Consumer complaint received 2015-08-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
I lost my job in XXXX 2015, and I was unable to make mortgage payments from XXXX through XXXX ( XXXX months ). When I was rehired in XXXX, I attempted to start making payments for XXXX forward, but those payments were rejected. Carrington will only accept full payment of the arrearage. I have escrowed those payments, and I will continue to do so. We are ready to resume making payments, and we are simply trying to figure out a way to structure payments for the four months of mortgage that are outstanding. 

We reached out to the original lender ( XXXX ) for mortgage assistance the very day I found out I was laid off. In the middle of that process, the loan was sold to Carrington, and we had to begin the RMA process again. After sending and resending documents, the RMA was denied on XXXX because of a lack of proper paperwork. We were not able to produce some of the paperwork, and we explained that in very specific correspondence. ( The biggest frustration was that we were told by XXXX to submit an explanation letter with our RMA response to detail each of the variances. When speaking with the Carrington representative about the denial, she told us the firm expected each of the concerns to be sent as separate letters. We were denied, in part, because we sent XXXX letter outlining all of the issues instead of sending multiple letters. ) Figuring this was just a paperwork error, we were offered the opportunity to file another RMA - and we did so. ( Within XXXX days of being denied. ) We were told a representative from XXXX XXXX XXXX would contact us to assist us in preparing the RMA, but we never received any contact from XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX from Carrington ( who has been our main point of contact ) spoke with me on XXXX, and she indicated Carrington was missing : certain pages of the RMA, XXXX paystubs each from my wife and me, and our XXXX tax returns. We sent all of that information on XXXX. We also included a letter of explanation regarding our pay stubs : I had only received XXXX paystubs at the time because I started my new job on XXXX, and XXXX was transitioning from PT to FT employment so she did not have paystubs showing her FT employment. All of the documents I sent were routed to XXXX 's email address as well as the XXXXXXXXXXXX email address. I resent the files on XXXX to both email addresses. On XXXX, I received an email from XXXX informing me the file was complete and was being sent to underwriting where it would remain for XXXX days. 

On or about XXXX, I was informed there were still issues with the paperwork - missing pages from the RMA and missing paystubs. I sent the RMA again on XXXX and send a payroll report from my employer ( with an explanation that obtaining replacement paystubs was not possible ) to both emails on XXXX. On XXXX, I had XXXX paystubs from the XXXX prior weeks, and I scanned and sent them to both emails. Since I knew we were on a deadline, I called Carrington and asked the representative to confirm that the information I sent was sufficient. She told me that it would take XXXX days for Carrington to review the information. 

We were notified earlier this week that our RMA was once again denied - because Carrington did not have XXXX consecutive paystubs from me. What they had was a payroll record from my company showing all of my pay from XXXX ( my start date ) to XXXX ( the date of the report ) + XXXX additional paystubs. 

This is really simple : We missed XXXX mortgage payments because I was laid off. We are ready to start paying normally from XXXX forward. We just need to figure out how to manage the 4 months where we missed the payment. There is no need for all of this paperwork - and for the frustration of being denied repeatedly because of an overly automated process. Ca n't a human being get involved to make this happen? It 's an amazingly simple opportunit

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