Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief
Company: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
Carrington Mortgage Services Servicing Misconduct, Address Misuse, Premature Attorney Involvement, and Document Deficiencies I am submitting this supplemental complaint to provide additional evidence of significant servicing misconduct by Carrington Mortgage Services. This includes misrepresentation by staff, improper use of counsel, violations of federal servicing law, and the transmission of noncompliant deed-in-lieu documentation well outside required timeframes. 

XXXX. Carrington Had Our Correct Address but Continued Sending Mail to a Vacated Property Carrington employee XXXX XXXX sent an email confirming that Carrington had possession of our correct foreign address in XXXX from the beginning of the loss-mitigation process. Despite this, Carrington continued sending all required notices and deed-in-lieu documentation to the XXXX XXXX property address even after possession had transferred on XX/XX/XXXX. 

We have dated surveillance footage, timestamped realtor photos, eyewitness statements, and written communications that prove the property was entered, winterized, and had internet disabled on XX/XX/XXXX. Carringtons internal audit has repeatedly cited incorrect possession dates, indicating either a failure to investigate or an intentional attempt to avoid acknowledging prior errors. 

This constitutes a violation of : 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( duty to maintain accurate records and ensure proper communication ) 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( servicing errors, including failure to send required information to the correct address ) 12 U.S.C. 55315536 ( UDAAP ) for misleading statements regarding address usage and timelines XXXX. Misrepresentation of Attorney Authority and Premature Involvement of a Collections Attorney Carrington personnel, particularly XXXX XXXX, made borrower-facing statements such as our attorney said, implying legal authority and escalation that did not exist. These statements were made despite there being no active collection action, no deficiency claim, no foreclosure lawsuit, and no court involvement. 

Carrington then prematurely inserted Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, a debt-collection attorney, into borrower communications. His involvement occurred outside any lawful collection context, which appears designed to influence borrower decisions through intimidation or perceived legal escalation. 

This conduct appears to violate : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false implication of attorney involvement or authority ) 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( b ) ( inconsistent, inaccurate, and misleading borrower communication ) UDAAP ( deceptive or abusive acts intended to influence borrower behavior ) XXXX. Transmission of Boilerplate, Noncompliant Documents After Violating Federal Timeframes More than XXXX days elapsed between Carringtons written confirmation of deed-in-lieu approval and the transmission of any documentation. When documents were finally sent, they were generic, boilerplate forms, including : a noncompliant deed-in-lieu agreement the XXXX XXXX Agreement XXXX template a standard property condition statement a personal property release These documents : distort or ignore the verified possession timeline, preserve deficiency and foreclosure rights, contain clauses inconsistent with VA servicing requirements, do not reflect the facts of this case, appear constructed to retroactively cure prior violations. 

This conduct violates : 12 U.S.C. 2605 and Regulation X loss-mitigation standards 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( timely processing of loss-mitigation options ) UDAAP for misleading or deceptive documentation practices XXXX. Systemic Internal Communication and Supervision Failures Carringtons internal communication has been inconsistent and contradictory. Borrower communications have come from multiple staff members without a consistent point of contact. Statements attributed to counsel have been inaccurate, and documentation has repeatedly contained incorrect facts. 

This reflects noncompliance with : 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( b ) ( supervision and training requirements ) XXXX XXXX  UDTPA 75-1.1 ( prohibiting deceptive or misleading business practices ) 5. Requested CFPB Action Given the conduct described above, I respectfully request that the CFPB require Carrington to : Correct the identified violations of RESPA, Regulation X, FDCPA, UDAAP, and applicable state law. 

Provide deed-in-lieu documents that are accurate, compliant, and reflective of the actual procedural history and possession timeline. 

Discontinue the use of attorney involvement as a pressure or intimidation mechanism. 

Stop sending boilerplate documents that do not satisfy federal loss-mitigation requirements. 

Reassign my account to a different representative and remove XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX from further involvement due to their role in misrepresentations, improper handling, address misuse, and failure to follow federal and state servicing procedures. 

Ensure all future communication is compliant, accurate, and handled by a properly trained representative. 

XXXX. Preservation of Rights This complaint does not waive any rights or remedies available under federal or state law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation