Consumer complaint received 2026-05-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
MASTER REBUTTAL TO WELLS FARGO DENIAL Subject : Formal Rebuttal to Wells Fargo Denial Servicing Errors, Unauthorized Autopay Activity, Inaccurate Records, and Prior Loss Mitigation Misrepresentation Borrower : XXXX XXXX Loan Number : [ XXXX ] Property Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, MD XXXX Date : [ Insert Date ] To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting this formal rebuttal to Wells Fargos denial and response regarding my mortgage servicing complaints. Wells Fargos response is incomplete, misleading, and contradicted by its own representatives statements, contemporaneous notes of calls, payment records, and written correspondence. This rebuttal addresses two separate but related matters XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Autopay / Unauthorized Payment Structure / Artificial Delinquency XXXX XXXX : XXXX Loss Mitigation / Home Preservation Removal / False Authorization Claim These are separate servicing disputes. However, together they demonstrate a continuing pattern of inaccurate internal records, mischaracterization of borrower authorization, failure to follow borrower instructions, and formal written responses that do not align with Wells Fargos own servicing communications. ________________________________________ I. XXXX XXXX XXXX AUTOPAY ERROR AND ARTIFICIAL DELINQUENCY Wells Fargos position that no servicing error occurred is contradicted by the contemporaneous notes of the XX/XX/XXXX call. During that call, I clearly explained that I wanted payments aligned with my paycheck schedule, not a shifting bi-weekly structure : I get paid twice a month Id like to have it charged my account when my check comes into my account. I then provided specific fixed dates : Why dont I have it come out on the XXXX of the month and then also on the XXXX of the month? I later clarified and locked in the exact recurring structure : I want to start doing XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and have that reflect and replicate on a recurring basis indefinitely Wells Fargos representative acknowledged this as a twice-monthly structure : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX keeping the bi-monthly schedule like that going forward, correct? I confirmed : Correct. A confirmation case number was issued : The case number XXXX Despite this, Wells Fargo later allowed or implemented a different payment structure. On XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo withdrew only a partial payment, three days before the full payment deadline, in a manner inconsistent with the confirmed twice-monthly arrangement. This created an artificial delinquency despite my intent to remain current and despite my prior consistent payment history. Wells Fargo can not reasonably claim that this was properly authorized when its own contemporaneous records show that I requested fixed-date, twice-monthly payments aligned with my income. ________________________________________ XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX LOSS MITIGATION / HOME PRESERVATION REMOVAL Wells Fargo also claims that I authorized removal from loss mitigation or home preservation review in XXXX. I dispute that claim. During the XX/XX/XXXX call, Wells Fargo manager XXXX XXXX stated that he reviewed prior calls and did not hear clear authorization from me to cancel or remove myself from the modification/home preservation process. He stated : I didnt hear anywhere in the conversation really that said, hey, cancel this He further stated : I didnt hear it clear remove me from the process. Most importantly, he acknowledged : It should have never been removed. He also stated : I have a valid reason to reactivate that approval. These statements directly contradict Wells Fargos formal denial that all actions were taken with my authorization and that no error occurred. This is not a minor discrepancy. It shows that Wells Fargos internal representative reached a conclusion inconsistent with Wells Fargos later written response. ________________________________________ XXXX. WELLS FARGO CONTRADICTION MATRIX Wells Fargo Claim Evidence Contradicting Claim Why It Matters No servicing error occurred regarding autopay. XX/XX/XXXX call notes show fixed-date twice-monthly payment instructions and representative confirmation. Shows Wells Fargo failed to implement the confirmed payment structure. Borrower authorized payment structure changes. Borrower requested XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX going forward, and Wells Fargo confirmed bi-monthly schedule. Undermines any claim that borrower authorized bi-weekly or undefined partial withdrawals. XX/XX/XXXX withdrawal was proper. XX/XX/XXXX correspondence did not clearly disclose how autopay would resume or that only a partial payment would be withdrawn. Supports claim of unauthorized and unforeseeable payment resumption. Borrower caused or accepted delinquency. Payment history shows borrower remained current through XXXX until Wells Fargo changed/suspended/resumed payment structure. Supports servicer-created delinquency theory. Borrower requested autopay removal/cancellation. Borrower denies XXXX authorization and contemporaneous notes show borrower wanted account left unchanged pending investigation. Raises concern about inaccurate or fabricated internal records. Borrower authorized removal from home preservation/modification. XXXX XXXX stated he did not hear clear cancellation authorization and said it should have never been removed. Directly contradicts Wells Fargos formal denial. Wells Fargo records are reliable. Multiple internal contradictions : bi-weekly vs twice-monthly, removal vs no removal, cancellation vs no authorization. Shows record-integrity issue and need for full audit. No correction is needed. Wells Fargos own manager stated there was valid reason to reactivate prior approval. Shows Wells Fargo internally recognized an error or basis for correction. ________________________________________ XXXX. LINE-BY-LINE REBUTTAL TO WELLS FARGO DENIAL Wells Fargo Statement : According to the enclosed payment history, the payments were received however on XX/XX/XXXX, the plan was removed per your request Rebuttal : I dispute this. Wells Fargos own manager, XXXX XXXX, stated after reviewing calls that he did not hear me clearly request removal or cancellation. I didnt hear anywhere in the conversation really that said, hey, cancel this I didnt hear it clear remove me from the process. Therefore, Wells Fargos statement that the plan was removed per your request is unsupported and contradicted by Wells Fargos own manager-level review. Wells Fargo Statement : We respectfully deny your claims to being removed or placed on any payment assistance options without your consent. Rebuttal : This denial is contradicted by XXXX XXXX statement : It should have never been removed. That statement confirms that Wells Fargo internally recognized the removal was improper or unsupported by clear borrower authorization. ________________________________________ Wells Fargo Statement : Our reviews are completed using the most up to date financial information provided by you and are only applied to the account after receiving approval by you. Rebuttal : This statement does not address the central issue : whether Wells Fargo accurately documented and followed my authorization. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Wells Fargo confirmed a twice-monthly payment structure, yet later implemented or allowed a different payment structure. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Wells Fargo claims I authorized removal from home preservation, yet its own manager stated he did not hear clear authorization. The issue is not whether Wells Fargo had financial information. The issue is whether Wells Fargo accurately recorded and followed my instructions. ________________________________________ Wells Fargo Statement : We have determined the account was handled properly and no corrections are needed as no error has occurred. Rebuttal : This conclusion is unsupported. Wells Fargos own records and representative statements show otherwise. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Wells Fargo confirmed fixed-date twice-monthly payments : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX keeping the bi-monthly schedule like that going forward, correct? XXXX XXXX XXXX, Wells Fargos manager acknowledged : It should have never been removed. These are not consistent with a finding of no error. ________________________________________ V. FORMAL REQUESTS I request that Wells Fargo : XXXX. Correct all internal records stating or implying that I authorized actions I did not authorize. XXXX. Correct my account history to remove any delinquency or negative status caused by Wells Fargos servicing errors. 3. Provide the full audit trail for autopay setup, suspension, resumption, alteration, and cancellation. 4. Provide the full audit trail for the XXXX loss mitigation/home preservation removal. 5. Reconcile Wells Fargos formal denial with XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX statements. 6. Reconcile Wells Fargos formal denial with the XX/XX/XXXX fixed-date twice-monthly payment confirmation. XXXX. Confirm in writing that inaccurate internal notes have been corrected. 8. Confirm that no adverse reporting, fees, or servicing treatment will remain based on Wells Fargo-created errors. ________________________________________ VI. CLOSING Wells Fargos denial relies on internal conclusions that are contradicted by its own representative statements and contemporaneous notes. This matter is no longer simply a dispute over payment timing. It concerns the integrity of Wells Fargos account records, the accuracy of its formal responses, and whether Wells Fargo is attributing unauthorized actions to me after the fact. I request a substantive written response addressing each contradiction directly. Sincerely, XXXX

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