Consumer complaint received 2026-04-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint against Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ( SPS ) regarding the handling and denial of my loss mitigation application. On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a complete loss mitigation application to SPS. On XX/XX/year>, SPS confirmed in writing that the application was complete, that a XXXX review had begun, that I was entitled to foreclosure protections during the review period, and that SPS would provide written notification of its decision. On XX/XX/year>, a call was placed to SPS at XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX lasting approximately 22 minutes. I was a direct participant in this call in which six affirmative representations were made by the SPS representative in direct response to specific questions : that no decision had been made, that the loan sale to XXXX did not mean denial, that the modification would be completed before the XX/XX/XXXX transfer date, that XXXX would honor the modification, that the transfer was routine and not a negative sign, and that we should not be concerned. On XX/XX/year>, I checked the SPS online portal and saw a decision had been posted. The portal showed only " Step 5 of 5 Decision '' without using the word denial, without stating specific denial reasons, and without clearly communicating appeal rights. I was required to call SPS to learn the decision. During that call I was informed the modification had been denied. I received electronic confirmation of the denial at XXXX XXXX that same evening. Every one of the six representations made on XX/XX/XXXX was contradicted by the denial communicated less than 24 hours later. SPS 's own XXXX documentation used in the denial reflects a monthly gross income of {$52000.00} and a property value of {>= $1,000,000}. SPS simultaneously denied a Repayment Plan citing inadequate income. These positions are irreconcilable within the same denial package. SPS cited investor non-participation as the basis for Trial Modification denial without identifying the specific XXXX provision or investor guideline prohibiting modification. SPS denied the application the day after announcing the servicing transfer to XXXX XXXX, while the complete application was still within its 30-day evaluation window established by SPS 's own XX/XX/year> letter. On XX/XX/year> the day after the denial SPS confirmed in writing that it offers structured repayment plans, modifications, and account settlement alternatives, directly contradicting the denial issued the previous day. I submitted a formal written appeal on XX/XX/year> under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( h ), a Notice of Error under 12 CFR 1024.35, and a Qualified Written Request under 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ). I have also contacted XXXX XXXX to ensure continuity of my appeal under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( k ) and received written acknowledgment of receipt. I have written directly to the loan investor requesting authorization for modification. The six representations made on XX/XX/year> were contradicted by the denial issued the following day. I am requesting the CFPB determine whether these representations constitute a violation of 12 CFR 1024.35 ( b ) ( 1 ) or the CFPB 's UDAAP authority under 12 U.S.C. 5531. I am not requesting a legal determination. I am requesting an investigation and a complete good faith re-evaluation of my application.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation