Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I received correspondence from Onity Mortgage ( formerly PHH Mortgage ) dated XX/XX/year>, stating that the company was still investigating my dispute and would respond further by XX/XX/year>. The letter instructed me to call a phone number and leave a voicemail with a return-call time request. The correspondence was issued by customer service representative XXXX XXXX. This directly conflicts with Colorados single point of contact requirements for mortgage servicing and loss mitigation matters. Instead of providing a dedicated, accessible representative familiar with my file, the company continues routing me through multiple unrelated agents and departments. Additionally, the correspondence and multiple prior servicing notices have recently been addressed only to me despite the mortgage involving both myself and my husband as obligated parties. By removing my husbands name from servicing correspondence, the company is effectively restricting his lawful access to mortgage information and communications. Federal law prevents opening mail addressed solely to another individual, creating an unreasonable barrier to co-borrower participation and communication. On XX/XX/year>, I called the number provided in the companys correspondence on two separate occasions attempting to discuss settlement of the alleged debt and obtain assistance regarding payment options and foreclosure activity. During the first call, the offshore representative repeatedly demanded personal identifying information before permitting escalation or transfer. I stated that I was uncomfortable disclosing personal information to an unidentified overseas representative and requested transfer to either an onshore representative or directly to XXXX XXXX. Instead of assisting, the representative disconnected the call. During the second call, another representative attempted to assist but ultimately stated she could not help further. I requested a return call from my legally required single point of contact. That request was denied. I was informed only a manager could arrange such contact, yet the manager refused to come to the phone. The representative then stated she would set up contact through management regarding my request for a single point of contact. At that stage, my attempt to reach a supposed single point of contact had already involved : 1. An offshore customer service representative, 2. A second customer service representative, 3. A manager who refused direct communication, and 4. A future unspecified contact person. This demonstrates the company does not maintain a functioning single point of contact process despite representing otherwise. I further informed the representative that I was actively attempting to address and resolve the alleged debt, but the companys systems refuse to accept payments unless the entire demanded amount is paid. This effectively blocks reasonable efforts to reduce the alleged arrears. The servicing records also appear inaccurate. Onity currently alleges approximately {$20000.00} is owed ; however, payment records will show that I paid nearly {$7000.00} during XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/year> alone. Despite these substantial payments, the company continues reporting and demanding inflated delinquency amounts while simultaneously preventing partial payment attempts. The companys conduct appears designed to obstruct communication, prevent meaningful loss mitigation review, and manufacture default conditions while foreclosure activity proceeds.

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