Independent Foreclosure Review | OCC Says Independent Consultants Can’t Contact Borrowers

 

OCC Says Independent Consultants Can’t Contact Borrowers

The independent consultants hired by bank servicers to review and assess the claims of millions of borrowers who may have been harmed in the foreclosure process will not be able to contact these borrowers directly or even talk with housing counselors, according to testimony at a Senate Banking subcommittee on Tuesday.

The consultants will be operating in a “vacuum,” and without access to the actual borrowers, said Alys Cohen of the National Consumer Law Review.

Promontory Financial Group managing director Konrad Alt told subcommittee chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., that his foreclosure review teams must ask the servicer to contact the borrower if they need additional information about a claim.

Sen. Menendez noted that the claim forms are in narrative form and consumers are unlikely to provide all the necessary information to back up their claims. It would be “very difficult to judge their claims without additional information,” he said.

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
14 Responses to “Independent Foreclosure Review | OCC Says Independent Consultants Can’t Contact Borrowers”
  1. Charles Cox says:

    I still contend that this is an opportunity to bury the “Independent Reviewers” with paperwork.

    If millions of us send in the form completed THE WAY WE, BASED ON OUR ATTORNEY’S INPUT, SUGGESTS along with answering in such a way as to avoid the traps built into the stadard form and sending in additional comprehensive allegations and violations (similar to the 20-30 page QWR we send; or discovery requests); I think it could go a long way into building your case. You need data, information answers to questions, etc., even if they don’t answer, that is an answer and tacit acknowledgement enters into the equation among a whole host of other things.

    I’m working on such a comprehensive response and hope to have it ready for our own case and others in due course but is VERY time consuming and “tricky” from the way they’ve phrased their “questions”.

    There are traps all along the way. If you can identify and avoid them and better yet, use their attempts to your advantage, so much the better in my (not legal…I am not an attorney) opinion.

    Read the forms before jumping to conclusions…this is quite different from any other process they’ve attempted so far. I’ve got our form posted on http://www.bayliving.com if you want to see an example and haven’t yet.

    They do anything they can to avoid answering the questions they should as they know they cannot without revealing their fraud. You MUST keep asking.

    In court, if you don’t object the information being presented WILL be taken as true. Like here…if you don’t answer; object and ask the questions, it can be reasonably assumed you either don’t care or there are no problems. Think about it before acting and get competent legal advice.

  2. angry&NOT TAKING IT! says:

    its like the loan mod scam the servicers pulled,.send us your financials we will screw you accordingly !
    phishing to hook everyone that bites -then SEE …the OCC compensated all harmed homeowners with a target gift-certificate for a washcloth & towel that matches your car interior ,in exchange for all violation amnesty.
    occ if your reading … FUCK U
    OCCUPY OUR COUNTRY

  3. Mary says:

    Beware the wolf in sheeps clothing!

  4. Mary says:

    They are document retrieving nothing more.

  5. Mary says:

    Independent consultants my ass!!!!!

  6. jaclyn says:

    WHAAAAAAT ???? GOD, THEY MUST THINK WE’RE STUPID…

  7. mac dady says:

    OCC is the boss of the banks.. It’s all based on fraud.

    CONFIRMED: The Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit That Could End Financial Tyranny
    http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny

  8. What a bunch of more crap! says:

    I have these letters for both of my homes. One that is already foreclosed that I was living in at the time, and the one I am currently in, with a dismissed case that I won via Sanctions and Fraud/Robosigned. I have been sitting on them both since I bet there is a fish THIS BIG attached to it. The time frame to turn these in is in April of 2012. I have a funny feeling this Independent review process will all unravel in a most ugly way long before then.

  9. talktotennessee says:

    Absolutely agree this is a sham investigation. I received one of the letters but I had previously filed a formal complaint with OCC on actions by a lender. They ignored my complaint, no response. I filed suit and they sent a letter saying I had filed suit and they could not investigate. This agency operates solely self-serving and as a service to the banking industry. They are “bought and paid” by those they “police” if you will.i Sort of like JCAHO, who polices hospitals but notifies them ahead of inspections and advisesi the hospital risk department when a claim if filed against the hospital rather than investigating independently.
    Same thing with the OCC. It is nothing more than an sidestep agency or damage control for the industry!
    Worthless!

  10. kravitz says:

    The OCC designed this program to absolve the banks of robosigning. There won’t be any compensation for that. It’s more an exercise to find out where banks made mistakes they can cover up. That’s why they want you to waive your legal rights. Things that were actually illegal can most likely be prosecuted by states and AGs that care about the rule of law. But entering this sham, as noted by JJ, means you give up your right to sue the bank.

  11. Mario Kenny says:

    Do we really think that this will do good for us?

    • JJ says:

      No .. it’s just another Sham Bam.

      • Kimber says:

        Please be careful if you respond to these kinds of forms…you may actually forfeit your right to pursue the matter in court at a later date. The best course of action is to consult an attorney…anyone know of an attorney in SC building a class action case against Chase? Please let me know!!!!!

Leave a Reply