Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: CMG Financial Services, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal follow-up complaint to provide irrefutable evidence of a systemic, unlawful, and retaliatory servicing model operated by CMG Financial and its sub-servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX This complaint specifically refutes the formal, written responses submitted by CMG Financial to the CFPB in Case Number XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, and Case Number XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX. These responses contained material misrepresentations to federal regulators designed to obscure their outsourcing of protected military loan servicing and secure communications to untrained offshore contractors in XXXX. I have uncovered absolute, documented proof that my legally protected Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) and California Military Families Financial Relief Act accounts were serviced by offshore personnel employed by XXXX ( an XXXX XXXX ) based in XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, in direct violation of federal laws, state statutes, and XXXX XXXX 's active XXXX XXXX Order. My prior complaint history establishes a clear pattern of neglect and misrepresentation on the part of the Respondents. In CFPB Case Number XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, I detailed the mishandling of my SCRA and California XXXX XXXX requests from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX by offshore personnel. In response to Case Number XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX, that the borrower expressed concerns with working with the customer service team and their location, but they confirmed all email correspondence was handled by their onshore customer service team, while admitting that their servicing network includes domestic and offshore centers with trained agents. XXXX XXXX, an XXXX Resolution Analyst, repeated this claim on XX/XX/XXXX, in response to Case Number XXXX, stating that all email correspondence was handled by their onshore customer service team and that this served as their complete response to any assertions regarding time zones, call or email time stamps, or employees ' physical location. The Respondents ' claim that my account was handled onshore is a deliberate, intentional lie and a bad-faith cover-up designed to mislead both me and federal regulators. While they narrowly claim that email correspondence was onshore, they omit the fact that my entire communication and application channel was through their secure messaging portal, which was completely outsourced to XXXX, a third-party offshore XXXX in XXXX. I have directly identified multiple offshore secure message responders who handled my account. XXXX XXXX, who responded to my secure message on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX is actually XXXX XXXX, whose professional profile confirms he is based in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and is employed as an XXXX at XXXX. XXXX XXXX, who responded to me on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, is XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose profile confirms her location as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, working as a Senior Analyst at XXXX. XXXX XXXX, who responded on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, is XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX. XXXX XXXX, who scheduled an unwanted callback on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a XXXX XXXX at XXXX in XXXX. XXXX XXXX, who handled my escrow overage on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, is XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX in XXXX. Further irrefutable evidence is found in the public XXXX acknowledgments of their XXXX outsourcing partnership. On XXXX, XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX, publicly posted about her visit to the XXXX offices of their outsourcing partner, XXXX. She wrote that the week marked a series of firsts in her career, including her first time visiting XXXX and XXXX to meet with global partners at their offices, and she specifically thanked their hosts at XXXX for making it an incredible experience, noting that their XXXX and XXXX teams won first place in XXXX and XXXX. XXXX representative XXXX XXXX commented on her post, stating that he loved hosting her in XXXX and XXXX and could not wait to get the popup going in XXXX, Pennsylvania, where XXXX corporate headquarters is located. Furthermore, XXXX 's official job listings confirm they actively recruit employees in XXXX and XXXX to process US mortgage loans and specifically seek out offshore staff with specialized VA loan knowledge. A posting for an Associate in Pre-Purchase Review at XXXX in XXXX explicitly requires the review of Conventional, FHA, VA, and USDA loan types, and a general knowledge of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FHA, and VA guidelines, while demanding flexibility to work in night shifts to align with US business hours. This is reinforced by another recruitment alert posted by XXXX XXXX at XXXX seeking pre-underwriting specialists in XXXX with specific expertise in end-to-end loan processing for Conventional, FHA, and VA XXXX. This ongoing cover-up and the deliberate use of untrained offshore contractors have had a devastating and significant financial, emotional, and physical impact on my XXXX XXXX. Operating as a XXXX XXXX XXXX in high-stress overseas environments while simultaneously battling a major financial institution that is actively lying to federal regulators has caused extreme operational and personal hardship. Due to the incompetent handling of my account by offshore XXXX employees, my mortgage payment was misapplied, my principal prepayments were blocked, and my account was falsely flagged as past due during a valid deferment period. I was forced to spend valuable, limited XXXX time and incur substantial international call charges simply to bypass their outsourced secure message portal and reach onshore staff who understood basic XXXX laws. The stress of managing this unnecessary, manufactured crisis while serving my country has materially impacted my physical well-being, distracted me from my XXXX XXXX XXXX, and caused severe emotional distress to both me and my family, all because the Respondents chose to cut costs with untrained offshore labor and then intentionally lied to the CFPB to cover it up. By outsourcing these protected functions to untrained offshore personnel at XXXX, XXXX and CMG violated multiple federal regulations, state laws, and regulatory orders. First, they violated the active XXXX XXXX XXXX Order ( XXXX ) against XXXX XXXX, which prohibits deficient risk management and mandates strict governance over third-party relationships like XXXX. Outsourcing sensitive, legally protected SCRA compliance and XXXX XXXX XXXX to an offshore contractor lacking proper compliance training directly breaches these risk-management mandates. Second, they violated RESPA Regulation X under 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) by failing to maintain competent, trained, and knowledgeable staff capable of assisting borrowers with legal protections, and under 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.38 ( b ) ( 3 ) by failing to maintain reasonable communication channels, forcing me to make paid international phone calls. Third, they violated the SCRA under 50 U.S.C. Section 3919 by demanding unnecessary documentation once orders were submitted, and under 50 U.S.C. Section 3937 by delaying the processing and application of the six percent rate cap from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. Fourth, they violated the California Military Families Financial Relief Act under California Military and Veterans Code Section 800 ( e ), which requires mortgage servicers to implement military deferments within 30 calendar days, whereas they took nearly 90 days. Finally, they violated VA Servicer Handbook M26-4, Chapter 5, which mandates that VA-guaranteed loan servicers must utilize staff who are properly trained and fully knowledgeable in military rights, which can not be met by outsourcing to foreign call centers with no training in U.S. mortgage law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation