Consumer complaint received 2015-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Dear XXXX XXXX and CFPB representatives, Our mortgage is currently being services by SLS and there is a sale date scheduled for Friday, XXXX XXXX, 2015, despite the fact that on XXXX XXXX, 2015, a SLS representative advised me that we submitted a complete package and that it was in review for mortgage assistance. 

On XXXX XXXX, 2015 at XXXX, our consumer rights advocate ( XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX Agent ID # XXXX ) at SLS who confirmed receipt of the missing documents ( pay stubs ) and notified her that we had submitted a complete and full package and that the file was in review with no missing documents. She further notified her that there was a scheduled sale date on the file for XXXX XXXX, 2015, at which time she advised XXXX that having an active sale date after we, the borrowers, had submitted a complete package was in violation of both state and federal dual tracking laws that protect consumers under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. 

Yesterday, XXXX XXXX, 2015 at XXXX, our consumer rights advocate called in to SLS to check on the status of the file and was advised by the automated system that all agents were busy and that she could not speak with a live person ( XXXX advised her that all agents were in a meeting at that time ) ; she was asked to schedule a call back from the single point of contact, XXXX ( Agent ID # XXXX ). XXXX called her back to inform her that the pay stubs submitted back on XXXX/XXXX/15 were not legible per a note on the file from underwriting on XXXX/XXXX/15 and that SLS was moving forward with the foreclosure sale scheduled for XXXX XXXX, 2015, since we did not submit a complete RMA package. 

Furthermore, XXXX stated that it was not the policy of SLS to reach out to the borrower for missing documentation nor was it the policy of SLS to send a missing documentation letter as required under the XXXX program, which is a federal law ; SLS is not following XXXX federal guidelines. XXXX confirmed that SLS would be moving forward with the scheduled sale date of XXXX XXXX, 2015, to which our consumer rights advocate advised her that we would be filing complaints against SLS for dual tracking violations, wrongful and unlawful foreclosure, and UDAAP consumer rights violations. 

It is appalling that SLS would blatantly and wrongfully move forward with the foreclosure sale under these circumstances. We submitted a complete RMA package as confirmed by an employee of SLS named XXXX ( Agent ID # XXXX ) on XXXX XXXX, 2015 at XXXX. The documentation submitted was legible when submitted and there was no option for us to resubmit the documentation, prior to SLS moving forward with the foreclosure sale, since we were all unaware of any issues and were further advised that there was a complete package submitted 5 days after submitting the supposedly illegible documentation ( pay stubs ). 

As a result of the aforementioned consumer rights violations, SLS has left us no choice but to submit complaints to the CFPB, the CA AG XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the CA DFI ( DBO ) for dual tracking, UDAAP and wrongful foreclosure violations at a minimum. We will further escalate this case to the Treasury Department, the XXXX XXXX Escalations Team, the XXXX and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ). We will do everything in our power to assert and exercise our consumer rights until SLS complies with the state and federal laws that were established to prevent this precise instance of abuse and wrongful foreclosure consumer rights violations. 

We already resubmitted the supposedly " illegible '' pay stubs today in addition to pay stubs that further validate the steady income that is the same every week for both of us.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation