Consumer complaint received 2022-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
Borrower sent Shellpoint a XXXX  XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, to which Shellpoint replied on XX/XX/XXXX. Unfortunately, Shellpoint did not address all the queries presented by Borrower.

Shellpoint never verified the Account Manager during the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure on Account. 

Shellpoint states in the XX/XX/XXXX response, A single point of contact is typically assigned once Shellpoint receives a request for loss mitigation assistance from a homeowner ; however, there are instances where an assignment is made as part of a pre-emptive attempt to assist a homeowner that has fallen delinquent. In the months of XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint issued you loss mitigation solicitations inviting you to apply for the available loss mitigation options. 

Foreclosure seems like an instance where an assignment would be made to an account manager.

Borrower called Shellpoint on XX/XX/XXXX, asking to speak with Account Manager. Shellpoint CSR advised that Borrower would receive a call from Account Manager in twenty-four ( 24 ) hours. 

However, when Borrower called Shellpoint on XX/XX/XXXX, Account Manager was no longer employed. Eleven ( 11 ) days would go by before an account manager would call Borrower. Four ( 4 ) days after Borrower received notice of intent to foreclose from a lawyer.

In addition, Shellpoint never provided an answer to the validity of the Shellpoint SPC statement on XX/XX/XXXX, about having to go to a courtroom to obtain information regarding Account, rather than through a QWR. 

Also, Shellpoint neglected to provide an explanation as to why Shellpoint Manager would not know the validity of Shellpoint SPC statement. Shellpoint Manager never provided Borrower with an answer to the validity of the Shellpoint SPC statement. Shellpoint never provided an explanation in the XX/XX/XXXX, response to Borrowers XXXX XXXX. 

Another item Shellpoint did not respond to on the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX is the change in amortization on Account due to XX/XX/XXXX payment while payments from outside accounts were attributed to Account. 

Borrower claims Shellpoint intentionally neglected to respond to these queries from the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX while distracting Borrower with a loan modification with deferred principal balance approval. 

XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, letter states, ... adjustments were made to your loan. To clarify, certain transactions occurred that affected the arrearage due on your loan, which directly affected your eligibility for a non-HAMP loan modification. Following the completion of those adjustments, a re-evaluation on your eligibility for a loan modification occurred, where as a result your loan was approved for a non-HAMP loan modification. 

By XX/XX/XXXX Account was five ( 5 ) months behind in payments and Shellpoint enacted foreclosure. 

In XX/XX/XXXX Borrower applied for a loan modification. Shellpoint interfered with Account in XX/XX/XXXX making four ( 4 ) monthly payments, bringing the account current. Shellpoint then denied Borrowers request for a loan modification due to Account default not being imminent. 

By end of XX/XX/XXXX Shellpoint had reversed four ( 4 ) monthly payments, bringing Account into default. All the while, serving Borrower a foreclosure notice in XX/XX/XXXX, along with a foreclosure letter from Shellpoint lawyers. 

Shellpoint SPC informed Borrower in XX/XX/XXXX, that the mortgage loan service provider will re-evaluate Account for a loan modification. 

By the end of Shellpoints XX/XX/XXXX, response to Borrowers XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, Shellpoint had offered the loan modification with the forty ( 40 ) year deferred principal balance of approximately forty-nine XXXX ( $ XXXX ) dollars, Borrower requested XXXX 

One more thing, Shellpoint never explained the coincidence of the disappearance of the September 2016 monthly statement, showing the payment was made to Account while outside account payments were interfering with the Account amortization schedule. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Borrower spoke with approximately five ( 5 ) to six ( 6 ) Shellpoint CSR and none of them could find the XX/XX/XXXX Account statement in Shellpoint systems. 

While Shellpoint provided the XX/XX/XXXX statement as an attachment to the XX/XX/XXXX response. Shellpoint did not explain the disappearance of the XX/XX/XXXX statement from Shellpoint systems.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation