Consumer complaint received 2021-11-21 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
My complaint entails ( XXXX ) the failure of Wells Fargo to apply the proper loan modification interest rate for my Covid 19 flex loan modification ( including trial period ) in violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, ( 2 ) Wells Fargos attempt to impose an escrow for flood and property insurance in direct violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines and the threat to eliminate me from loan modification consideration if I did not consent to a flood insurance escrow, ( 3 ) Wells Fargos refusal to even consider a delay in the start date of the loan modification trial period plan given the tardiness of Wells approval and short turnaround time before first payment, ( 4 ) the actions and gross negligence of Wells Fargo employee XXXX XXXX for his false statements, mishandling of my request for loan modification and blatant violation of the XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, ( 5 ) the repeated violation by Wells Fargo of applicable XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, including telling borrowers in writing and verbally that additional written documentation is required for otherwise qualified reduced eligibility Covid 19 flex loan modification applicants and ( 6 ) the need to impose governmental sanctions and penalties upon Wells Fargo for their blatant violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, unacceptable delays in processing my loan modification and bad faith conduct in handling my requests and complaints, all as necessary to discourage continuation of unconscionable servicer behavior by Wells Fargo. 


By way of background, Wells Fargo is the loan servicer for my XXXX XXXX conforming XXXX loan. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX from Wells Fargo called me to discuss my options following the XX/XX/XXXX expiration of my Covid 19 mortgage forbearance. XXXX asked me a series of questions regarding my continuing Covid hardship and after going through the options, I informed XXXX of my desire to request a Covid-19 flex loan modification. XXXX indicated he would submit my request to underwriting and that I could expect a call back in about 3 weeks from a single point of contact. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX ( based in XXXX XXXX, TX ), a supervisor who after listening to a recording of my call with XXXX, informed me that XXXX had provided me with incorrect information. Among other things, XXXX XXXX informed me that I was required to make an initial down payment in good faith in the amount of my regularly scheduled payment and that if I did not, deferral of unpaid amounts until the maturity of the loan was no longer an option [ this was a false statement ]. I informed XXXX XXXX that I had not requested a deferral but was in fact seeking a Covid-19 flex loan modification. He then told me that a Covid-19 Flex loan modification is not on the table [ this was also a false statement ]. He also stated that a separate department deals with modifications and that I would be required to provide income and asset information and household expense information before I could be considered for a flex loan modification [ another false statement ]. I insisted upon applying for a flex loan modification and XXXX XXXX stated he would check and get back to me. XXXX XXXX then called back later that day after speaking with an underwriter that works with the investor on my loan and XXXX XXXX informed me that he could take an application for a flex loan modification. XXXX XXXX then asked me a series of questions necessary to apply for a flex loan modification which I answered and XXXX XXXX stated he would submit my request to underwriting. I never asked XXXX XXXX to request a deferral [ which unbeknownst to me XXXX XXXX had done ] and I informed XXXX XXXX that I was interested in pursuing the flex loan modification at that point. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, the Wells Fargo underwriter assigned to my case unilaterally adjusted my account and without my consent placed my loan into the deferral program and scheduled my regularly schedule monthly payment which I was paying pre-forbearance to recommence on XX/XX/XXXX. I received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX, Senior Vice President of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, confirming same. A copy of that letter is attached. The letter states in part near the end We are offering you a payment assistance program based on a partial review of your loan. If you would like a complete review of your loan, which includes a review for other assistance options, additional documentation is required. ( emphasis added ). This written statement is a direct misstatement of the XXXX XXXX  reduced eligibility requirements for Covid 19 flex loan modification relief, which in no uncertain terms do not require any further documentation from an otherwise qualified borrower. In my opinion, Wells Fargo included this misleading verbiage to discourage qualified borrowers from pursuing a Covid 19 flex loan modification under the reduced eligibility requirements. 


I then called and spoke to XXXX at Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, who informed me that the underwriter had reviewed my file, approved me for deferment, and that my case had been closed with the home preservation department which handles requests for loan modification. I then requested XXXX to ( 1 ) file a complaint on my behalf with the Wells Fargo Executive Office as a result of these irregular and unlawful actions, ( 2 ) remove me from deferral and ( 3 ) reinstate my request for loan modification consideration. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX XXXX of the Wells Fargo Executive Office, brought her up to speed on what had transpired and XXXX XXXX indicated that an Executive Office case manager would be assigned to my case and get back to me. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX called me, told me she was my Executive Office case manager and would look into my complaint. I also reached out to a HUD approved loan counselor to guide me through this process and help me respond to the actions of Wells Fargo. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed me she had requested that the processing of my deferral be reversed and that underwriting consider me for a Covid 19 flex loan modification as originally requested. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that my request for consideration for a loan modification was granted. A copy of the XX/XX/XXXX letter from XXXX XXXX confirming same is attached. As a side note, I point out that since my original appeal to the Wells Fargo Executive Office, I have been assigned, reassigned and passed around to XXXX different Executive Office case managers, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and finally XXXX XXXX, each occasion necessitating my time and energy to bring them up to speed. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX XXXX, the home preservation specialist assigned to my case, which email contained a link informing me that I was required to submit a Borrower Response Package ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) before I could continue with the loan modification. I responded back by email on XX/XX/XXXX informing XXXX XXXX that the request of Wells Fargo violated the recently enacted XXXX XXXX  servicing guidelines and that I qualified for a loan modification based upon the recently enacted reduced eligibility requirements. A copy of my XX/XX/XXXX email is attached. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX XXXX who informed me that no XXXX would be required and that my loan modification request was now in underwriting. XXXX XXXX also informed me that the request for a XXXX XXXX XXXX was part of a mass generic emailing sent to all applicants for loan modification at the beginning of the modification process which he did not have the power to override. I wonder how many potential applicants for Covid 19 loan relieve stopped the process of applying based upon Wells demand that a borrower complete an unneeded and unwarranted multi-page application calling for a borrowers personal and proprietary financial information. Despicable conduct on the part of Wells Fargo, to say the least. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo requested that I consent to escrow for flood insurance through so-called Borrower Correspondence . A copy of the Wells Fargo XX/XX/XXXX letter is attached. I denied such request and provided Wells Fargo with the XXXX XXXX  servicing guidelines which indicated that under my circumstances, establishment of an escrow was not permissible, inasmuch as I did not have an escrow in place prior to applying for a loan modification and because all taxes and insurance were current. I also pointed out that XXXX continued operation in violation of XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines would result in a complaint being filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A copy of my submittal along with my XX/XX/XXXX email to XXXX XXXX is attached. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, after my initial rejection of Wells ' request to consent, I was again requested to consent to a flood insurance escrow which again I refused. XXXX XXXX then informed me that per the Wells Fargo lending team I was required to consent to the escrow and if I did not, Wells would reject my request for a loan modification. Wells imposed a XX/XX/XXXX deadline to consent. I again repeated my request for the justification for such escrow, given that it appeared to contradict the XXXX XXXX  servicing guideline entitled Performing an escrow analysis for a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for COVID 19 impacted borrowers implemented XX/XX/XXXX and updated XX/XX/XXXX. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded back stating Based on the Federal Governments National Flood Insurance Act Regulations we do have requirements for the flood insurance to be escrowed. A Copy of such letter is attached. I again requested that Wells specifically identify the governmental regulations requiring an escrow, but Wells refused to provide such information, indicating on their website to do list that my failure to consent before XX/XX/XXXX would result in my elimination from consideration for a loan modification. I informed XXXX XXXX that I would consider consenting, but only if XXXX  provided specific legal evidence of the requirement. Wells failed to provide such evidence. 


On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX announced that effective XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX would be raising their loan modification interest rate to 3.125 % from 2.875 %, the lower rate having been in effect since XX/XX/XXXX and throughout the entirety of my loan modification evaluation period. Faced with an impending interest rate increase and the threat of losing my loan modification altogether, I reluctantly consented under duress on XX/XX/XXXX to escrow flood insurance only. A copy of my consent letter is attached. I also emphasized to my home preservation specialist that although I believed I was entitled to the lower interest rate because Wells had been evaluating my request for over 9 weeks, I wanted to make sure my approval would be completed as soon as possible, but in any event before XX/XX/XXXX, as XXXX XXXX had informed me that all contingencies to approval of the loan modification had been resolved, other than the flood insurance escrow. 


With 9 days to finalize approval of the trial period for the loan modification after I consented to escrow flood insurance before the new interest rate took effect, after being told by XXXX XXXX that all steps necessary for approval of my trial period plan had been approved except escrow implementation and despite daily requests for status updates from my home preservation specialist, all of which were either ignored or indicated as still under review by Wells lending division, Wells waited until the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, the first day of the interest rate increase, to approve the trial period plan, and then had the audacity to impose the higher interest rate, notwithstanding that Wells had been evaluating my request for over two months. The XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines specifically provide that the servicer must use the current Fannie Mae Modification Interest Rate indicated below when evaluating a borrower for a conventional mortgage loan modification. See attached XXXX XXXX Modification Interest Rate Exhibit guideline. Wells should have applied the lower rate because the entirety of the evaluation was conducted during the lower interest rate period and only 1 day, XX/XX/XXXX, was arguably covered under the higher interest rate period. 


When I was finally approved for my trial period on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed me on that same day that the interest rate for my trial period was set at 3.125 % and I would be required to escrow flood insurance in the approximate amount of {$54.00} per month. I was subsequently shocked to learn pursuant to an escrow letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and posted on line under my account statements, that my escrow payment would be {$220.00} per month and would now include, in addition to flood insurance, an escrow for property insurance and an escrow shortage component, notwithstanding that I never consented to any escrow beyond flood insurance ( and that consent was coerced by Wells under duress ) and the XXXX XXXX  escrow servicing guidelines expressly prohibiting establishment of an escrow under my situation. A copy of the Wells escrow letter is attached. As previously enumerated by the XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines, copies of which I forwarded to Wells weeks earlier, no such escrow is required. 


Finally, my request to start my initial trial period on XX/XX/XXXX in lieu of the proposed XX/XX/XXXX start date, has been completely ignored by Wells Fargo, without even the courtesy of a response. I had asked for this delay to give me some breathing room to line up my finances to ensure that I am able to successfully complete the requirements of the trial period plan, given the short turnaround from the XX/XX/XXXX approval date and the XX/XX/XXXX start date. 


Finally, I point out that the recently enacted XX/XX/XXXX modification to the XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines regarding escrows now expressly reference payment of flood insurance premiums in connection with the rules for no escrows, all of the conditions of which I satisfy for waiver of escrow. A copy of my email to XXXX XXXX informing Wells of such update is attached.

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 non-monetary relief