CFPB fines auto lender for violating 2015 consent order

CFPB auto lender consent orderOn April 26, the CFPB announced that it had issued a $1.25 million civil money penalty against Security National Automotive Acceptance Company (SNAAC), an auto finance company that specializes in lending to service members, for allegedly violating an October 2015 consent order. According to the Bureau, SNAAC failed to comply with the Bureau’s 2015 consent by not providing over $1 million in refunds and credits to consumers.


20 states, CFPB take action against Ocwen for mortgage servicing violations

Last week, over 20 state mortgage regulators issued joint cease-and-desist orders to Ocwen Financial and Ocwen Loan Servicing for alleged widespread issues with consumer escrow accounts and allegations that Ocwen and its subsidiaries were conducting “willful and ongoing unlicensed activity” in certain states.

A committee of state mortgage regulators, called the Multi-State Mortgage Committee, agreed to address their enforcement actions in a “collective and coordinated manner.” Various states conducted a Multi-State Examination of Ocwen that covered January 2013 to February 2015. During that examination, investigators identified “several violations of state and federal law, including . . . consumer escrow accounts that could not be reconciled and willful and ongoing unlicensed activity in certain states.”


CFPB files lawsuit against debt collection law firm

CFPB files lawsuit against debt collection law firmOn April 17, 2017, the CFPB announced that it had filed a lawsuit in federal district court against a debt collection law firm for allegedly misrepresenting the level of attorney involvement in demand letters and phone calls placed to consumers.

According to the Bureau, the law firm Weltman, Weinberg & Reis (WWR) falsely represented in “millions of collection letters sent to consumers that attorneys were involved in collecting the debt.” The law firm also allegedly made statements on collections calls that created a false impression that attorneys had meaningfully reviewed the consumer’s file, when no such review had occurred. In fact, the Bureau alleges that in many cases “no attorney had reviewed any aspect of a consumer’s individual debt or accounts.”


12310
image/svg+xml