Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding a mortgage payment processing error by PennyMac Loan Services that resulted in inaccurate credit reporting. 

My mortgage payments are due each month with a contractual grace period that runs through the XXXX of the month. In XX/XX/XXXX, I made my mortgage payment within that grace period. I believe I submitted the payment on or about XX/XX/XXXX, which was before the grace period expired. 

I did not discover any issue with the XXXX payment at the time. In early XX/XX/XXXX, when I logged in to make my XXXX payment, I noticed that PennyMac had not credited my XXXX payment. I immediately contacted PennyMac customer service to determine what had happened. 

During that call, PennyMac representatives told me that the company had experienced internal system errors in XX/XX/XXXX that affected payment processing and posting. I was told that the issue was on PennyMacs end. I was also told that if I made the payment immediately, the issue would be resolved and would not be reported negatively to the credit bureaus. 

I relied on that representation and immediately made the XXXX payment once I became aware of the problem. I also made my XX/XX/XXXX payment within the XXXX grace period. At no point was I attempting to avoid payment, and I was not in default. The only reason the XXXX payment was not reflected earlier was due to PennyMacs acknowledged system issue. 

Despite this, PennyMac later reported the XX/XX/XXXX payment as delinquent to the credit reporting agencies. As a direct result of that reporting, my credit score dropped by approximately XXXX points. 

This is not a situation where I failed to make my mortgage payments. I tendered payment within the grace period, discovered PennyMacs processing error only when attempting to make my XXXX payment, and immediately corrected it once notified. Any delay in posting or crediting the XXXX payment was caused solely by PennyMacs internal system failure, which PennyMac acknowledged. 

After I raised this issue, PennyMac did not correct the credit reporting. The delinquency appears to have been verified through automated systems rather than a meaningful review of what actually occurred, despite PennyMacs knowledge of the XX/XX/XXXX system errors. 

I am requesting that PennyMac correct its records and remove the XX/XX/XXXX delinquency or late payment notation from all credit reporting agencies, since the payment was made within the grace period and any delay was caused by PennyMacs own system error. 

For clarity, this complaint is not based on a failure to pay, an inability to pay, or a request for goodwill. It is based on a payment processing failure that PennyMac acknowledged internally and then attributed to me for credit reporting purposes. 

The XX/XX/XXXX payment was authorized and tendered within the contractual grace period. Any delay in posting, recognition, or application of that payment resulted solely from PennyMacs internal system malfunction, which PennyMac representatives expressly acknowledged when I contacted them in early XX/XX/XXXX. At that point, PennyMac had actual knowledge that its own systems had failed. 

Once PennyMac had that knowledge, it could not reasonably rely on automated systems or internal posting dates to characterize my payment behavior. Credit reporting is intended to reflect borrower conduct, not the downstream effects of a servicers internal processing failures. Reporting a delinquency under these circumstances misattributes PennyMacs system error to me and creates a misleading impression of credit risk. 

This issue also can not be reduced to a technical distinction between payment receipt, posting, or processing. I complied with the loans payment terms and acted promptly and in good faith at all times. PennyMacs internal handling of the payment after it was tendered should not be used to justify negative credit reporting. 

In addition, PennyMac represented to me that the XX/XX/XXXX system issue would not result in negative credit reporting if I made the payment immediately, which I did. Furnishing delinquency information after making that representation is misleading and inconsistent with fair servicing practices. 

If PennyMac contends that its reporting was accurate, it should be required to explain, in detail, how a payment tendered within the grace period and delayed only by PennyMacs acknowledged system failure can reasonably be characterized as borrower delinquency, and what manual review, if any, was conducted to reconcile that system error before the delinquency was furnished or verified. 

The resolution requested is limited and appropriate. PennyMac should correct the XX/XX/XXXX reporting to reflect that the payment was not late, remove the delinquency notation from all consumer reporting agencies, and confirm that its records accurately reflect that the delay was caused by an internal servicing error rather than borrower conduct. 

This complaint raises concerns beyond a single posting error. PennyMac acknowledged internal system failures affecting payment processing during XX/XX/XXXX, yet still furnished delinquency information tied to those failures. That combination presents a broader servicing and controls issue, not an isolated consumer dispute. 

If PennyMacs systems were malfunctioning during that period, and delinquency reporting continued without reconciliation against payment initiation data, there is a reasonable risk that similarly situated borrowers were inaccurately reported as delinquent due to the same system issues. This creates a risk of repeat harm and inconsistent credit reporting across accounts. 

In addition, PennyMacs representation that the system issue would not result in negative credit reporting, followed by the furnishing of delinquency information anyway, suggests a breakdown between servicing operations, customer communications, and credit reporting controls. That type of breakdown warrants supervisory attention because it indicates that known errors may not be adequately isolated before data is furnished or verified. 

For these reasons, this complaint should not be treated solely as a request for individual correction, but as a potential servicing controls issue involving payment processing, error detection, and credit reporting during a known system disruption period. 

To the extent PennyMac maintains that its credit reporting was accurate, I am requesting that PennyMac confirm and explain the specific data furnished for the XX/XX/XXXX reporting cycle under the XXXX XXXX credit reporting format. 

In particular, PennyMac should identify the account status reported for XX/XX/XXXX, the date of account status used for that reporting, and whether any date of first delinquency was reported or populated for that cycle. PennyMac should also confirm the date on which the account was reported as returning to current status after the payment was credited. 

Given PennyMacs acknowledged internal system issues affecting payment processing during XX/XX/XXXX, any XXXX XXXX reporting that reflects borrower delinquency rather than a servicer-caused posting delay would be inconsistent with the underlying payment activity and misleading as to borrower performance. 

If PennyMac can not reconcile the XXXX XXXX data furnished for XX/XX/XXXX with the fact that the payment was tendered within the contractual grace period and delayed only by PennyMacs own system error, then the delinquency reporting should not be verified as accurate. 

Given the acknowledged payment processing issues during XX/XX/XXXX and the resulting credit reporting, I am requesting that PennyMacs response include a clear explanation of the steps taken to investigate and verify the delinquency reporting, including confirmation of whether the following were reviewed : The payment initiation and authorization records for the XX/XX/XXXX payment, including the date the payment was tendered by the borrower. 
The internal servicing records reflecting when and how that payment was processed, posted, or delayed during the XX/XX/XXXX system disruption. 
The data furnished to consumer reporting agencies for the XX/XX/XXXX cycle, including the account status and any delinquency-related fields reported for that period. 
Whether any manual or human review was conducted to reconcile the known system issues with the credit reporting outcome, or whether the delinquency was verified through automated processes alone. 

If PennyMac maintains that the reporting was accurate, I am requesting that PennyMac certify that its investigation complied with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and applicable mortgage servicing regulations, including that it did not attribute a servicer-caused processing delay to borrower delinquency and that the information furnished was not misleading as to borrower performance. 

This request is not for discretionary accommodation, but for confirmation that PennyMacs investigation and reporting complied with applicable federal and state consumer protection requirements given the acknowledged system errors affecting payment processing during the relevant period.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation