Consumer complaint received 2026-01-13 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Idaho Housing And Finance Association
State: IA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint regarding ongoing mortgage servicing errors by my loan servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X ( 12 CFR 1024 ).

This complaint concerns both the servicers original misapplication of payments and its failure to correct those errors after notice. 

-- - Payments made in 2025 The following mortgage payments were made to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX during XXXX. These amounts are accurate and can be verified by the servicers own records and my bank records, which are available upon request : - XX/XX/year> : {$1400.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$1400.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$1400.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$1200.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$310.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$700.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$3800.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$1200.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$1000.00} - XX/XX/year> : {$1100.00} -- - Transaction 11 ledger before correction The servicer provided a transaction history identified as Transaction 11, reflecting the account before any correction following my RESPA dispute.

Transaction 11 shows : - Repeated placement of payments into suspense or treatment as partial credits - Failure to apply payments to the oldest unpaid installments - Assessment of late fees while funds were held - Rolling delinquency despite substantial payments -- - Transaction 15 ledger after claimed correction After my RESPA dispute, the servicer issued a revised transaction history identified as Transaction 15, which the servicer represents as corrected.

Although Transaction 15 differs from Transaction 11 in presentation, the core errors persist : - The XX/XX/year> payment of {$3800.00} was not fully applied to cure prior unpaid installments. 
- Payments made in XXXX and XX/XX/year> ( {$1200.00} each ), as well as XXXX and XXXX payments, continue to be treated as partial credits rather than applied to the oldest unpaid installments.

- Late fees generated by suspense handling in Transaction 11 were not reversed.

- The asserted past-due balance remains approximately {$3800.00}.

Transaction 15 therefore reflects a cosmetic adjustment rather than a substantive correction.

-- - Correct accounting under RESPA When payments are credited as of the date received and applied to the oldest unpaid installments, as required by RESPA and Regulation X, my arrears at the end of XXXX  are under XXXX monthly payment ( approximately {$850.00} {$900.00} ), not a default-level balance. 

The servicers stated default amount is overstated by more than {$2900.00} due to continued misapplication of payments and improper fee assessment. 

-- - Improper reliance on mortgage language The servicer has asserted that mortgage contract language governs its handling of partial payments. Mortgage provisions do not override RESPA or Regulation X. Federal law prohibits practices that manufacture delinquency or unnecessary fees when funds sufficient to cure arrears have been received. 

-- - Improper restriction of payment access The servicer has restricted or XXXX my online payment portal while asserting a disputed and inflated past-due balance. This restriction prevents me from making payments and curing any legitimate arrears during an ongoing servicing dispute. 

-- -

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation