- Report: #245352
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Wells Fargo Loss Mitigation Department
Wells Fargo Loss Mitigation Department3476 Stateview Blvd Fort Mill, South Carolina U.S.A.
Wells Fargo Loss Mitigation Department more Deceptive Practices, Promises to help with a loan modification only to string you along so they can foreclose on your home ripoff Fort Mill South Carolina
*Consumer Comment: Wells Fargo Bank Loss Mitigation
*Consumer Comment: Wells Fargo Bank Loss Mitigation
Our conversation with Chris in customer service on January 10, 2007, should have been a red flag as we were advised there was nothing Wells Fargo Home Mortgage would do to work with us until we were at least 90 days in default. Two weeks later, during the last week of January 2007 we were contacted by Michelle at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage KOX who indicated she was calling to discuss options to bring our mortgage current.
When we informed Michelle of our previous conversation with Chris, we were provided with contradictory information. In fact, Michelle asked a series of questions regarding our current financial condition and after receiving this information she indicated we were pre-qualified for a loan modification program wherein two payments would be moved to the end of our term giving us until May 2007 before our next payment would be due.
Michelle indicated we should immediately complete the loan modification packet being forwarded to us and make a payment of $5300.00 to our nearest branch office. Michelle also instructed us not to make any further payments as this would jeopardize our Loan Modification application. We complied on both counts making the payment and faxing the packet of information, as instructed in the loan modification packet, on February 13, 2007.
We received a facsimile confirmation indicating four facsimile pages were received at your offices. This is where the process involving your loan modification department in Fort Mill, SC takes on the illegal bait and switch systems which have led to this correspondence.,
On February 26, 2007 we received a letter from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage dated February 23, 2007 which alleges the Loss Mitigation Department did not receive our loan modification application packet consisting of four pages. This correspondence was generated from MAC X78013K.
We immediately contacted your Loss Mitigation Department via telephone and we were advised no packet was received. We requested a supervisor contact as soon as practical; however, we are still awaiting a return call.
The following day, February 27, 2007 we again called the Loss Mitigation Department and during this phone conversation we were informed there was no facsimile from us in the system. After being asked for the facsimile number we had used to forward our loan modification packet, we were informed the facsimile number provided in the loan modification packet was no longer valid and that we should use a different facsimile number. Again we asked to speak to supervisor and we continue to wait for the courtesy of a return call.
Later the same day we called the Loss Mitigation Department and were connected to Angela in Wisconsin. Angela informed us the facsimile number provided in the loss mitigation application packet was in fact, correct, however, we were instructed instead to use the new 866 number. We were then transferred to Jamie Baker in Fort Mill, SC. Ms. Baker informed us that Angela was in error, the only functional facsimile number for use by the Loss Mitigation Department was the 866 number.
Ms. Baker suggested we again facsimile transmit our packet to our Loan Processor Ms. Raphael Jordan. We again forwarded the packet to Ms. Jordan via facsimile, to which we received yet another confirmation transmittal page, the third confirmation of our packet being received by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
On March 6, 2007 we called the Loss Mitigation Department to check on the status of our packet and we were connected to Patrice who indicated that Ms. Jordan had placed notes in our file three days prior that she needed evidence of child support to complete our packet.
We immediately proceeded to attempt to facsimile the requested documentation; however, the facsimile number was busy for over twenty minutes. We finally were able to complete the facsimile of the requested documentation, receiving two more confirmations that two facsimiles were received by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage on March 6, 2007 at 2:38 PM PST and 3:36 PM PST. The following day, we spoke with Bonnie who informed us there was still no image in the system and there is nothing more she could do.
On March 9, 2007 we called the Loss Mitigation Department and were connected to Jasmine who informed us that Raphael Jordan received the facsimile documentation of child support, however, Ms. Jordan indicated the child support documentation was in the amount of $300.00 not $500.00.
After becoming irritated with the continued inept handling of our case, I said, Damnit, are you kidding me? Jasmine took this opportunity to immediately hang up the telephone. It was at this point that we became suspicious of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's intentions and professionalism in this entire process.
We immediately called the Loss Mitigation Department back where we were connected to Louis in South Carolina. Louis indicated he was able to locate the facsimile we had forwarded to Ms. Jordan regarding the child support documentation. Louis indicated he clearly read the documentation and confirmed the documentation stated $500.00. Louis indicated he would personally email Ms. Jordan notifying her of her error in reading the facsimile. We were then transferred to Tyrone, a supervisor, who we informed of Louis' customer service and Jasmine's lack thereof. Tyrone confirmed that we should call back within 24 to 48 hours to check the status of our case.
Following the directions of Tyrone, we called back on March 12, 2007 at which time Harold informed us the system was down. On March 13, 2007 we called again being connected to Glen who informed us our packet had not been sent to the loan processor yet and to call back.
On March 16, 2007 we again called back and we were connected to Bonnie who advised us there was no new information in our file. We requested to speak to Ms. Jordan; however, Bonnie informed us we were not allowed to speak directly to the loan processor as this was not part of the process and that we must work within the process. We requested to leave a message for Ms. Jordan and we were allowed to leave a message for Ms. Jordan to contact us. We are still awaiting the courtesy of Ms. Jordan's return call.
On March 19, 2007 we again contacted your Loss Mitigation Department to check on the status of our application packet. Tynisha informed us there was no updated information in our file since March 6, 2007. We requested to speak to a supervisor; however, there was no supervisor available. Tynisha then sent a message to the shift manager requesting they call us back to follow-up on the information we have forwarded. We are still awaiting a call from this supervisor.
Two days later on March 21, 2007 we called and spoke to Coretta in South Carolina and informed her it had been fifteen days without any updates to our file. We detailed our contacts with and the information forwarded to Ms. Raphael Jordan and indicated it appeared this individual was not working on our file. Coretta replied, There is nothing else I can tell you, you have to work with our process.
Having received no response from Coretta, we immediately called back and we were connected to Mel in the South Carolina office. Mel indicated she could do nothing for us, was unable to connect us to or leave a message for Ms. Jordan, and hung up on us. We called back yet again and we were connected to Brenda, to whom we requested to speak to a supervisor. We were then connected to Shakeem, a supervisor in the Loss Mitigation Department, who asked that we send the child support documentation again. He assured us he would personally deliver the documents to Raphael Jordan as he knew her personally. We immediately re-facsimiled the child support documentation to Shakeem's attention, receiving yet another facsimile transmission confirmation and called back to ensure Shakeem had received the facsimile. Shakeem indicated the system had just gone down.
On March 23, 2007 we called the Loss Mitigation Department and were connected to Coretta in South Carolina who informed us our file had been closed as Ms. Jordan had not received the child support documentation requested. Coretta indicated she observed the documentation in the system and that she would email Ms. Jordan indicating the documents requested were, in fact, in the system. We requested to have a supervisor call us regarding this completely inept handling of our file by Ms. Jordan; however, we still have yet to receive a return call.
At this point in the process it became clear that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Loss Mitigation Department was engaged in a pattern and practice of business which was in violation of California Consumer Protection Laws. We decided to conduct an investigation into the customs and practices of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in relation to their operation of the Loss Mitigation Department in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Preliminary research indicated there were hundreds of people in the same or substantially similar situations as we have found ourselves.
We undertook additional investigation into the practices of this unit and during this investigation we located several individuals who have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of this department. These people have indicated there is a policy and practice within the Loss Mitigation Department promulgated from the highest levels of supervision within this unit to string clients along until they are forced into foreclosure. Another source within this unit indicates, We are instructed to ensure people are strung along as long as possible because they stop making payments and fall further and further behind.
Our good faith efforts continued as we endeavored to obtain the Loan Modification we had supposedly been pre-approved for in late January 2007. On March 26, 2007 we called the Loss Mitigation Department and we were connected to Shanikka who informed us our file was closed and there were no other updates. We requested to speak to a supervisor and we were connected to Shakeem.
After repeated attempts and requests, Shakeem finally forwarded our call to Ms. Raphael Jordan, our loan processor. We left a detailed message for Ms. Jordan providing information on our many facsimiles, confirmation sheets, representations from fellow workers confirming receipt of our documentation, however, Ms. Jordan has yet to return our call. The following day we contacted the office again and we were connected to Mrs. Nelson who transferred us to Raphael Jordan. We again left a detailed message and requested Ms. Jordan give us the courtesy of return call to discuss this pressing issue. To date, we have not received a return call.
Interestingly, after leaving Ms. Jordan two messages on successive days, we spoke to Mrs. Liu in the South Carolina office on March 29, 2007, who informed us that Ms. Jordan was now requesting three months of child support documentation. In Ms. Jordan's prior notes to our file from March 6, 2007 she indicated needing documentation of an additional $200.00 of child support monthly. We know this request was in error, as this documentation had been provided several times, however, Ms. Jordan never requested three months of documentation.
Despite what appeared to be yet another method of stringing us along we immediately sent the requested documents via facsimile, obtaining yet another facsimile transmittal report confirming receipt of these documents. We asked to speak to Shakeem, who was not at his desk. We then asked to speak to Ms. Jordan's supervisor and while on hold, Shakeem picked up the telephone. Shakeem indicated he didn't know who Ms. Jordan's supervisor was but he would find out. Shakeem then indicated not to expect a call back from him as he was much too busy to deal with our requests which are outside the process.
Later the same day, March 29, 2007, we called the Loss Mitigation Unit again and spoke to Mel in South Carolina. During this conversation we were informed by Mel that our file had been closed because we were only two months in default, not because Ms. Jordan didn't receive the information requested in a timely fashion. Mel advised us not to make any additional payments as this would jeopardize our qualifications for the Loan Modification.
Seems while this whole process was going on, the initial payment of $5300.00 made on February 13, 2007 and supposedly held in a suspended account for processing and fees associated with the loan modification, had now been released for application to our outstanding past due balance. Mel indicated the only way to proceed within the process would be to start the process all over again. We requested to be transferred to Ms. Jordan's supervisor; however, Mel informed us this was outside the process.
We then asked to be transferred to Mr. Brian Keating, who we learned through our investigation was Ms. Jordan's supervisor, however, Mel refused to transfer us and denied Mr. Keating was indeed Ms. Jordan's supervisor. We then asked to be transferred to the legal department, again Mel refused stating, This is outside our process, and there is nothing else I can tell you.
We then inquired about the recording system for our calls, as during each call we are advised these calls are being recorded for quality control and training purposes. We asked how the calls are recorded and Mel refused to answer this question. We again inquired about the method of recording calls and we requested Mel direct us to the unit or person in charge of maintaining the telephone call recordings, however, Mel indicated she could not provide this information. Ultimately, Mel simply stated, there is nothing more that I can do for you, goodbye!
A call to the Loss Mitigation Department on April 2, 2007 when Bonnie informed us our file was still closed with no notations. We were again admonished to work within our process and be patient. We were again refused transfer to Ms. Jordan or her supervisor and Bonnie then hung up on us without further explanation.
On April 4, 2007 during a call to the Loss Mitigation Department, Daniel indicated our file had been re-opened yet again. Daniel indicated it would take 7-10 business days for our facsimile of March 29, 2007 to be imaged and available for use by Ms. Jordan.
On April 10, 2007 we received an urgent message from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage about your account. We returned this urgent call within seven minutes. Our call was handled by Jackie who was assigned to the Loss Mitigation Department in South Carolina and Jackie indicated they needed no additional information or documentation to review our file. She further indicated she had no idea why anyone would call us with an urgent message. Jackie indicated we should call back the following day.
We called the Loss Mitigation Department number on April 16, 2007 and we were connected to Prince in Minneapolis, MN who indicated the last note in our file stated Ms. Jordan was waiting for the imaging department to scan the documentation we had forwarded on March 29, 2007 containing three months of child support documentation. Prince could not figure out why Ms. Jordan could not review the documents in question as they had been posted to system on April 2, 2007; 14 days earlier. Prince advised us to call back one to two times per week to ensure nothing, slipped through the cracks.
On April 19, 2007 we called the Loss Mitigation Department and learned from Samantha that the approximate amount due to bring our account current was $16,300.00. Samantha furthered indicated that our file had been closed again because Ms. Jordan hadn't received the requested documentation. Samantha was unable to contact Ms. Jordan but was unable to do so.
A supervisor named Eve then came on the line and went through the images available on her system for March 29, 2007 and she indicated there was no record of our facsimile of March 29, 2007 containing the three months of child support documentation. While on the phone with Eve we again facsimiled the documents we had previously sent on March 29, 2007. This time, Eve stayed on the telephone with us as she not only received and reviewed our facsimile documents but she also forwarded these imaged documents, immediately, to Ms. Raphael Jordan. On April 20, 2007, Janine at the Loss Mitigation Department indicated our file remains closed because Ms. Jordan is awaiting receipt of our documentation.
We again called the Loss Mitigation Department on April 23, 2007 and were connected to Jasmine who informed us our workout was cancelled on April 18, 2007 due to Ms. Jordan not receiving the requested documentation. When we inquired about our conversations with Eve and her ability to view our documents which were forwarded on several occasions Jasmine confirmed seeing the comments from Eve in the system, however, she stated there was nothing further she could do other than advising us to re-submit our paperwork and start the process again. She also advised us to submit a complaint letter to the Loss Mitigation approval team to see if they would assign our file to another loan processor.
In summary, we contacted Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in good faith in early January to work out a solution to our temporary situation. Since our earliest conversation with Michelle who indicated we were pre-approved for a Loan Modification workout, we have been strung along by the personnel at the Loss Mitigation Department. The behavior of the personnel at the Loss Mitigation Department has been deceptive, unethical and illegal and our investigation has shown that this behavior is a pattern and practice developed and encouraged by the management of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
Based upon the advice from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage personnel we have not made payments so we could qualify for the Loan Modification. Because of this advice we are now facing foreclosure.
We are requesting the intervention of the management of Wells Fargo & Company to ensure that we are dealt with fairly from this point forward. We have complied with all requests from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, however, it would appear the overriding goal of the Loss Mitigation Department is to force our loan into foreclosure and take our property from us.
Huntington Beach, California
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Wells Fargo Bank
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/23/2007 11:52 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Wells-Fargo-Loss-Mitigation-Department/Fort-Mill-South-Carolina-29715/Wells-Fargo-Loss-Mitigation-Department-more-Deceptive-Practices-Promises-to-help-with-a-l-245352. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.
- Business's (11)
- Lawyers and Law Firms (5312)
- Administrative Law (11)
- Admiralty & Maritime Law (27)
- Agricultural Law (2)
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (10)
- Antitrust & Trade Regulation (1)
- Appellate Practice (72)
- Aviation & Aerospace (11)
- Banking Law (90)
- Bankruptcy (380)
- Business Law (232)
- Civil Rights (55)
- Class Actions (30)
- Commercial Law (13)
- Communications Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Construction Law (83)
- Contracts (7)
- Corporate Law (75)
- Criminal Law (668)
- Debtor & Creditor (51)
- Education Law (14)
- Elder Law (77)
- ElectionCampaign & Political (0)
- Eminent Domain (5)
- Employee Benefits (7)
- Energy (0)
- Entertainment & Sports (17)
- Environmental Law (43)
- Family Law (13)
- Finance (0)
- Government (14)
- Government Contracts (2)
- Health Care (1)
- Immigration (482)
- Indians & Native Populations (1)
- Insurance (90)
- Intellectual Property (526)
- International Law (33)
- International Trade (0)
- Internet Law (7)
- Investments (1)
- Labor & Employment (12)
- Legal Malpractice (92)
- Litigation (20)
- Media Law (1)
- Medical Malpractice (13)
- Mergers & Acquisitions (0)
- Military Law (5)
- Natural Resources (10)
- Occupational Safety & Health (0)
- Personal Injury (842)
- Products Liability (21)
- Professional Liability (0)
- Real Estate (361)
- Securities (169)
- Taxation (142)
- Technology & Science (0)
- Toxic Torts (0)
- Transportation (2)
- Trusts & Estates (368)
- White Collar Crime (1)
- Wills & Probate (7)
- Workers Compensation (242)
- Zoning, Planning & Land Use (10)
- Legal Services (32)
- Arbitrators/Mediators (7)
- Automotive Expert Witnesses (0)
- Bail Bonds (0)
- Court Reporters (1)
- Electronic Data Discovery (1)
- Expert Witnesses (1)
- Forensic Experts (1)
- Jury Selection (0)
- Legal Assistants (8)
- Legal Speakers (2)
- Litigation Support (2)
- Medical Expert Witnesses (1)
- Other (14)
- Paralegal (5)
- Private Investigators (6)
- Process Servers (7)
- Translators/Interpreters (0)
- Miscellaneous Business Services (19)