Consumer complaint received 2023-12-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Fay Servicing, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns a series of alleged mishandlings and communication failures by Fay Servicing , LLC, regarding my mortgage account and associated loss mitigation efforts. Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have been actively engaged in attempting to prevent the foreclosure of my property through various loss mitigation avenues, including loan modification requests, applications for assistance through the Texas Homeowner Assistance Fund ( TXHAF ), and filing for bankruptcy. 

The key allegations are as follows : Lack of Responsiveness : Throughout multiple interactions, Fay Servicing has exhibited a pattern of failing to respond to communications and requests in a timely and effective manner. This includes not acknowledging receipt of critical documents and failing to provide necessary updates on the status of loss mitigation applications. 

Mismanagement of Payments : Payments made towards the reinstatement amount, specifically a wire transfer of {$3800.00}, were not reflected in the account in a timely fashion, leading to inaccurate account statements and impacting eligibility for assistance programs. 

Inaccurate Reporting : There have been multiple instances of discrepancies in the reinstatement amounts provided by Fay Servicing. These inconsistencies have resulted in the denial of the TXHAF grant, which had a cap of {$65000.00}, due to reported amounts exceeding this limit. 

Lack of Transparency : There has been a significant lack of clarity and transparency regarding the status of assistance applications, the reasons for the denial of loss mitigation options, and the criteria used for decision-making. 

Negligence in Handling Assistance Programs : Despite the availability of the HAF program as a potential avenue for loss mitigation, Fay Servicing failed to consider it as an option in their communications or include it in the loss mitigation analysis until after the program had closed to new applicants. 

Non-Compliance with Requests for Information : Despite multiple qualified written requests for a complete account history and other important account details, Fay Servicing has either claimed non-receipt of such requests or failed to provide the requested information within the regulatory time frame. 

Potential Manual Alteration of Account Figures : There is an allegation that manual changes to the account figures have been made by Fay Servicing representatives, which have adversely affected the eligibility for grant assistance.

Dismissal of Filed Complaints : A formal complaint filed with the Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending resulted in a determination of " insufficient evidence, '' despite the provision of what I believe to be clear evidence of the lender 's violations.

In light of these issues, this complaint seeks a thorough investigation by the CFPB into Fay Servicing 's practices, an audit of my account, and a review of the loss mitigation process to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to address the potential harm caused by these alleged actions. 

Timeline of Events : Timeline of Events : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX, Extension XXXX, an account manager with Fay Servicing. Requested a reinstatement amount and expressed interest in a loan modification. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a letter from Fay outlining the loss mitigation application, stating that all required documents must be submitted by XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Submitted an application for the TXHAF program. TXHAF representative said they will request for the foreclosure to be delayed, but ultimately it is lenders choice. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX : Uploaded completed loss mitigation application and documents to XXXX, received email confirmation of document receipt. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX : Called XXXX to confirm document receipt and discussed the deadline for application. To provide tangible evidence of the deadline date mentioned in the letter, I emailed a copy of the letter sent by XXXX to her email address at XXXX. Application shows denied in the portal with no reason. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  : Called XXXX again, and she indicated her intention to help by forwarding my request for a loan modification to two other managers named XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted XXXX to inquire about the progress of the loss mitigation application. I also uploaded a copy of the deadline letter to the portal, ensuring that the other managers had access for their review. The portal 's activity history confirms that the submission was reviewed but subsequently denied. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : I called XXXX at XXXX XXXX to inquire if she could continue to advocate on my behalf and have the second manager review my case. However, the portal records show that the request for loss mitigation was reviewed and denied on the same day. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent an email to XXXX requesting updates but received no response. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Filed for bankruptcy as a last-ditch effort to prevent foreclosure. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : Requested an updated reinstatement amount from Fay. Bankruptcy attorney 's paralegal also contacted Fay for an updated reinstatement figure on XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay claimed to have contacted TXHAF to verify records for the HAF program. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email from TXHAF informing that Fay has been funded and to continue to proceed with a loan modification program. Account marked as a loan modification program, preventing them to fund the account for a full reinstatement due to incorrect type of program. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with XXXX XXXX ( Account Manager ) about the designation issue, requesting the account be changed to a reinstatement program. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : Continued contacting Fay for an update on the reinstatement amount and the program designation. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : Contacted TXHAF to inquire about the program status. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Uploaded the amount due for XXXX, sent an email to the case worker regarding the escrow issue. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Fay 's representative for XXXX minutes, inquiring about the progress of the HAF program and the program designation change from a loan modification to a reinstatement. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The program was finally changed to the reinstatement program. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX from TXHAF left a message expressing that Fay was not responding. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Wrote a letter to XXXX explaining concerns and inability to expedite the process further, uploaded the letter to the portal. Also contacted Fay to urge them to communicate with TXHAF. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email notifying that the TXHAF grant had been denied due to exceeding the {$65000.00} allowance limit. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay, who provided a verbal reinstatement cost of {$66000.00}, which exceeded the {$65000.00} allowance by {$1500.00}. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Wired {$3800.00} to Fay to bring the account 's total below the {$65000.00} limit based on the figures provided verbally by Fay. Uploaded an image of the wire proof. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay stated they have contacted TXHAF to confirm {$3800.00}. Bankruptcy court date to continue with the bankruptcy or not. I have requested the attorney to dismiss the bankruptcy because TXHAF will approve the grant as long as it is under the {$65000.00} limit. The {$3800.00} will bring it under the allowance limit. Fay stated in writing that they spoke to TXHAF and confirmed they have received the {$3800.00}. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay, who stated there was no record in the system showing the wire transfer of {$3800.00}. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX : Made subsequent calls to Fay, and each time, they stated they had not received the wire transfer. 

XXXX. XXXX statement : Indicates that {$64000.00} must be wired by XX/XX/XXXX to bring the loan current. XXXX also indicate {$63000.00} was previously due for account to be reinstated. This was also confirmed by a represented that that was the amount that was due and was good up to XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay to request an update on the grant status. Received no confirmation from TXHAF regarding the {$3800.00}. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Fay to inform them that TXHAF was still awaiting the reinstatement figures to complete the application. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TXHAF updated the reinstatement amount provided by Fay to be {$68000.00} to reinstate the account. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email informing that the TXHAF grant had been denied. The requested updated reinstatement amount by Fay now stands at {$73000.00}. It is important to note a Fay represented confirmed they had manually changed figures on the statement which resulted in the grant to be denied. 

XXXX. XXXX mortgage statement : Displays {$71000.00}, still excluding the {$3800.00} credit that should reflect in the unapplied suspense account. 

XXXX. XXXX mortgage statement : Fails to show the {$3800.00} credit, and the reinstatement cost had been reduced to {$68000.00}. The advanceable corporate advances has now been remove after the grant denial from the reinstatement figure. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The mortgage statement finally shows the {$3800.00} payment, wired XXXX months earlier, resulting in a reinstatement cost of {$71000.00}. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX from Fay contacted me to inquire about my intentions with the property but ended the call abruptly upon hearing the word " attorney. '' XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay initiated foreclosure proceedings on my property. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Applied for the TXHAF grant just before the closure of new applications. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TXHAF confirmed the application was completed. Filed a formal complaint with the Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending against Fay Servicing for lack of transparency and communication issues. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent a qualified written request ( QWR ) to Fay Servicing for a complete account history and other details, which was confirmed delivered by USPS, but XXXX reported not having received it. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received an email from the Texas Homeowner Assistance Fund Team indicating that the application had moved to the final stage of funding and was waiting for a response from Fay Servicing. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Called Fay for an update on HAF and the QWR but was informed there was no record of the request. Sent another QWR to Fay Servicing. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Communicated the ongoing issues with Fay and TXHAF, who advised to continue dealing directly with Fay Servicing. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent a letter to Fay Servicing urging them to respond to TXHAF to finalize the application XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Sent another letter to Fay Servicing requesting an update on the HAF application and to expedite the process. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Fay 's representative, and discussed the delayed reflection of the {$3800.00} payment and confirmed discrepancies in previous reinstatement amounts. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Completed a loss mitigation application through Fay 's portal. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TXHAF portal updated with a reinstatement amount request from Fay of {$89000.00}. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a letter from XXXX XXXX, a new account manager at Fay, indicating ineligibility for loss mitigation options and discrepancies in the reinstatement amount. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a letter from XXXX XXXX at Fay stating that a completed loss mitigation application was on file and an update would be provided within 30 days. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Fay sent a letter indicating a need for additional time to respond to the QWR sent on XX/XX/XXXX, and promised a written response within XXXX business days. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Filed an appeal to the loss mitigation application denial with Fay Servicing. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Received a response to the QWR from Fay Servicing, which contained multiple discrepancies from previous statements that was provided to The Texas Department of Loan and Savings

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation