEN. They are simply lying here. The document only requires a signature of the borrower ( there 's only one, me ) and the date. It has both. The very idea that they would ask me to resubmit such an obviously complete and very simple document is insulting. 3 ) " The following section should be resent : Hardship Statement '' = > Similarly, they are only again asking me here to submit a form that I have already submitted completely. I filled it out in full, signed it, and dated it on XX/XX/XXXX.  OCWEN received it XX/XX/XXXX. I queried one of OCWEN 's Customer Relationship Managers extensively to be sure that I checked off all the correct boxes on the form. I provided a detailed page-long explanation of our hardship that is nearly identical to the opening paragraphs of this complaint. It is very difficult to imagine how what I provided is insufficient to evaluate my request for mortgage assistance.
4 ) " Please return documentation from the provider showing the amount and frequency of the other benefit, such as letters, exhibits, or benefits statement. '' = > Apparently, my wife is supposed to provide something additional here, though exactly what was requested was what was supplied, again after extensive querying of an OCWEN Customer Relationship Manager. However, this request is stated so generally ( " documentation '' " provider '' " benefit '' ) that it almost appears to intentionally obscure what proof is being requested. Since they have all the documentation to make the request specific, and thus something which could be properly answered, why do they do nothing of the sort?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation