SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC

2017-08-17

Altadena, CA

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-17

South Florida, FL

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing are in violation of HAMP Rules found in Hanbook 5.1, dated XX/XX/XXXX. Section 3.1 of the HAMP Handbook clearly reflects that a a servicer must not refer or conduct a scheduled foreclosure sale " until '' the borrower has been evaluated. Thus, in the event the request is denied, servicer must allowed additional ( 30 ) days to appeal such decision. While on review the servicer contacted their legal representative to re-schedule a sale date. See attached motion to reschedule sale date by the plaintiff on XX/XX/XXXX, while in review for a Federal program Tarp. The Consumer Financial protection Bureau is fully aware that Tarp- is the " centerpiece of the [ Emergency Economic Stabilization ] Act [ of 2008, ] '' bestowing a host of " duties and powers '' upon the secretary of the treasury for the purpose of facilitating economic recovery. XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Cir. XXXX ). Hamp is one component of tarp focused specifically on protecting home ownership. See 12 U.S.C. 5219a. Florida Banking are govern by the Minnesota 's statutes of fraud. Servicer has failed to abide by the State and Federal Rules pertaining to the Loss Mitigation option, and Tarp program created to " protect '' home " ownership ''.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-16

Manhattan, NY

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-16

Evesboro, NJ

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-16

Arco, CA

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Complaint: I submitted a complaint to SPS last month via CFPB. SPS did not respond to the specific questions contained in the Qualified Written Request, nor did they respond to my request to schedule an in-person meeting at SPS HQ in Utah to review their " original copies '' of documents they allege are valid and are associated with my property. SPS is trying to use these so-called documents to foreclose our home based on an assertion of a financial interest that does not exist.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-16

Indianapolis, IN

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-16

Washington, DC

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-16

Sacramento, CA

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Complaint: Current Servicer as of XX/XX/XXXX is SPS - Prior Servicer : XXXX - Investor - XXXX My loan servicer, XXXX, intentionally, deceptively and unfairly steered me into default ( 90 days delinquency ) and caused me to lose good standing in MHA/HAMP and a principal reduction I was entitled to in the MHA/Making Home Affordable program on my Tier 1 Loan Modification. They then immediately sold or transferred the servicing. The loss of good standing caused me to lose my principal reduction and incentive payments of nearly {$360000.00} as per my HAMP Loan Modification Agreement dated and notarized on XX/XX/XXXX. If it werent for their misconduct and having to rely on their misrepresentation I would have been able to make a decision to pay the arrears to catch up and prevent the 90 day delinquency. They have admitted fault and apologized but left it to SPS to correct. They had a duty to provide me with accurate and truthful information. I had entered into a repayment plan twice due to some complications and recurrence from a long term XXXX I still suffer from ( XXXX XXXX ). At these times I was never 90 days delinquent. I had concerns that if I didnt pay the arrears in full and went into the repayment plan that I would lose my principal reduction. I informed XXXX the repayment plan they were suggesting and offering would take me past 90 days delinquent and would cause me to lose my principal reduction/good standing. I was told by the XXXX customer service representatives I would not lose good standing in the MHA program if I accepted their repayment plan as you are exempt from losing the principal reduction as long as you are in a repayment plan. I confirmed three times with them and managers that if I accepted their repayment plan and terms that I would not lose the principal reduction and good standing. ALL times I was reassured that as long as youre in a repayment plan going past 90 days will not cause you to lose your principal reduction. This is all logged into the system notes as verified and read out loud to me by XXXX representative/mod specialist XXXX XXXX. After entering and accepting the repayment plan they immediately retracted and cancelled the principal reduction at 90 days delinquent, citing that I had lost good standing. I called and was told by XXXX employees that they saw in the system all the notes and that the representatives and management did confirm to me in error that I would not lose good standing/principal reduction. They acknowledged their error and said it would be fixed but that on the XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX just a couple days away the loan servicing would be transferred to SPS. XXXX XXXX ( modification specialist at CHASE ) admitted fault and acknowledged it was CHASEs error. He apologized and advised me that since servicing was switching to SPS that the investor would have to be informed via SPS to correct the error and if they didnt correct it I could retain an attorney. He said they are welcome to call him and he will verify everything in the system as the notes from everyone who confirmed this misstatement was logged but that I couldnt get me a copy of it. He gave me the names of the representatives that confirmed to me the wrong information and read the notes out loud to me. I called SPS about this after they took over servicing XX/XX/XXXX and no one would call XXXX to verify the error. They said they didnt have the notes as it was proprietary information. They told me to file a notice of error with SPS. I did several times and was denied any action or change. No one at SPS ever called CHASE or got the notes or cared about this error enough to investigate it. They responded with the fact that I was 90 days delinquent and lost good standing. I have been misled and lied to and fraudulently cheated out of my principal reduction and steered into default. Where are the XXXX funds that would have paid for the principal reduction? Did XXXX keep them? How did SPS benefit from this transaction? Were they in collusion with CHASE to keep the terms of their financial transaction of this transfer? Something is very suspicious about how this happened as the CHASE representatives were clearly coached to inform borrowers about not losing principal reduction and good standing when in a repayment plan that takes you past 90 days delinquency. Even the managers confirmed it. Who was communicating this incorrect and fraudulent information to this department? And furthermore why was I put into the HAMP/MHA instead of the National Mortgage Settlement XXXX was a part of ( they owned my loan/investor ). They didnt even suggest this to me as an option after they steered me into default. Did they change servicers quickly in a matter of days to prevent them from issuing a principal reduction under another lawsuit they were obligated to? Were they hand picking mortgages based on what gave them the most profit? This is clearly a trend at that time and I suspect these deceptive practices are more widespread. XXXX EMPLOYEES : XXXX XXXX CAS- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) CAS XX/XX/XXXX She documented notes in XXXX system that my principal reduction wouldnot be affected due to 90 days delinquency as long as I was in repayment plan. XXXX XXXX XXXX Modification Specialist XXXX XXXX stated it was XXXX error and they were at fault. He said he can be reached anytime and will verify this information of the error is correct and will read all notes to confirm in hopes of helping to getting this reversed and error fixed.. He apologized and advised me that since servicing was switching to SPS that the investor would have to be informed via SPS to correct the error and if they didnt correct it I could retain an attorney. He said notes were in the system but that he couldnt give me a copy of it.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Fountain Valley, CA

Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Anaheim, CA

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Complaint: Select portfolio Service is our loan holder ; we have been attempting a loan modification since XXXX of 2016. They sent us a letter indicating they had all the information they needed and we were pretty much approved. One week later we were asked again for the same information we have already submitted several times. Based on everything they have done and said they have no intention on giving us a modification, even though they admit they are legally required to do so. We and hundreds of other customers are treated unfairly and are the victims of illegal practices and an overall culture of attempting to stall and do everything possible to not help anyone. They are at best incompetent bumbling idiots that work there or more likely - following company policy which seems to be to help no one and try and accumulate as many fees as possible ... .they charge us for evaluating our property about 6-7 times a year, they charge us to make a payment. They are acting criminally.They are predators and should be stopped.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

El Cajon, CA

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Macon, GA

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Stevenson, MD

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Complaint: A review with XXXX XXXX XXXX started in XXXX of XXXX. A call to XXXX XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX stated that all documents were deemed to be complete. This review carried on into XXXX with no decision yet and then a call on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX advised that they had service transferred the loan to Select Portfolio Servicing on XX/XX/XXXX but failed to send anything about this service transfer till XX/XX/XXXX ( leaving over a month of not notifying the client of who was currently servicing the loan ). When contact was made with Select Portfolio Servicing finally on XX/XX/XXXX they stated that they did not transfer the review and they needed a complete new packet. They were required to follow the same servicing guidelines as the previous servicer and because they did not, they made the client who would have been eligible for a Making Home Affordable Modification review not eligible since the program ended on XX/XX/XXXX. The review should have continued from the previous servicer and eligibility for the Making Home Affordable Program should have been reviewed. Since the servicing of the loan was not properly transferred the client improperly was denied an option for loss mitigation assistance. The result of the most resent review states that they denied the modification review because of it being " a bad business decision '' and that the loan is not eligible to be modified. In a QWR response by the previous servicer, the owner of the note is named as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX was a participate in the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement. As participants, the consent judgement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. signed requires them to review for a modification to make the loan more affordable. The consent judgement order from the courts dated XX/XX/XXXX changed that servicing requirement for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owned and serviced loans investor guidelines where they might prefer not to as specified in the original mortgage note. In this consent judgement there is not a provision for a denial based on " bad business decision. '' They also are required to advise of the financial information that they used to make the decision ( gross income and household expense calculation ) which they are not. The denial leaves it completely unknown as to the information they used to reach their decision.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Berthoud, CO

Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem

Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports: Credit reporting

Problem with personal statement of dispute
Complaint: My Request : I have twice this year submitted disputes on two, 30-day late marks on my personal credit bureau reports with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. In both cases, the items were not removed, even though prior conversations with the lender stated that these items would be removed, or not even reported in the first place due to special circumstances. In my most recent dispute I even went so far as to write a letter outlining why these items were not valid and reminding the lender that they had agreed to remove these marks from my credit bureau. I have not received feedback from the lender and the disputes filed did not provide any understandable feedback. I am asking the CFPB to raise this issue with the lender and credit bureaus to help relieve my otherwise clean credit report of these two, undeserved marks on the basis of special circumstances even though these should be considered simply on the basis of a 12 year old mortgage with no other payment issues. Background on this relationship : I have held this account with Select Portfolio Servicing since XX/XX/XXXX. My brother and I bought a home together seeking to fix up an old, dilapidated house to live in while we started our careers. Two years later we found, much to our dismay that the loan we thought was a 5 year ARM set to prime was a 2 year arm set to 5 % over LIBOR. It 's bad enough being lied to, but the market had just crashed and we could not even approach refinancing or modifying our note without going into default on our obligation. So even though our rates were as high as 8 %, when other people were paying 3 %, we made our payments on time, even though it did nothing but leave us starving some months. I suppose this makes us a minority in that we honored our obligations when these seemed to be a subsidy on credit default. I mention this because I would like to think that after 12 years of honoring our commitments, someone at SPS would step up and to the right thing. Background on the 2 negative credit marks : The two negative marks in question are for the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In both cases and well recorded the mountain area we lived was under severe weather warnings, mountain roads were closing regularly due to avalanche and trees were falling under the severe weight of what turned into a particularly harsh weather period. In XX/XX/XXXX snowfalls exceeding 1 foot per hour were recorded, and by XX/XX/XXXX the XXXX XXXX Mountains had already recorded their biggest winter in recorded history. In both cases we issued our payments, on time, for the mortgage. In both of these cases the next day our deposits were not processed due to issues at XXXX XXXX XXXX where our payments were being debited from. On those particular days the staff of the bank was not able to get in, either at all, or until late. And one person told us, their night deposit had frozen solid. When the issues came to light, I spoke immediately with the lender and corrected the payments. In both cases I was told they would keep this off my credit. Now I just feel lied to again. Now I do n't want to be given the run around, told to a letter from this person and submit to them and be sent in a circle between bank, lender, and credit bureau. I stepped up to my responsibilities for 12 years, through a horrible financial crisis, pinched pennies at times to make my payments on time. I 'd like to know that counts for something, and with someone.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Atl, GA

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-15

Tannersville, PA

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-14

Manhattan, NY

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-14

Grover Beach, CA

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Complaint: SPS is trying to dictate who I have as an authorized 3rd party on my file. SPS can not dictate who I choose to have handle my financial matters, this is not up to SPS this is up to the borrower. SPS must immediately CEASE and DESIST all demands as to who they say I have to authorize for my short sale request. If I do not wish my listing agent to be an authorized 3rd party then they will not be an authorized 3rd party.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-14

Bexley, OH

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-14

Los Indios, TX

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-13

Mount Vernon, NY

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-11

Marlboro, MD

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-11

Rockledge, FL

Struggling to pay mortgage

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-11

Douglasville, GA

Trouble during payment process

Mortgage: Other type of mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response

2017-08-11

Rncho Domingz, CA

Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage

Complaint: CONSUMER PROTECTION COMPLAINT : XX/XX/XXXX This is the follow-up of our complaint of XX/XX/XXXX ; the mortgage company did sent letters in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the {$16000.00} escrow payment and a balloon payment of {$240000.00}. In that letter from Mortgage Company it only repeated what I already knew. However, this issue has not been resolved the mortgage company is ignoring my request to explain why??. This is not a newly financed mortgage so I do not understand when did the terms of my mortgage changed. Why do we owe {$16000.00} escrow? Why do we now have a {$240000.00} balloon payment? Why is this happening when California has a program save my home affordable housing program or HARP? Please, we just want answers ; therefore, can someone please, please help us keep our home.??
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Timely Response