Consumer complaint received 2026-07-19 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: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
Deliberate Servicing Misconduct Prior closed complaint : # XXXX ( closed with explanation XX/XX/XXXX ) This is a NEW complaint. It cites new and continuing misconduct, including conduct that occurred after the prior complaint closed, and it renews the requests Onity failed to answer. The core problem Onity is deliberately refusing to honor a term of my VA approved VASP loan modification. This is not a mistake or a processing error. Onity reviewed and accepted my VASP modification, including its 60 month escrow shortage repayment structure, during the boarding process before it took over servicing of my loan. At a minimum, Onity had actual notice of the 60 month structure no later than my XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Error and my CFPB complaint, and Onity acknowledged the XXXX modification in its XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response. Its continued refusal after that notice is knowing misconduct. Onity disregarded the 60 month structure, re-spread my escrow shortage over 12 months and then 24 months, raised my monthly payment by over {$500.00}, received my contractual payment and refused to apply it, and began treating me as in default. Onity has refused to identify any legal authority for disregarding the 60 month term. What Onity 's own documents show My VASP modification set my monthly payment at {$2300.00} beginning XX/XX/XXXX. The interest rate is 2.5 %. Principal and interest is {$1400.00}. The escrow shortage of {$6900.00} was structured to be repaid over 60 months and was already built into that monthly payment. Onity 's Transfer Notice, dated XX/XX/XXXX, lists the required monthly payment as {$2300.00} and includes the federal disclosure that a servicing transfer " does not affect any term or condition of the mortgage loan. '' That is Onity 's own document confirming both my payment and that the transfer could not change my loan terms. Onity 's own payment portal shows that on XX/XX/XXXX it received my payment of {$2300.00} ( my bank bill pay for the XX/XX/XXXX payment ) and held the entire amount as " XXXX, '' with {$0.00} applied to principal, {$0.00} to interest, and {$0.00} to escrow, while posting an alert that the payment was 36 days late. What Onity told the CFPB, and why it is not a defense In its XX/XX/XXXX response to my prior complaint, Onity conceded that my loan was modified under VASP, that my 2.5 % interest rate is unchanged, and that my principal and interest is unchanged. Its entire defense is one sentence : " our servicing requirements permit escrow shortages to be spread over a maximum of 24 months. '' That defense is unsupported. Onity has not identified any statute, regulation, VA guidance, investor rule, or contract term imposing a 24 month maximum. Federal law points the other way : RESPA Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.17 ( f ), sets a floor, not a ceiling, for escrow shortage repayment. For a shortage of one month 's escrow payment or more, Regulation X permits the servicer to allow the shortage to remain or require repayment in equal monthly payments over at least 12 months. It does not impose a 24 month cap. Publicly available VA lending guidance points escrow administration back to RESPA. Onity has not identified any VA servicing provision that creates a 24 month maximum. If Onity contends that a VA or investor servicing requirement overrides the 60 month VASP structure, it must identify that authority. Onity is conflating a fresh annual escrow shortage ( governed by Reg X ) with the escrow shortage that was already structured into my permanent, VA approved modification. The {$6900.00} shortage was already being repaid inside my {$2300.00} payment. Onity re-discovered it as a new shortage and re-spread it over 12 then 24 months, unilaterally rewriting a term of a permanent modification. Onity 's own Transfer Notice forbids exactly this. 12 C.F.R. 1024.33 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( vi ) provides that a servicing transfer does not affect any term or condition of the mortgage loan. Onity disclosed this to me in writing, then violated it. The escrow figures do not reconcile Onity has produced four different escrow shortage figures, none of which it has reconciled : VASP modification documents : {$6900.00} shortage over 60 months Transfer Notice ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : escrow balance listed as negative {$670.00} Onity escrow analysis dated XX/XX/XXXX : shortage {$6600.00} over 12 months Onity escrow analysis dated XX/XX/XXXX : shortage {$6100.00} over 24 months The negative {$670.00} escrow balance on the Transfer Notice appears to be a different metric from the {$6900.00} VASP escrow shortage, or a boarding discrepancy. Either way, Onity must reconcile it. The discrepancy supports my demand for boarding and transfer records. New misconduct after my prior complaint closed On XX/XX/XXXX I paid {$2300.00} ( the VASP modified amount ) through my bank 's bill pay service for the XX/XX/XXXX payment. Onity received it. Onity 's own portal confirms receipt and confirms it applied none of it, holding the full {$2300.00} as unapplied. On XX/XX/XXXX Onity sent me an Early Intervention notice citing a default on the XX/XX/XXXX payment. Onity received my contractual payment and is now using its own refusal to apply that payment as the basis for a default notice. Because {$2300.00} is the correct VASP modified monthly payment, Onity should have credited it as of the date received. If Onity contends the payment was nonconforming, it must identify the authority for that position. This is a separate violation of 12 C.F.R. 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( payment must be credited as of the date received ) and 12 C.F.R. 1024.35. New misconduct : Onity reported my payment as late to the credit bureaus On or about XX/XX/XXXX, the same day it sent the Early Intervention notice, Onity furnished information to XXXX or more consumer reporting agencies reporting my XX/XX/XXXX mortgage payment as late or delinquent. This violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Onity reported the account late based on a payment amount it has no authority to demand, while that amount was already disputed, and it omitted that Onity had received my {$2300.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX, and was holding it as unapplied. Onity also failed to report the account as disputed. This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( a ) ( 3 ), and Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.43. Onity created the delinquency it reported by refusing to credit a payment it received. What I am asking the CFPB to do This is not an error. Onity is a recidivist servicer with a documented enforcement history, including a XXXX Department of Justice False Claims Act settlement of over {$74.00} XXXX for VA and FHA lending and origination misconduct. I provide this history as context for a pattern and practice, not as proof of any individual claim. Onity 's conduct spans RESPA, TILA, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I ask the CFPB to treat this as a pattern and practice of refusing to honor borrower loan modifications and of furnishing inaccurate credit information, not as a single borrower dispute, and to escalate accordingly. The CFPB enforces the FCRA against furnishers, and I ask the Bureau to examine Onity 's furnishing practices in this matter.

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