Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: Selene Holdings LLC
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
XXXX Request for renewed review Selene Finance XXXX new evidence of bad-faith document tampering in response to prior CFPB Complaint # XXXX I understand that my prior complaint against Selene Finance XXXX ( CFPB Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX is marked as closed. I am submitting this new complaint because there is new, material evidence that Selene acted in bad faith during the CFPB process itself by deliberately tampering with the XXXX files it provided as its response. 

In the earlier case, the company uploaded a XXXX file that could not be opened or read by me or by any normal XXXX viewer. At the time, it appeared to be a technical problem. I have now obtained a forensic analysis of that file and two other XXXX files Selene produced in this dispute. The report ( attached ) shows : Selene produced three separate XXXX between XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>, via different channels ( its own secure link and the CFPB portal ). 

All three XXXXs share the exact same corruption pattern : each file is missing the % % XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX 

In each file, roughly half of the internal stream objects are left unclosed ( 50 % truncation ), meaning the file was cleanly cut off mid-document. For example, one file has XXXX XXXX but only XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX  are simply chopped in half. 

The sizes of the three files differ significantly, yet each is truncated at almost exactly 50 % of its stream objects. The probability of three independent accidents producing this same signature is effectively XXXX. 

The forensic conclusion is that this is intentional truncation, not a random glitch most likely a process where Selene ( or its agent ) generated a complete XXXX  and then cut it at a chosen byte-length, leaving a file that looks like a XXXX but can not be opened. 

In other words, Selene responded to a federal regulator by submitting technically present but unreadable documents, which is functionally equivalent to submitting blank or invisible evidence. This is not a mere customer-service issue ; it is obstruction of the complaint process. 

This tampering occurred in the context of my underlying servicing dispute, which involved : An unexplained Deferred Balance of about {$18000.00} added to my loan with no itemized accounting. 

Repeated refusal to provide a UCC 9-210 accounting or identify the current note holder. 

Inconsistent and incorrect statements about ACH cancellation and foreclosure status. 

No signed deferment letter, despite Selene asserting a deferment was approved. 

When the CFPB previously closed my complaint, the Bureau did not yet have the benefit of the pattern analysis across all three corrupted XXXX That pattern is critical : it shows a systematic method designed to appear responsive ( a XXXX  was uploaded ) while actually preventing review of the contents. 

Requested CFPB action : Please treat this as a new complaint focused on Selenes misconduct in its prior CFPB response, not just a duplicate of the original servicing dispute. 

Please obtain from Selene complete, valid, human-readable copies of all documents it previously claimed to send particularly the accounting and any deferment/modification documentation and require them to explain why three different XXXX  were corrupted in an identical fashion. 

Given the evidence of deliberate document truncation, I respectfully request that the CFPB consider elevating this matter for potential enforcement or supervisory review, as this tactic could be used in other consumers cases to obstruct oversight. 

I have attached : The forensic Pattern of Willfulness report documenting the three corrupted XXXX ; The corrupted XXXX themselves ; Correspondence from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and my related complaints to XXXX and the North Carolina Department of Justice. 

I appreciate that the CFPB marked the prior complaint as closed based on the information then available. However, this new evidence shows that Selenes purported response was not a genuine attempt to resolve or explain the issues, but rather a calculated effort to frustrate the CFPBs review. I respectfully ask the Bureau to consider this new complaint and to take appropriate action.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation