Consumer complaint received 2017-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ga XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, had responded on the behalf of Ditech, LLC ( servicer ) & XXXX XXXX ( investor ) in regards to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliant against the decision of her loan modification. Yes, XXXX XXXX is aware that the decision of the loan modification was based on the guidelines of XXXX XXXX loan modification program. 
However, XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX wanted to know why, XXXX XXXX XXXX, was made to complete the loan modification twice, and both Ditech LLC & XXXX knew that XXXX XXXX mortgage was not delinquent. XXXX XXXX has spoken to several representatives at Ditech LLC, the account representative XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX with XXXX XXXX, and none of those individuals had advised, XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, that the mortgage does not meet the qualification of the loan modification program. 
As matter of fact, XXXX XXXX was required twice to answers questions to see if the account met the qualification of the loan modification program, and each time representative was advised that, XXXX XXXX is barely making the mortgage payments based on her SSXXXX income of {$800.00}. Once again, nobody informed them that the account had to be 60 days delinquent or death or divorce or XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated, Pursuant to the investors modification guidelines, a loan applicant must show imminent default if the loan is not more than sixty days past due. Imminent default is considered one of the following events : XXXX Divorce XXXX Ditechs records reflect that we received a completed loss mitigation application from XXXX XXXX onXX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX loan was reviewed for a modification and the enclosed modification denial letter was sent onXX/XX/XXXX, as the loan is current and XXXX XXXX did not provide any evidence of imminent default. If XXXX XXXX was advised of these requirements before completing all the required documents twice, XXXX XXXX caused have requested for another form of assistance ; however, XXXX XXXX was not advised & that is not just. 
Furthermore, XXXX XXXX stated, XXXX XXXX is able to appeal the decision if she believes the determination was made in error.Once a complaint was submitted to the Consumer Finance on, XX/XX/XXXX, that was XXXX XXXX filing appeal against the decision that was made that was not brought to her attention prior to completing those documents. 
In addition, XXXX XXXX stated, We are committed to working with XXXX XXXX on her loss mitigation needs. Please have XXXX XXXX contact Ditech at XXXX with additional questions or concerns.However, XXXX XXXX did call on, XX/XX/XXXX, and the representative advised XXXX XXXX to sell XXXX XXXX home since she can not afford to keep the house. Therefore, Ditech LLC was not committed on working with XXXX XXXX, and no additional options were provided on the committed on working with XXXX XXXX when the letter from Ditech LLC was sent onXX/XX/XXXX 
Finally, why were the documents made to be completed & individuals were aware the account was not delinquent. Therefore, this is not just & is wrong on the behalf of Ditech LLC & XXXX XXXX who are committed to working with XXXX XXXX. 

Thanks XXXX XXXX XXXX is the letter sent to Consumer Finance on XX/XX/XXXX. 
XX/XX/XXXX The purpose of this letter is to file a complaint against Ditech LLC ( servicer ) & XXXX XXXX ( investor ). 
Around XXXX orXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX had contacted Ditech ( servicer ) for some assistance on the mortgage payments. XXXX XXXX advised the representative the mortgage payments are almost amount received for her SSI. Thus, XXXX XXXX is experiencing financial hardship due increase of expenses around the house. The representative confirmed that Ditech can aid with this request, but XXXX XXXX is required answer a few questions to see if qualified to receive some forms from XXXX XXXX to aid with her request of a manageable mortgage payment. 
I, XXXX XXXX, am XXXX XXXX son, and I assisted my mother with answering those questions & filling out the forms ; however, XXXX XXXX or I was not advised the main requirement required to be approve for assistance from Ditech & XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX & I was never advised by all the representatives & supervisors from Ditech, letters from Ditech, missing documents from Ditech & XXXX w/ XXXX XXXX XXXX Ditchs response from the file compliant, XXXX 15 days investigating against Ditech , emails from XXXX XXXX and phone calls with XXXX that we were advised that XXXX XXXX mortgage payments must be 60 to 90 days delinquent before providing any assistance. 

Therefore, our thought process is why send the forms for assistance twice, why tell us what documents were missing, why send all the required documents & forms for assistance, and why do a 15 days investigation if Ditech & XXXX w/ XXXX XXXX both knew XXXX XXXX mortgage payments were not delinquent & the account would not be approved because of this reason. 
When XXXX XXXX called Ditech on XX/XX/XXXX to see why, and a representative stated it was XXXX XXXX  who made the decision & that maybe my mother should sell her home if she could not afford her home. However, XXXX w/ XXXX XXXX stated it was Ditech who made the decision, and it was nothing XXXX XXXX could do as an investor. Then XXXX XXXX refused to provide XXXX XXXX with a supervisor, that all supervisors have a set schedule, the supervisors do not wait after XXXX to speak with consumers, and stated did advised XXXX XXXX of the 60 90 days delinquent. 
Thus, I reviewed all letters, documents, & emails very careful before writing this letter, and it was nothing said about the 60 90 days delinquent requirements. Now, XXXX XXXX mortgage payments are going to be {$860.00} w/ a SSI income of {$800.00}. All the letters & documents stated some kind of assistance would be provided ; however, we only got a rejected letter. 

Thanks XXXX XXXX

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