Complaint Review: America's Servicing Company ASC

Last August my home mortgage was sold by First Horizon Mortgage Co. America's Servicing Company (ASC) began servicing in September. Since that time I have had nothing but problems with ASC. My mortgage was granted a deferment by First Horizon for the month of September, 2004. This was the month that ASC began servicing my loan and even though I had not received notification that they would be now servicing my loan. The only way that I found out about the transaction was because I contacted First Horizon to verify that everything was all set with the deferment. I was told by First Horizon that my loan had been sold and ASC would now be servicing it now. I contacted ASC to explain the situation and agreement that I had with First Horizon. ASC told me that they do not do deferments and would not honor my deferment with First Horizon under any circumstances. Honoring my loan deferment from First Horizon was never an option with ASC until the State of Maine; Office of Consumer Credit Regulation began to investigate ASC. It was at that time that ASC agreed to honor the deferment if I could provide documentation of the deferment.

However, I could apply for a loan modification. This was in mid-September. Also during the phone call with ASC, I provided them with my correct address and phone number; as they were sending mail to an address in California. I applied for a loan modification through ASC's Department of Lost Litigation. I was told by this department that notes would be placed on the account and no adverse action would be taken against me, such as reporting negative information to my credit bureaus or collectors contacting me and demanding payment. This hold was supposed to be in effect until November, 2004. This could be further from the case; on October 1, 2004 I started receiving collection calls for the month of September, even though I was in the process of applying for the loan modification and waiting for an answer to my application. I explained the situation to the caller; the caller stated that there were not any notes preventing them from calling. I then contacted the Lost Litigation Department, to see what was going on. The Lost Litigation Department contradicted the caller and explained that there were notes on the account and that I should not have received any calls. Lost Litigation then added a new set of notes ending all calls and other adverse action until November, 2004. The next day I received another collection call. To make a long story short, I went through this process about a half dozen times. The calls never did stop even though I was told that they would. My whole experience with ASC was like this, I would be told one thing by one employee of ASC and have them do the exact opposite. The whole loan modification process was very lengthy, as well; I was supposed to receive an answer to my application in 30 days from when I applied. It took well over 60 days before I received an answer. While I waited for this answer I was harassed by ASC daily. I finally grew tired of whole process and ASC's games that I refinanced my house in late November.

During these calls, ASC's employees continually threatened me and said that they would destroy my credit. There were times that they would use foul language. They also contacted my roommate on his cell phone and began to demand payment. They did this without verifying who they were speaking with. He informed them that they had the wrong person and would not provide them with any payment. The caller refused to give her name to him and proceeded to tell him to f--- off. He has been kind enough to type up a letter stating what he witnessed as well as encountered with ASC as he was present through the majority of phone calls and witnessed events first hand. ASC also provided my credit bureau with the wrong information. It was reported as past due, even though I still hadn't received an answer about my application for loan modification. The credit bureaus also stated that ASC has sold or transferred my loan. This was not the case; ASC did not own the loan, ASC was just servicing it for the owner. ASC continued to service my loan until I refinanced my home with a different company.

I did not receive any notification from ASC until October 16, 2004 that they would be servicing my loan, even though they began to service it August. The reason that I had not received any notification was because ASC was sending correspondences to an address in California. I gave ASC the correct address in mid-September. The letters that were received in October were a welcome letter that was dated August 2, 2004 and another letter dated September 29, 2004. The second letter thanked me for contacting them and also stated that a welcome letter was included with it. Now why would ASC send the welcome letter a second time if they had sent the first one to the correct address? The reason, ASC did not have the correct address and had mailed the original letter to an address in California. This second welcome letter served as ASC official notification that they had begun servicing my loan. ASC contends that is not the case, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to send the welcome letter twice if the first one was sent to the correct address. This fact is very important, as Maine State Law states: (MRSA, section 9-306) a consumer is not obligated to make a payment on a consumer credit transaction to any creditor, other than the original creditor, until he receives notification of assignment of rights to payment. A notification which does not clearly and conspicuously identify the rights of the assigned is ineffective. When this law is applied to my situation, I would not be obligated to begin to make payments until November 1, 2004 because I had not received notification from ASC until October 16, 2004. By mid-October, things had gotten pretty bad and I began to save all the paperwork from ASC and even saved the envelope that the welcome letter and the other letter came in. Even though the second letter was dated September 29, 2004, the envelope had not been post marked until October 14, 2004. This is all corroborated in the letter of witness, which I will include for you to read.

By the middle of October I had grown so tired of ASC and their actions that I reported them to the State of Maine, Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC was the first to reply, there was nothing that they could do because at the time I believed that ASC owned my loan and the FTC does not regulate 1st party collectors. It turned out that ASC did not own my loan; they were just servicing it for the owner. In fact, to this day I am not totally sure who owned my loan. I was given two different names by ASC. So I am in the process of filing a new complaint with the FTC. At the state level the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation began to investigate ASC. I was told by their office that ASC did not have an operating license for the State of Maine. As it turned out ASC's parent company is a financial institution and the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation does not regulate financial institutions. My case was transferred to the Bureau of Financial Institutions. They began their investigation and have concluded that ASC is not affiliated with a Maine state chartered bank. Since it is not a state chartered bank, the Bureau of Financial Institutions could not regulate them as well. This office could not conclude who ASC's parent company was either. The Bureau came up with two possible choices: Wells Fargo (a national bank) and Ocwen Bank (a federal savings bank). Therefore, the Bureau of Financial Institutions referred my complaint to two different federal agencies to determine who has jurisdiction over ASC. Those two federal agencies are the Office of Thrift Supervision which regulates Ocwen Bank and Office of Comptroller of the Currency Customer Assistance Group which regulates Wells Fargo.

Troy
Bangor, Maine
U.S.A.