Consumer complaint received 2017-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
This is to document CITIBANK ( mortgage servicer ) and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   As Trustee For   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   are acting in BAD FAITH in negotiating remodification with us.
<P/>  NEW EXAMPLE of BAD FAITH and BAD POLICY AIMED to guarantee foreclosure by CITIBANK and  XXXX   XXXX .  <P/> As of    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   al l pertinent information  CITIBANK  required to send our file to underwriting was sent via email. In return, twice via email, on    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   a nd again on    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX      we were told by our Mortgage Supervisor at CITIBANK,  XXXX   XXXX  that if any new document was needed by underwriting we would be informed.  <P/> On    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX      we were informed via email that CITIBANK did need an additional document.  <P/> HOWEVER, on    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    we receive d 7 l etters from CITIBANK and  XXXX   XXXX  lawyers that our apartment was put into directly to auction/sale. The letter was dated    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  .   <P/> This illustrates th at CITIBANK NEV ER intended to give us ample warning or time to comply. INSTEAD, without a Letter of Denial or any communication ( in a  timely manner BEFORE THE FACT ), that would allow us to comply, CITIBANK proc eeded to auction/sale.  <P/> NOTE :  XXXX   XXXX , our Mortgage Support Specialists is either away for illness or on vacation and is impossible to get in touch with as is par for the course with CITIBANK specialists who claim to be there to help but are rarely available and in this case, DID NOT inform us in a TIMELY manner that the bank needed a document.  <P/> On   XX/XX/XXXX ,  we spoke to one of  XXXX   XXXX  supervisors,  XXXX , and were told that the steps mentioned above were, in fact,  CITIBANK POLICY .  <P/> That mean that CITIBANK POLICY of informing consumers that a document is needed for underwriting AFTER THE FACT and proceeding directly to auction DEPRIVES the consumer of ANY ability or chance to comply. It is BAD FAITH policy and proves that  CITIBANK  and  XXXX   XXXX  have no intention of honest negotiation. Absent their directives/instructions, we can not know what forms are needed for underwriting unless we are informed in a way that gives us a chance to provide them before they proceed to sale.  <P/> This so-calle d POLICY not only sets the consumer up for failure as a matter of course, also seems designed to add tremendous stress to an already stressful situation. This POLICY i s designed to proceed directly to auction.  <P/> The requested documents were duly sent to  Citibank  on   XX/XX/XXXX .   <P/> NOTE : We WANT and are ready to remodify our mortgage to stay in our home. We can not do this if  CITIBANKS POLICY is s et against the consumer, and whats more, that policy is based upon being dishonest. CITIBANK claims we are non-compliant by not providing the document and YET they had already put our home up for auction/sale (   XX/XX/XXXX   ) BEFORE informing us that document was needed  (  XX/XX/XXXX   ). How could we possibly comply?

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation