Consumer complaint received 2025-08-18 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone
Company: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
Since XX/XX/XXXX, my hardship ( caused by PennyMacs partner XXXX XXXX has been dismissed as not a hardship. On XX/XX/XXXX, while in good standing, I involved my attorney. PennyMac twice blocked representation by rejecting handwritten authorization letters submitted through their portal even after their staff verbally accepted them as valid during phone calls. First, they objected because the authorization was open-ended until revoked ; then they demanded the loan number, even though it was already in the portal. This was intentional blocking of my legal rights. They continue to report lates since XX/XX/XXXX and deny the XXXX partnership, despite ending it only after XXXX was reprimanded in CA. This violates RESPA, FCRA, UDAAP, and Maryland law. I request removal of all lates since XX/XX/XXXX, forbearance until litigation is resolved, foreclosure suspension, and escalation to PennyMacs legal team.

I have been trying to resolve this with PennyMac since XX/XX/XXXX, when my hardship began due to misconduct by XXXX XXXX PennyMacs partner at the time. PennyMac repeatedly told me this was not a hardship. On XX/XX/XXXX, while I was in good standing, I formally sought assistance and involved my attorney. From that date forward, PennyMac obstructed my attorneys representation with shifting, arbitrary requirements : First excuse : They rejected the original handwritten authorization letter ( submitted through PennyMacs own portal ) because it was open-ended and stated my attorney could represent me until I revoked authorization. This is a standard, valid authorization.

Second excuse : After I submitted another handwritten authorization letter through the portal, they claimed it needed the loan number written on it even though the loan number was already in the portal and on the submission itself.

In both cases, these letters were verbally accepted by PennyMac representatives during phone calls before I uploaded them. I never logged off until I was told the letter was okay. PennyMac later invented new objections after the fact.

This was not a mistake it was an intentional blocking of my legal rights to representation. I had to get my attorney temporary acceptance for a one time phone call that took over an hour just to get the first excuse removed.

Even after finally accepting the handwritten authorization, PennyMac has refused to escalate my case to their legal department, continuing instead to route my attorney to generic customer service and loss mitigation. PennyMac has also tried to claim XXXX was not their partner, despite only ending that partnership after XXXX was publicly reprimanded in California for the same violations that occurred in my case. 

Meanwhile, XXXX has continued reporting late payments from XX/XX/XXXX onward, even though the hardship was caused by their partners misconduct and while disputes were active. This has harmed my credit and increased foreclosure risk, while I am paying significant legal fees to resolve damage tied to PennyMacs partner.

Legal issues 1. RESPA / Reg. X ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ) : Servicers must evaluate hardship requests in good faith. Rejecting valid handwritten attorney authorizations twice, after verbally accepting them is obstruction, not compliance.

2. FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : Continuing to report lates caused by partner misconduct while failing to properly mark tradelines as disputed is inaccurate/misleading.

3. CFPA UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Forcing me to pay full mortgage installments while I must also fund litigation against their partner, and blocking attorney representation, is unfair and abusive.

4. Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Com. Law 13-301 ) : Misrepresenting partnership status and obstructing valid attorney authorizations are deceptive trade practices.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation