Dawn Nelson, Wells Fargo's Attorney wants to play both sides of the fence - that the people in collections are both ignorant and credible, but I don't see how they can have it both ways. Her statement on 6/25/03 that Ce Ce wouldn't have known I was asking about where to send in the payment for the loan modification is wrong for the following reasons:
H Loan modifications are originated in the collections department
H The information they requested for the modification was sent to the collections department
H The 800 number they use for collections is represented as "Borrower Counseling" in all of their documentation
H I got a call from somebody at an 877-216-8448, and when I called, I was told my employment information was missing - why would this be an issue if they weren't aware of the loan modification request?
H The letter I got in June telling me the modification was not in the investors interest, gives me a phone number to call to discuss other options. The phone number on that letter puts me back to the same group of people in California.
Dawn is now saying (after Liz couldn't give me a reason, and the letter I got doesn't state a specific reason) that it was denied because I didn't send in the $1,000 that the letter from South Carolina said I should send in. They aren't consistent with their information.
H The letter from South Carolina gives a "Borrower Counseling" number to call for questions, that Dawn Nelson says is from a pool of numbers that would have put me right back to the same people she said wouldn't have known about the modification. Why are they giving me back to people who Dawn says don't know anything?
H I don't understand how California could act on behalf of South Carolina to the extent of accepting the paperwork, and then feign ignorance in not knowing about the modification - if they accepted the paperwork - in essence acting on behalf of South Carolina, weren't they under obligation to also tell me about the $1,000? If California was accepting the paperwork, then why wouldn't they have known about the terms of the modification?
H The letter from South Carolina says to turn in the information before May 1, wq`but didn't arrive until after May 1st. California had already received the information 3 times by the time this letter arrived. So why was South Carolina asking for it again?
H The letter from South Carolina was already in the system before the letter from California was generated. Why wouldn't the people in California be able to tell me to send the payment to South Carolina when I called to ask about it? I called and left messages for Larry on several occasions - which my phone records will prove - in which I asked about the status of the application. The only time he called was to say he called. He never said anything about sending the payment to South Carolina, and other calls to him went unreturned.
H The letter from South Carolina was generated in the system before the letter from California, yet the letter from California doesn't reference this letter or give the same information as that letter.
The letter from California says to send the information to California.
No one on the phone said to send the information to South Carolina.
The people in California accepted the information.
The phone number of the letter from South Carolina - by Dawn Nelson's admission - would have put me back in California.
H The letter from California should have said to send the information to South Carolina in order for them to be consistent with the information they were giving to me.
H I called California several times before the 15th and no one there told me anything about South Carolina.
H The letter from South Carolina says they need the $1,000 in order to process the application, yet they started processing the application before May 16th and without the money. Liz doesn't work in collections, and Serita told me on 5/14/03 that Liz has the account. If it got pulled out of collections on or before 5/12/03, it would give a plausible reason on why Ce Ce told me to not send in the payment. Serita would not give me Liz's phone number and told me I had to wait for Liz to call me. Liz finally did call me three days after it had already been turned over to Stephenson and Sanford, and she told me the investor didn't give her a reason for why the modification was denied.
H Dawn Nelson said I should have sent in the payment and then tried to figure it out later. I was trying to figure out what was going on before I sent in the payment. I don't understand how Wells Fargo is holding me to a different standard - that I should have known what to do based on all the conflicting information - when I couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone all their information says I am supposed to call?
If this had been legitimate, everybody would have given the same answer and the answers would have been consistent. They can't be ignorant and credible at the same time. This type of chaos wouldn't happen in an organization unless it was deliberate. If it wasn't deliberate, then Wells Fargo would have to admit they screwed up.
If it is deliberate it is a clear pattern of manipulative and deceptive business practices.in addition, they wouldn't be calling collections, "borrower counseling" if it wasn't intentional, because when you call "borrower counseling" you have to wait through their message about how they are using your information to collect a debt before you can talk to somebody. There is no counseling involved, only collections.
The Federal Trade Commission Act says an unfair or deceptive act doesn't have to actually occur, rather the intent to deceive is enough to be in violation of the law. A deceptive act need only to have the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive.
The Fair Debt Collection Act also strictly prohibits manipulative and deceptive practices in collecting a debt, but you don't hear that or see that on any of Wells Fargo's information. If what they do is not intended to be manipulative, then why isn't all the information they provide consistent? As them for the tapes of the recorded conversations, and I bet they aren't willing to provide them.
If this was all legitimate and they are so sure it was all my fault, then they should have the guts to produce them. However, I suspect that some of them will conveniently disappear - like the records that should be in their system of some of the phone calls I made.
Regarding Dawn's comment that the phone reps wouldn't know about the modification unless I told them - why would you have people answering the phone who didn't know what they were talking about? How could you have people working for you and then not hold them accountable for what they say to you on the phone when they are representing your organization?
However, the good news in all of this is that I found out that 800 numbers CAN be traced. You need a court order and a few bucks to get the records, but they can be gotten, if they originated from your home phone. They are considered to be local calls, but they can be had. It makes it easier to trace if you keep records of dates and times you called, though, and ideally you wouldn't need to go this far if you call them from a cell phone.
Becky
Minneapolis, Minnesota
U.S.A.
0 comments