Consumer complaint received 2017-10-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX c/o XXXX XXXX ( P.O.A ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ga XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, had responded on the behalf of Ditech, LLC ( servicer ) & XXXX XXXX ( investor ) in regards to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliant against the decision of loan modification. 
Once again, XXXX XXXX XXXX, has neglected to inform us why Ditech, LLC made us to complete the loss mitigation forms TWICE knowing that account was NOT DELINQUENT 90 DAYS. As I have stated, we fully understand why decision was made ; however, the decision that was provided could have prevented a lot of wasted time, long waiting, and paperwork to be completed if was advise at the beginning process. Ditech LLC made this a difficult process, and stated the first set of forms that were not submitted on time & the required documents were missing. However, the forms were sent in on time, and had the fax confirmation to prove the documents were sent in on time. 
As I have stated, NO ONE from Ditech LLC or XXXX XXXX had even made an attempt to advise us to BE APPROVED FOR THE LOSS MITIGATION PROGRAM THE ACCOUNT MUST BE DELINQUENT. Therefore, if SOMEONE would have advised from reviewing XXXX XXXX account it appears that the account is NOT DELINQUENT 90 DAYS to complete the Loss Mitigation Program Forms. Then at this point we could have asked FOR what other options we could have made to XXXX XXXX mortgage cheaper. ONCE AGAIN, we were advised to complete the Loss Mitigation to make XXXX XXXX mortgage cheaper. 
Yes, the representative did advise XXXX XXXX of the Know Your Options website after the decision was made on XX/XX/XXXX OF DENIED BASED ON THE ACCOUNT IS NOT DELINQUENT 90 DAYS as XXXX XXXX XXXX stated. However, the Know Your Options is a good tool to use to let consumers know if they would meet the qualifications of a Loss Mitigation Program, but we did not know about this website until XX/XX/XXXX. 
In addition, XXXX XXXX stated, we were provided other options in regards to Loss Mitigation on XX/XX/XXXX. If the representative did provide additional Loss Mitigation options from DITECH, LLC, THEN WHY ARE WE COMPLAINING AGAINST DITECH, LLC & WHERE ARE THOSE ADDITIONAL LOSS MITIGATION FORMS THAT COULD BE FILLED OUT? 
Furthermore, XXXX XXXX website do explain Know Your Options ;  however, the website do explain in details the qualifications of XXXX XXXX Loss Mitigation Program, and that any XXXX XXXX mortgage accounts MUST BE DELINQUENT 90 DAYS. 
Since the representative did advise of the Know Your Options website, here is the proof that Ditech, LLC is aware of the guidelines of the process to approve a consumer for the XXXX XXXX Loss Mitigation Program. Therefore, IF we were advised prior of XX/XX/XXXX of this information, then we could figure another way to make the XXXX XXXX mortgage cheaper. 
After filing a complaint the first time against Ditech, LLC, and we were made to complete the LOSS MITIGATION FORMS FOR A SECOND TIME. Once again we were advised that some documents were missing & additional documents are required to complete the process of the Loss Mitigation Forms, but not the account is not DELINQUENT 90 DAYS. Finally, the representative XXXX XXXX that is stated by XXXX XXXX in his response to the complaint on XX/XX/XXXX, is not the account representative that we have been working with during this process. The account representative name is XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX is the representative stating that XXXX XXXX is not approved based on the account not being Delinquent 90 days. 
Until we receive an answer on WHY WE WERE MADE TO FILE THEM FORMS OUT TWICE KNOWING THE ACCOUNT WAS NOT DELINQUET 90 DAYS, then I am going to complain until this made right. 

Thanks XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, had responded on the behalf of Ditech, LLC ( servicer ) & XXXX XXXX ( investor ) in regards to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliant against the decision of her loan modification. Yes,  XXXX XXXX is aware that the decision of the loan modification was based on the guidelines of XXXX XXXX loan modification program. 
However, XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX wanted to know why, XXXX XXXX XXXX, was made to complete the loan modification twice, and both Ditech LLC & XXXX knew that XXXX XXXX mortgage was not delinquent. XXXX XXXX has spoken to several representatives at Ditech LLC, the account representative XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX with XXXX XXXX, and none of those individuals had advised, XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, that the mortgage does not meet the qualification of the loan modification program. 
As matter of fact, XXXX XXXX was required twice to answers questions to see if the account met the qualification of the loan modification program, and each time representative was advised that, XXXX XXXX is barely making the mortgage payments based on her SSI income of {$800.00}. Once again, nobody informed them that the account had to be 60 days delinquent or death or divorce or disability. XXXX XXXX stated, Pursuant to the investors modification guidelines, a loan applicant must show imminent default if the loan is not more than sixty days past due. Imminent default is considered one of the following events : Death Divorce Disability Ditechs records reflect that we received a completed loss mitigation application from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX loan was reviewed for a modification and the enclosed modification denial letter was sent on XX/XX/XXXX, as the loan is current and XXXX XXXX did not provide any evidence of imminent default. If XXXX XXXX was advised of these requirements before completing all the required documents twice, XXXX XXXX caused have requested for another form of assistance ; however, XXXX XXXX was not advised & that is not just. 
Furthermore, XXXX XXXX stated, XXXX XXXX is able to appeal the decision if she believes the determination was made in error.Once a complaint was submitted to the Consumer Finance on, XX/XX/XXXX, that was XXXX XXXX filing appeal against the decision that was made that was not brought to her attention prior to completing those documents. 
In addition, XXXX XXXX stated, We are committed to working with XXXX XXXX on her loss mitigation needs. Please have XXXX XXXX contact Ditech at XXXX with additional questions or concerns.However, XXXX XXXX did call on, XX/XX/XXXX, and the representative advised XXXX XXXX to sell XXXX XXXX home since she can not afford to keep the house. Therefore, Ditech LLC was not committed on working with XXXX XXXX, and no additional options were provided on the committed on working with XXXX XXXX when the letter from Ditech LLC was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Finally, why were the documents made to be completed & individuals were aware the account was not delinquent. Therefore, this is not just & is wrong on the behalf of Ditech LLC & XXXX XXXX who are committed to working with XXXX XXXX. 

Thanks XXXX XXXX Below is the letter sent to Consumer Finance on XX/XX/XXXX.

XX/XX/XXXX The purpose of this letter is to file a complaint against Ditech LLC ( servicer ) & XXXX XXXX ( investor ). 
Around XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX had contacted Ditech ( servicer ) for some assistance on the mortgage payments. XXXX XXXX advised the representative the mortgage payments are almost amount received for her SSI. Thus, XXXX XXXX is experiencing financial hardship due increase of expenses around the house. The representative confirmed that Ditech can aid with this request, but XXXX XXXX is required answer a few questions to see if qualified to receive some forms from XXXX XXXX to aid with her request of a manageable mortgage payment. 
I, XXXX XXXX, am XXXX XXXX son, and I assisted my mother with answering those questions & filling out the forms ; however, XXXX XXXX or I was not advised the main requirement required to be approve for assistance from Ditech & XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX & I was never advised by all the representatives & supervisors from Ditech, letters from Ditech, missing documents from Ditech & XXXX w/ XXXX XXXX , XXXX response from the file compliant, XXXX 15 days investigating against Ditech , emails from XXXX , and phone calls with XXXX that we were advised that XXXX XXXX mortgage payments must be 60 to 90 days delinquent before providing any assistance. 

Therefore, our thought process is why send the forms for assistance twice, why tell us what documents were missing, why send all the required documents & forms for assistance, and why do a 15 days investigation if Ditech & XXXX w/ XXXX XXXX  both knew XXXX XXXX mortgage payments were not delinquent & the account would not be approved because of this reason. 
When XXXX XXXX called Ditech on XX/XX/XXXX to see why, and a representative stated it was XXXX XXXX who made the decision & that maybe my mother should sell her home if she could not afford her home. However, XXXX w/ XXXX XXXX stated it was Ditech who made the decision, and it was nothing XXXX XXXX could do as an investor. Then XXXX XXXX refused to provide XXXX XXXX with a supervisor, that all supervisors have a set schedule, the supervisors do not wait after XXXX to speak with consumers, and stated did advised XXXX XXXX of the 60 90 days delinquent. 
Thus, I reviewed all letters, documents, & emails very careful before writing this letter, and it was nothing said about the 60 90 days delinquent requirements. Now, XXXX XXXX mortgage payments are going to be {$860.00} w/ a SSI income of {$800.00}. All the letters & documents stated some kind of assistance would be provided ; however, we only got a rejected letter. 

Thanks XXXX XXXX

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