Consumer complaint received 2026-03-17 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Complaint Against XXXX Improper Property Preservation Actions, Loss Mitigation Interference, and Lack of Communication During XXXX XXXXXXXX Bankruptcy I am submitting this complaint regarding the servicing of my mortgage by XXXX and their actions related to my property while I am currently in an active XXXX XXXX bankruptcy. During the deed-in-lieu review process, XXXX sent written communication stating that their property preservation team would schedule an inspection of the property. However, no one contacted me to schedule the inspection or coordinate access to the property. Without any prior coordination or permission, XXXX property preservation vendor entered the property, changed the locks, and installed a lockbox. I was only notified after the fact by email that the locks had been changed and was given a lockbox code to access the property. Shortly afterward, the lockbox was removed without notice, leaving me without a way to access the property. I ultimately had to find another way to enter the home. When I contacted XXXX by email regarding the removal of the lockbox and access to the property, I did not receive a response. Additionally, XXXX vendor winterized the property and disconnected water and electric services without my knowledge or permission. While the property XXXX have been vacant at the time, it was still being maintained by the homeowner and had not been abandoned. The winterization was completed without my consent and while my deed-in-lieu request was still under review. The deed-in-lieu was later denied, in part due to property condition concerns, including a tarp on the roof and a request that repairs be completed. The tarp had been placed to address a roof leak, and I was instructed that it would need to be repaired or removed. Despite these requirements, the property preservation actions taken by XXXX created additional barriers to addressing these issues. The property is now listed for sale as a short sale, and an offer has already been accepted. My realtor has contacted XXXX and requested that they restore the property from its winterized condition and restore water and electrical service due to concerns about potential mold growth and the need for proper inspection and appraisal. However, my realtor was informed that the buyer may be required to conduct a blind inspection or pay a fee to have the property de-winterized. I was also informed that the cost to de-winterize the property could be up to {$1000.00}, which may fall on either the buyer or the homeowner. These additional costs and barriers are a direct result of XXXX property preservation actions taken without my knowledge or permission. When I attempted to explain to XXXX representatives that the property had been winterized during the deed-in-lieu process, I was told that the property was considered vacant and not maintained by the homeowner, which they stated was the justification for the winterization. This statement is inaccurate. While the property was vacant, it was still maintained by the homeowner and was not abandoned. I believe XXXX failed to exercise reasonable diligence in the loss mitigation process by proceeding with property preservation actions and denying the deed-in-lieu while failing to coordinate inspections or communicate clearly regarding the requirements. These property preservation actions, including changing locks, winterizing the home, and disconnecting utilities, interfered with the loss mitigation process and have made it more difficult to complete the approved short sale. I am also currently in an active XXXX XXXX bankruptcy case. Despite this, XXXX did not communicate with my bankruptcy attorney regarding these actions or direct me to have my attorney contact them. No notice was sent to my attorney regarding the property preservation actions or the entry into the property. In addition to these concerns, I have experienced significant issues with XXXX bankruptcy department when attempting to obtain information about my options and the status of the property. When calling for updates, I am frequently provided conflicting and inaccurate servicing information depending on the representative I speak with. The information provided by the bankruptcy department often changes from one call to another. On one occasion, both a customer service agent and a manager informed me that they were unsure of the full process and suggested that XXXX XXXX the deed-in-lieu and short sale process for more information. This response was extremely concerning given that XXXX is the servicer responsible for providing accurate information about available loss mitigation options. My concerns are as follows : XXXX. XXXX entered the property and changed the locks without scheduling the inspection as stated in their written communication. XXXX. The lockbox was later removed without notice, leaving me unable to access the property. XXXX. The servicers vendor winterized the property and disconnected utilities without my knowledge or permission. XXXX. The property was vacant but still maintained by the homeowner and was not abandoned. XXXX. These property preservation actions interfered with the loss mitigation process and have made it more difficult to complete the short sale, despite an accepted offer. XXXX. XXXX failed to exercise reasonable diligence in the loss mitigation review process. XXXX. XXXX failed to communicate with my bankruptcy attorney despite my active XXXX XXXX bankruptcy. XXXX. I have received conflicting and inaccurate servicing information from XXXX bankruptcy department when attempting to obtain updates. XXXX. I was told by a representative and manager to XXXX the deed-in-lieu and short sale process because they were unsure how the process works. XXXX. I was informed that a buyer may have to pay up to {$1000.00} to de-winterize the property in order to conduct an inspection, which is a direct result of the servicers actions. XXXX. XXXX has not cooperated in restoring utilities or reversing winterization despite an active short sale and accepted offer. I am requesting that XXXX : Provide a written explanation of why their vendor entered the property, changed the locks, and winterized the home without scheduling the inspection as stated in their communication. Explain why the lockbox was removed without ensuring I retained access to the property. Address the lack of communication with my bankruptcy attorney while I am in an active XXXX XXXX case. Provide clarification regarding the conflicting and inaccurate servicing information provided by their bankruptcy department. Take responsibility for reversing the winterization and restoring utilities so the property can be properly inspected and the short sale can proceed without unnecessary delay or added cost. I am requesting the assistance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in reviewing this matter and helping ensure that XXXX addresses these issues and improves their servicing practices.

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