Consumer complaint received 2026-01-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: NE

Complaint narrative:
I. CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE OF CONTRADICTORY COMMUNICATIONS XX/XX/XXXX Acknowledgement of Complete Package The Servicer acknowledged receipt of a complete loss mitigation application package. At this point, the Servicer represented that all required documentation had been received and the application was under review. 
XX/XX/XXXX Two Contradictory Letters on Same Day The Servicer mailed TWO separate letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, each titled " Request for additional documentation. '' These letters, sent on the same day, contained differing content while simultaneously reversing the prior acknowledgement of completeness. The package previously declared complete was now, inexplicably, incomplete. 
Both letters demanded production of a document that does not exist : " Document : Contact your Relationship Manager '' " Contact your Relationship Manager '' is not a document. It is a demand for verbal communication. This demand serves no legitimate purpose other than to avoid creating written records of the Servicer 's representations and to manufacture grounds for application denial by requesting production of something that can not be produced. 
XX/XX/XXXX Notice of " New '' Relationship Manager The Servicer sent a notice purporting to announce a new Relationship Manager assignment. The named individual was XXXX XXXX same Relationship Manager previously assigned. No actual change had occurred. This letter served only to reset procedural timelines and create the false appearance of responsive action. 
XX/XX/XXXX First Legitimate Document Request For the first time since XX/XX/XXXX, the Servicer requested an actual, producible document. This document was signed and submitted within the stated deadline, in full compliance with the Servicer 's instructions. 
XX/XX/XXXX Assistance Review Cancellation Despite timely submission of all legitimately requested documentation, the Servicer cancelled the assistance review. No explanation was provided for how an application could be complete on XX/XX/XXXX, incomplete on XX/XX/XXXX due to a non-existent " document, '' cured by XX/XX/XXXX submission, and then cancelled on XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX. QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE XX/XX/XXXX Qualified Written Request via Certified Mail I submitted a Qualified Written Request pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ), sent via certified mail with return receipt requested. The QWR requested, inter alia : complete chain of title documentation, proof of transfer of the Note, the XXXX XXXX XXXX pool number in which my loan is held, the servicing agreement between U.S. Bank and XXXX XXXX, and all records maintained regarding my account. 
Servicer 's Inadequate Response The Servicer 's response was materially deficient under RESPA. Rather than providing the requested documentation, the Servicer : 1. Declared that details involving my loan and a federal government entity ( XXXX XXXX ) constitute " confidential information. '' XXXX. Failed to provide anything beyond my payment recordinformation I already possess. 
XXXX. Enclosed copies of the XXXX contradictory XX/XX/XXXX lettersdocuments I had already received and which form the basis of this complaint. 
The claim that information about MY loan is " confidential '' from ME is legally indefensible. XXXX XXXX is a wholly-owned government corporation within HUD, subject to the Freedom of Information Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552 ). I am entitled under the Privacy Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552a ) to all records maintained by federal agencies pertaining to my individual account. The Servicer can not invoke " confidentiality '' to shield basic loan documentation from the borrower.

III. THE SERVICER 'S CONSCIENTIOUS WARNING I would be remiss if I failed to note that among the Servicer 's correspondence was a thoughtfully included pamphlet titled " Beware of Foreclosure Scams. '' The pamphlet warns consumers against entities that : Demand payment for services that provide no benefit Request documentation that can not be produced Create confusion through contradictory communications Obstruct legitimate loss mitigation review The irony is not lost on me.

IV. SPECIFIC RESPA AND REGULATION X VIOLATIONS 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ) Failure to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents. Requesting a non-existent " document '' ( " Contact your Relationship Manager '' ) does not constitute reasonable diligence.

12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide accurate information about loss mitigation options. Sending contradictory letters on the same day regarding application status violates the requirement to provide accurate information.

12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ) Failure to respond adequately to Qualified Written Request. Claiming borrower 's own loan documentation is " confidential '' does not constitute a compliant response.

12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) Bad faith denial of loss mitigation. Cancelling an application after manufacturing incompleteness through impossible documentation demands constitutes procedural bad faith. 
V. RELIEF REQUESTED XXXX. Reinstatement of loss mitigation review based on the XX/XX/XXXX complete application. 
XXXX. Complete response to my XX/XX/XXXX Qualified Written Request, including all documentation previously withheld as " confidential. '' XXXX. Written explanation of how my application transitioned from complete to incomplete based on a demand for a non-existent document. 
XXXX. Identification of the XXXX XXXX trust pool number and production of the servicing agreement. 
XXXX. Statutory damages under RESPA for XXXX violations. 
XXXX. Cease and desist from further demands for documentation that does not exist. 
VI. CONCLUSION The Servicer has demonstrated a pattern of conduct designed to obstruct loss mitigation review through procedural gamesmanship : acknowledging completeness, then reversing that acknowledgement based on impossible demands, then cancelling the review when manufactured deficiencies could not be cured. This is not inadvertent error. This is systematic obstruction. 
I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate these practices and take appropriate enforcement action. 
This complaint, and all responses or non-responses thereto, will be preserved as evidence for potential civil litigation including claims under RESPA and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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