Consumer complaint received 2026-01-08 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal complaint against Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ( dba NewRez LLC ) for repeated inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive servicing practices regarding my mortgage loan. 
This includes falsely acknowledging and responding to inquiries/disputes I never submitted, mischaracterizing prior communications sent to other servicers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX and NewRez LLC ) as directed to them, and providing contradictory/inaccurate information about loan ownership and status. 
This also includes sending a deficient inquiry response masquerading as a " Validation of Debt '' letter, which fails to meet FDCPA requirements for proper debt validation and instead frames it as a reply to a non-existent QWR/dispute under RESPA/Regulation X XXXX 
Below, I outline all the key issues in detail, including the concrete limitations of Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX letter as a claimed " Validation of Debt '' notice, broken down point-by-point using the exact requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) validation notice under 15 U.S.C. 1692g and Regulation F ( 12 CFR 1006.34 ). These issues demonstrate systemic inaccuracies that have created material errors in my loan records, potentially impacting servicing, credit reporting, payments, or future obligations. 
Detailed Outline of Key Issues : XXXX. No Correspondence Sent to Shellpoint by Me I never sent any inquiries, Qualified Written Requests ( QWRs ), Notices of Error, written disputes, or other correspondence to Shellpoint. All prior requests went to XXXX XXXX XXXX and NewRez LLC only. Despite this, Shellpoint has falsely characterized and responded to non-existent submissions as if they were formal disputes directed to them under RESPA/Regulation X. This mischaracterization is a foundational inaccuracy in their communications. 
XXXX. False Acknowledgment in the XX/XX/XXXX Letter Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX letter falsely states : " this letter is to acknowledge your recent inquiry regarding the above referenced loan. '' It also claims that, if seeking creditor information, the owner is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. No assignment to XXXX XXXX Loan XXXX XXXX is recorded in public county records. This letter invents a " recent inquiry '' from me that never occurred, creating a false record of borrower-servicer interaction. 
XXXX. Inaccuracies and Deficiencies in the XX/XX/XXXX " Validation of Debt '' Letter ( Reference No. XXXX ) This letter, titled " Validation of Debt '' but not functioning as such, falsely states it is " in response to your inquiry '' ( none sent ) and claims Shellpoint is/was the servicer for XXXX XXXX Loan Acquisition LP ( " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ). It lists the loan owner as " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, with details including principal balance {$0.00} ( exclusive of accrued interest, fees, or charges ), origination XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX XXXX, original principal {$580000.00}, maturity XX/XX/XXXX, and notes the loan transferred from Shellpoint servicing to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Enclosures included Note, Deed of Trust, " Goodby Letter, '' and Loan History. 
o The " FNMA XXXX XXXX '' reference is inaccurate/misleading : Fannie Mae sold non-performing loan pools ( FNMA XXXX XXXX ) in bulk to private investors ( e.g., RCF II-associated entities ), removing them from Fannie Mae ownership. " FNMA XXXX XXXX '' is a historical sale identifier, not a current owner. Ownership claims conflict with no recorded assignment to RCF II and public practices for such pools. 
o Shellpoint treated non-existent submissions as formal disputes under XXXX XXXX, claimed to investigate them as QWRs, asserted they lacked sufficient detail, and denied servicing errorsdespite no submission from me. 
o As a purported debt validation, the letter is deficient and masquerading as compliant. 
Concrete Limitations of the XX/XX/XXXX Shellpoint Letter as a Claimed " Validation of Debt '' Notice XXXX. Missing the mandatory " debt collector '' disclosure Required : The letter must clearly state that it is from a debt collector ( or use language substantially similar to : " This communication is from a debt collector '' ). 
In this letter : Completely absent. Nowhere does it say Shellpoint is acting as a debt collector or that the communication is from XXXX. 
Result : Fatal defect. This alone disqualifies it as a valid FDCPA validation notice. 
XXXX. No statement of XXXX dispute rights Required : Must include clear language such as : '' Unless you notify this office within XXXX  days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector. '' " If you notify this office in writing within XXXX  days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to you by the debt collector. '' " Upon your written request within the XXXX period, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. '' In this letter : XXXX mention of any XXXX dispute window, verification process, or original creditor request. Instead, it tells me the alleged " dispute '' ( which I never sent ) lacks detail and that they found no servicing error. 
Result : No dispute rights are communicated not a validation notice. 
XXXX. No " validation period end date '' or clear XXXX clock Required : The letter must specify when the XXXX period ends ( or at minimum make the timeline obvious ). 
In this letter : No date is given for when any dispute period starts or ends. 
Result : No clock is set fails. 
XXXX. Incomplete / non-compliant debt amount and itemization Required : The current amount of the debt as of a specific date, plus either : A full itemization ( principal, interest, fees, etc. ), or A reference to a recent periodic statement under Reg Z 1026.41 ( for mortgages ). 
In this letter : Only gives " {$0.00} ( exclusive of accrued interest, fees, or other charges ) ''. No total amount due is stated. No itemization of the excluded items ( e.g., accrued interest at 7.00 %, fees, or other charges ). No reference to a recent periodic statement under Regulation Z. The exclusions make the figure meaningless for debt validation purposes. 
Result : Does not provide the actual debt amount I would need to dispute or pay. 
XXXX. Wrong framing and timing Required : A validation notice must be sent within XXXX  days of the debt collectors initial communication with the consumer regarding the collection of the debt ( or be the initial communication itself ). 
In this letter : Explicitly frames itself as a response to " your inquiry '' and " your dispute '' meaning it assumes prior contact and treats this as a follow-up. A true validation notice is proactive, not reactive. 
Result : Can not be an initial validation notice because it presupposes prior communication. 
XXXX. XXXX language dominates not FDCPA What it does instead : Spends most of the letter explaining why certain questions are outside the scope of a Qualified Written Request under RESPA/Regulation X , directing me to public records ( SEC , county recorder ), refusing to provide internal documents, and concluding no servicing error occurred. 
Result : This is clearly written as a RESPA response letter ( or partial denial ), not an FDCPA validation notice. The XXXX laws have different triggers, obligations, and content requirements. 
Bottom-line concrete summary : This letter is not and can not reasonably be considered a valid FDCPA debt validation notice because it fails every single core mandatory element : No debt collector disclosure ; No XXXX dispute/verification language ; No end date for the validation period ; No complete debt amount or proper itemization ; Wrong timing and framing ( response, not initial notice ) ; Focused on RESPA limits instead of FDCPA rights XXXX It is a defective RESPA/QWR response that Shellpoint has dressed up with the label " Validation of Debt '' but it does not satisfy the legal requirements to trigger the FDCPA 's validation protections or obligations. Shellpoint failed to properly validate the debt under FDCPA. It is not a compliant validation, so any collection activity after an actual FDCPA dispute could remain improper until they send a proper notice and verify. 
XXXX. Shellpoint 's Well-Documented Pattern of Similar Issues and Complaints Shellpoint has a history of engaging in the types of practices described above, as evidenced by high volumes of consumer complaints and regulatory actions : o High volumes of CFPB complaints : Frequently tops or ranks high in mortgage/home-equity complaints ( e.g., XXXX in XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX XXXX for home-equity alone ; earlier peaks like XXXX in certain quarters post-acquisitions/transfers ). Common themes include trouble during payment process, inaccurate information, struggling to pay mortgage, servicing transfer errors, misapplied payments, deceptive communications, and inadequate responses. 
o Enforcement actions : CFPB fined Shellpoint {$2.00} XXXX in XXXX for misrepresenting loan modification program terms to borrowers. 
o Class action settlements : {$500000.00} in XXXX for misleading mortgage statements sent to CARES Act forbearance participants ( violating FDCPA/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Other suits involve illegal inspection fees ( e.g., XXXX findings of over {$270000.00} unlawfully charged ), unauthorized forbearance placements, inaccurate credit reporting, force-placed insurance errors, and deceptive default notices. 
o Ongoing litigation/complaints : Multiple class actions and consumer reports allege deceptive practices, unauthorized fees, inaccurate debt validation/ownership claims, poor record-keeping during transfers, and failure to correct errors ( e.g., high XXXXConsumer ratings averaging XXXX stars, with hundreds of reviews citing fraud, unethical behavior, and predatory servicing ). 
I have sent Shellpoint a corrective letter disputing these inaccuracies and putting them on notice of this CFPB complaint. However, I have escalated to the CFPB for formal investigation and resolution.

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