Consumer complaint received 2022-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX Mailing Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MI XXXX Subject Property Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MI XXXX Current Mortgage Account Number : XXXX XXXX Insurance Policy Number ( s XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Number : XXXX Assurant Number : XXXX XXXX Disaster Number : XXXX XXXX Appication Number : XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT ID Number : XXXX Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FDCPA Violations Complaint Summary Evidence suggest Specialized Loan Servicing LLC and XXXX XXXX engaged in fraudulent activity by attempting to withhold home insurance claim funds allocated for the repair of the subject property through the National Flood Insurance Program XXXX Furthermore, SLS attempted to conceal the matter by using deceptive tactics to stall the matter until it could initiate a foreclosure action on the property. These tactics include ignoring the CFPB and negating to have managers or appropriate personnel return phone calls for months. 

Additionally, unnecessary inspections were coordinated by SLS and XXXX with knowledge the adjusters worksheet repairs had not been started as the funds were not disbursed for the repairs. SLS and XXXX own accounting records and recorded transcript will provide evidence funds were released to reimbursed my wife and I based on receipts for repairs that were not on the adjusters worksheet, which both parties were aware of. The receipts provided were for the repair cost associated with the damage incurred after the storm and during the time frame the original servicer could not endorse the checks. 






Neither SLS or XXXX were operating in the interest of the Investor or the homeowner. The Inspector sent out by SLS and XXXX said he was only sent out to take pictures of the upstairs area. The upstairs area is the part of the insurance claim XXXX covered during the storm damage. It was only after I contacted SLS several times about how their inspector said he was there only to take pictures of the up stairs did XXXX, a company hired by SLS, decide to send XXXX XXXX back to briefly take photos of the basement. Please note XXXX XXXX did not have a copy of the adjusters worksheet or a copy of the repair receipt that was submitted to SLS nor did he provide me with anything in writing after each of his visits. 

SLS and XXXX continued to make false statements and ignore my request for an explanation for three months while notifying me via mail they would be placing additional flood insurance policies on the property due to government requirements, increasing my mortgage. Finally, after these unconscionable tactics I was told that because no repairs have been completed, XXXX and SLS would keep the funds and to prepare for foreclosure. These statements were made by customer assistance as no XXXX or corporate contact has ever addressed any of my numerous complaints. SLS, XXXX and its representatives are operating beyond the pale of any professional decency and there is absolutely no accountability in its current structure. 


Complaint Details XXXX XXXX authorized Specialized Loan Servicing LLC to continue servicing the loan of subject property XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MI, XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. The change in servicer was in part due to a seven month long criminal investigation of the previous servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX. Documentation provided by XXXX indicate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accurately report the status of my property to its investor XXXX XXXX . 

According to the records from the investigation the home was being reported as an abandoned total loss by the servicer but my home was in fact lived in and cared for and mortgage payments were being collected from my wife and I and later from the federal government through the forbearance program due to a Covid-19.

At the conclusion of the investigation my wife and I were told our complaints were unfounded despite physical evidence of forged documents, However, the investigation transcripts clearly reveal XXXX XXXX XXXX did mislead its investor XXXX XXXX who is in a government conservator-ship. The previous matter is important to my current complaint as government waste and possible fraud is still occurring under XXXX XXXX 's new servicer. 











In late XXXX through early XX/XX/XXXX the subject property was damaged by a series of severe summer storms and flooding which devastated homes in XXXX XXXX Michigan. XXXX XXXX was declared a disaster area and XXXX representatives were sent in to assist those of us affected. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was notified of our loss and accessed the flood damage repair cost in the basement at {$6100.00}. 

XXXX insurance company sent out a licensed XXXX who reviewed the damage for the upper level flooring and ceiling damage and assessed the claim cost for repairs at {$35000.00}. Please note neither claim included cost associated with the initial clean up and debris removal. My wife and I were told we are responsible for making the home safe to enter before repairs could start as the stagnant water debris and mold were hazardous. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX was notified of the insurance claim as it is part of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX I repeatedly requested that XXXX XXXX XXXX endorse the insurance claim checks so that I can continue the repairs and avoid further damage to the property. XXXX XXXX XXXX said they could not endorse the insurance claim checks but would not give me an explanation as to why. 

I was contacted by the XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. It is to my understanding because of exemption 7 ( a ) in regards to this matter XXXX XXXX XXXX. would not be allowed by law to endorse insurance claim checks associated with any GSE in relation to the subject property as it could have interfered with an ongoing investigation. This was later confirmed in a phone call with a XXXX XXXX XXXX. representative named XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 

I am highlighting the aforementioned for context because the subject property sat for six months and incurred additional damage do to incomplete repairs. It is a verifiable fact the delay was due to a federal criminal investigation of the servicer and enforcement or penalty action did occur as a result, although, it was not based on our complaint it was related to the servicing of our mortgage. But it is possible the XXXX and XXXX XXXX were not aware of the natural disaster that occurred during the time of the investigation. 

However, there was more than enough time for XXXX XXXX 's new servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, to notify its investor of the current circumstances surrounding the property. Instead, in an act of brazen opportunism SLS and XXXX have engaged in a pattern of fraudulent activity that merits a full investigation of not only SLS 's seller/servicer agreement violations but its eligibility to handle home insurance backed by Government XXXX XXXX in general. 











Specialized Loan Servicing LLC notified me XX/XX/XXXX that from then on they would be servicing the loan. I explained to several representatives in the loss draft department, claims department and its collections department the circumstances concerning the insurance claim checks. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX in SLS claims department assured me due to the prior circumstances of my claim it would be processed and expedited in the sum of exactly {$40000.00} and the remaining funds approximately {$2000.00}, would be released after SLS had a courtesy inspection performed. The claim amount to be released from escrow in the initial agreement with SLS is considered a monitored disbursement. Please note SLS claims department and loss draft department are in fact XXXX insurance company. This was revealed to me on XX/XX/XXXX by a representative of XXXX named XXXX. 

XXXX said I did not need to include any receipts which show the cost my wife and I paid out of pocket to make the home safe to enter after the natural disaster occurred. XXXX specified twice, all I needed to provide was the insurance adjusters worksheet. However, during the call he stated the exact amount paid for the XXXX claim, but he had to approximate the amount for the flood damage in the basement, as this claim was handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

Several days later I received a claim check by mail for {$10000.00} from SLS. I was concerned about what appeared to be an agreement breach so on XX/XX/XXXX I contacted the company I was told was SLS by XXXX representative XXXX and he answered. I explained to him what I received by mail from SLS and that the deception was unacceptable as it could lead to further repair delays and that I have already been out of my property six months.

He told me he remembered speaking with me. He asked was I in forbearance at that time. I told him I was as records will indicate my forbearance ended XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX said my claim was entered into the computer wrong and that when you are in a forbearance the computer will sometime mistakenly think you are delinquent when you are not. Please note XXXX explained in the prior conversation on XX/XX/XXXX release of the {$40000.00} would still be a monitored disbursement because I was no longer in forbearance and I owed, but because of circumstance a lump sum would be disbursed. The XXXX representative and SLS knew prior to making the false statement the account was not current. 

This event marks the beginning of a series fraudulent statements and activities that may violate federal and state collection laws for over a period of 4 months. Please note I was assured by an XXXX representative named XXXX that all calls were recorded and the timelines will be reviewed and handled with integrity and not erased. 








Several days passed and I did not receive the additional {$30000.00} in insurance claim funds as promised by XXXX. I called back and spoke with an XXXX representative named XXXX XXXX in the loss draft department of SLS ( Assurant ). I explained to her the situation and she said her records show my claim is being treated as an old claim and that funds have been denied. 

I explained to her that I am well aware of my rights and I was covered during the time of the flood disaster as my insurance policy is backed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She stated the money is in escrow and that SLS has no problem reimbursing its costumers for out pocket cost. She told me to send the proof of receipts for the repairs done and my funds would be released immediately. I told her that I would comply but XXXX said all that was necessary was a copy of the XXXX worksheet ( which XXXX already had ). 

XXXX apologized on XXXX 's behalf and said he must have been new and made up something. I stated an apology will not cover SLS 's liability for the cost of additional damage repairs or hardship caused by more unnecessary delays. Please note all employees for Asssurant are identifying themselves as SLS employees and the apparent lack of accountability is due to the conflict of interest in this matter, XXXX has unlawfully reclaimed insurance claim funds via SLS after processing the insurance claim and providing the XXXX for that purpose. I requested that XXXX have a supervisor contact me concerning this matter immediately. She said their names were XXXX and XXXX and that she could not give me their last names. Both failed to contact me. 

I complied and sent SLS, two copies of proof of receipts for the cost of repairs associated with damage to the property. One receipt was for clean up and temporary roof and structural repairs to mitigate further damage for {$11000.00}. Please note SLS reimbursed us for the aforementioned amount which substantiates my claim that SLS and XXXX initially agreed to reimburse my wife and I for repairs not necessarily part of the adjusters work sheet. The second receipt was for the amount of XXXX for mold remediation, water damage restoration and clean up. These damages occurred between servicers and were recognized by SLS and XXXX as part of the extenuating circumstance arising from not having a servicer that could endorse the insurance claim checks for months. 


On XX/XX/XXXX I spoke with a representative in the SLS loss draft department named XXXX. She said my receipts are on file and that they were approved to release an additional {$1200.00}. This communication is further evidence of a pattern of SLS and XXXX arbitrarily choosing disbursement amounts after failing to uphold agreements. As previously stated, the first {$10000.00} was sent out prior to SLS requesting receipts for the repairs we paid for out of pocket, as it was agreed the claim funds would be expedited. 







The {$1200.00} was not part of the reimbursement agreement established with SLS on XX/XX/XXXX. SLS has attempted to conflate this matter through deliberate procedural negligence and false statements. SLS attempted to combine the remaining balance of our repair cost with the {$10000.00} that was disbursed prior to SLS requesting proof of our personal repair cost is problematic and highlights a pattern of on inconsistency. 

After the call with XXXX was disconnected while I was waiting on hold, I called back to the loss draft department and spoke with a representative named XXXX XXXX. She stated that the receipt I sent SLS for {>= $1,000,000} did not specify that it was paid in full. I stated I don't understand, it is a service receipt not an an invoice. I contacted the contractor and resolved the matter and forwarded it to SLS. A week later on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX XXXX in the loss draft department. XXXX XXXX said that SLS was still having a problem understanding if a balance was owed or if I paid the amount stated on the receipt. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I spoke with XXXX XXXX in the lost draft department. She stated SLS did receive and accept the signed and updated receipt required for their records, but they then needed to schedule an appointment for an inspection. I agreed but clarified repairs required by the XXXX have not been preformed, as our funds were depleted waiting on a servicer to endorse the claim checks. 

XXXX XXXX stated the inspector would be coming for a basic check of the condition of the property as SLS has not seen the property since becoming the servicer. She said SLS would disburse possibly more than the {$18000.00} once the inspection is done but no less. I told her I have no problem with the inspection as my concern is that further delays on repairs will cause more damage. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I received a voicemail from a woman named XXXX who said she was calling to schedule an inspection. XXXX XXXX left a phone number XXXX XXXX ext XXXX. This number was a XXXX wireless cell phone which was disconnected. Furthermore, she left a phone number for the company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which was supposed to preform the inspection. Initially XXXX failed to return my calls despite leaving voice mails in different departments on multiple occasions ( XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX a man named XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX, said he was contacting me on behalf of SLS to schedule an appointment for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I explained to him XXXX left a disconnected phone number with an extension and that XXXX does not answer. He stated he would email them because they usually respond fast try contacting them again and wait a day. He also said if I didn't hear anything back call him on the XX/XX/XXXX because, this is not ok. 









I called XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and he did not answer, I left him a detailed voicemail stating once again I was not contacted by XXXX nor did they answer when I called them. XXXX called on XX/XX/XXXX and left me a message stating that he is trying to reach out to the inspection company again and that he actually put an extremely high XXXX on the email to call me or text me. XXXX said he received an update showing that XXXX attempted to called me on XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, XXXX stated wait another day and call him back as he would attempt to reach out to them again. 

On Friday XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX from XXXX contacted me and stated she just spoke with her inspector named XXXX XXXX and to give him a call. I called XXXX XXXX at XXXX and scheduled the inspection for XXXX AM Monday XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX walked through the home and took pictures of the floors, roof and gutter which has been repaired. The roof and gutters were not covered in the adjusters worksheet. He also took pictures up stairs and stated to me it is dry confirming no more water was entering the home from the wind damage to the roof as our receipts verify we also had half the roof and gutter system repaired. 

XXXX XXXX stated he had been watching my home for a year prior at the request of the inspection company XXXX and that he seen my sons bike on the porch and the kitchen light was on several times. He stated that he told his superior at XXXX that the home was occupied multiple times and as recently as XXXX of XXXX. 

If XXXX XXXX statement is true, it indicates XXXX and XXXX like the previous servicer, is aware that the home is XXXX and it is not abandoned, but is still attempting to withhold claim funds needed to finish repairs of our home. As previously stated in the summary of this complaint ; when the inspection was performed by XXXX XXXX he did not take pictures of the area associated with the second part of the insurance claim located in the basement, and it accounts in part for the sum total of funds. 

On XX/XX/XXXX an SLS loss draft department representative named XXXX told me SLS received the inspection photos at XXXX am and that they would contact me in two business days. SLS did not contact me. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I spoke with an SLS loss draft department representative named XXXX. She said SLS was waiting to hear back from the inspector and that they would try to get the direct contact information for the inspector to expedite. I explained to her XXXX stated the results came in at XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and that I have the inspectors direct contact number in front of me. 

I requested that XXXX get a manager who would be able to give me a straight answer before I filed a complaint. She left me on hold for a considerable amount of time before telling me no managers were available and that she would have someone contact me later that day.

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