Consumer complaint received 2025-11-02 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT TO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU - CONTINUATION OF CFPB CASE NO. XXXX Borrower : XXXX XXXX Lender/Servicer : NewRez LLC Mortgage account XXXX XXXX XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Subject : Violation of RESPA 6 / 12 CFR 1024.35 ( Error Resolution ) and TILA 129G / 12 CFR 1026.36 ( c ) ( Prompt Payment Crediting ) due to Servicer 's Rescission of a Prior Written Resolution and Failure to Implement Agreed-Upon Bi-Weekly Payment Crediting.

1. Introduction & Pattern of Conduct I am filing this follow-up complaint regarding NewRez 's failure to resolve a servicing error and its subsequent rescission of a written resolution, which constitutes a new and separate violation.

A pattern is evident in NewRez 's servicing. When I correspond directly, responses are delayed with repeated requests for " more time '' ( e.g., Letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/year> ). However, upon the filing of my initial CFPB complaint on XX/XX/year>, NewRez produced a detailed response by XX/XX/year>. This demonstrates that prompt resolution is possible, yet is only undertaken under regulatory oversight. 

2. Summary of the Issue On XX/XX/year>, NewRez provided a written resolution ( Exhibit 13 ) to my Notice of Error, agreeing to : 1. Retroactively apply my bi-weekly payments effective the date funds were received.

2. Mail me a custom bi-weekly amortization schedule within 10 business days. 

NewRez never fulfilled the amortization schedule promise. 

In its XX/XX/year>, response to CFPB ( Exhibit 16 ), NewRez unilaterally rescinded the agreement, citing " system limitations '' and apologizing for " misinformation. '' With the response I received on XX/XX/year>, NewRez showed two flaws : 1. A servicer can not resolve an error in writing and then, weeks later, simply declare that resolution " erroneous '' without violating RESPA 's error-resolution procedures. 

3. Chronology of Facts & Legal Violations : XXXX. XX/XX/year> ( Exhibit 06 ) : I submitted a written request for a true bi-weekly payment plan, where each half-payment is credited upon receipt as required by TILA ( 12 CFR 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ).

3.2. XX/XX/year> ( Exhibit 08 ) : After NewRez 's initial non responsive reply, I sent a follow-up that constituted a formal Notice of Error ( NOE ) under RESPA ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ), specifically citing : 3.2.1 Failure to apply an accepted payment as agreed.

3.2.2 Failure to credit a payment as of the date of receipt. 

3.3. XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 10, 11, 12 ) : NewRez sent me several letters delaying my requesting, " more time '' to respond. 

3.4. XX/XX/year> ( Exhibit 13 ) : NewRez acknowledged the error and provided a written resolution, agreeing to my requested crediting method and promising a custom amortization schedule. This letter created a binding commitment. 

3.5. XX/XX/year> ( Exhibit 14 ) : Due to NewRez 's delay in providing the promised amortization schedule, I sent a written reminder, indicating that I will send my complaint to the CFPB. 

3.6. XX/XX/year> ( Exhibit 15 ) : NewRez continued sending me delay letter. 

3.7. XX/XX/year> ( Exhibit 16 ) : NewRez responded through CFPB breached its agreement, stating it could not honor the XX/XX/XXXX resolution and reaffirming its non compliant practice of holding partial payments in suspense. 

4. Legal Analysis : NewRez Violated RESPA 's Error-Resolution Procedures ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ) 4.1. A servicer must respond to an NOE within a specified timeframe. NewRez 's serial " more time '' letters, followed by a definitive resolution ( Exhibit 13 ) and subsequent retraction ( Exhibit 16 ), demonstrates a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide a final, accurate response. A resolved error can not be " un-resolved '' without triggering a new violation.

4.2. NewRez Violated TILA 's Prompt Crediting Rule ( 12 CFR 1026.36 ( c ) ) : The law is clear : " A servicer shall credit a periodic payment to the consumer 's loan account as of the date of receipt. '' NewRez 's policy of holding the first half payment in a suspense account ( as admitted in its ACH form, Exhibit 18 ) is a direct violation. 
" System limitations '' are not a legal defense. Servicers are required to maintain systems that comply with federal law. NewRez 's inability to generate a bi-weekly amortization schedule is an admission that its system is not configured to comply with the prompt crediting rule, which is itself a non compliance with the regulations.

4.3. The Amortization Schedule is Essential for Verification and Transparency The promised amortization schedule is not a mere courtesy ; it is the controlling math that operationalizes the agreed crediting method and enables audit against statements and payoff quotes ( which must be provided within 7 business days upon written request ). ( 15 U.S.C. 1639g. ) It is the necessary tool to verify that NewRez is complying with the law and its own agreement.Without it, I can not confirm that NewRez is applying as of receipt ( or properly retro applying component halves to their receipt dates once the monthly threshold is met ). The missing schedule is the core gap that forces ongoing disputes.

Company public response: Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation