Consumer complaint received 2025-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: SECURITY SERVICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to formally express my serious concerns and ongoing difficulties with the Loss Mitigation Department of Security Service Federal Credit Union, particularly regarding their repeated and, in my view, unjustified rejections of my borrower hardship assistance applications related to an active foreclosure proceeding.

Historically, I have encountered significant resistance from this department. During a prior foreclosure process, three separate borrower hardship assistance applications were submitted, all of which were rejected without adequate justification. Ultimately, I was forced to satisfy the past due balance in full, including substantial attorney fees, to resolve that matter. It was my sincere belief that such measures would prevent a recurrence of foreclosure proceedings. Unfortunately, I now find myself once again in the same positionseeking assistance, acting in good faith, and being systematically denied. 

For the current loss mitigation process, my first submission followed explicit instructions provided to me by a company representative regarding the documentation necessary for an unemployment-related hardship. That packet was rejected for not including two recent bank statements. I promptly submitted a second package that included the required bank statements, only for it to be rejected on the grounds that certain portions were allegedly illegible. Upon reviewing the same PDF files from my own records, the contents appear entirely clear and legible. A third submission met a similar fate, with rejection again citing illegible pages despite their clarity when opened. 

Subsequently, I submitted a fourth application, which was rejected on the basis that it lacked a divorce decree and that the bank statements were supposedly not detailed enough. This rationale is both inaccurate and unreasonable. There is no divorce decree to provide because my divorce is not yet finalized. My spouse moved out in XX/XX/year>, and communication since that time has been limited for personal and safety-related reasons. I explained this to the mortgage company in detail. Nevertheless, I was told that a separation agreement would be required. Given the strained nature of the relationship and the fact that my spouse is not listed on the mortgage loan, I find this request unnecessary and potentially harmful. 

In my latest communication, I submitted a letter clearly stating that no divorce decree currently exists and that I have only filed a petition. Despite this, the online account portal was updated to require a divorce decree, separation agreement, or quit claim deednone of which are presently available or applicable. Again, I reiterate that ( 1 ) I am not seeking divorce-related forbearance, ( 2 ) no divorce decree exists, ( 3 ) I am not in safe or regular contact with my estranged spouse, and ( 4 ) she is not a party to the mortgage loan in question.

Additionally, I submitted detailed bank statements obtained directly from my financial institutions website, inclusive of transaction history and summary pages. Despite this, a representative today claimed these did not constitute acceptable documentation. Following this rejection, I once again resubmitted the requested documents and included a letter of explanation. I was then told that a recent pay stub would now be required, despite the fact that my original hardship application was based on a period of unemployment. I have since returned to work and have been clear in stating that I can afford my regular monthly mortgage payment and am seeking only a modification or deferral of the past due balance, not a full forbearance. 

As of today, a foreclosure date has been set. I have made seven separate attempts to comply with the documentation requests issued by the Loss Mitigation Department, each one resulting in rejection, often with changing or inconsistent rationale. This process has caused undue stress and financial hardship, and it appears to reflect a pattern of bad faith, procedural obfuscation, and a failure to offer borrowers a fair opportunity to resolve delinquency through established mitigation options. 

Even internal representatives of the organization have expressed concerns about the underwriter teams excessively strict and, at times, unreasonable rejection practices, acknowledging that many borrowers have lost their homes as a result. 

I strongly believe that I have been treated unfairly and that the repeated rejections, shifting documentation standards, and apparent disregard for the practical realities of my situation may rise to the level of deceptive and misleading business practices. How this matter has been handled is deeply troubling and inconsistent with principles of equity, good faith, and consumer protection.

As a working individual supporting my child and attempting in earnest to resolve this matter responsibly, I find this treatment entirely unacceptable. If no resolution is reached, I may be left with no other option than to pursue Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection solely due to the institutions failure to process my hardship requests in a timely and reasonable manner. 

I respectfully urge that this matter be escalated and reviewed by a competent and impartial party within the organization to avoid further harm.

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