Skip to main content

CFPB Recovers $14.3 Million for Consumers

NationalMortgageProfessional.com
Mar 08, 2016
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has released its latest supervision report where the exams of banks and non-banks resulted in the remediation of $14.3 million to approximately 228,000 consumers

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has released its latest supervision report where the exams of banks and non-banks resulted in the remediation of $14.3 million to approximately 228,000 consumers. In its examinations covering the last months of 2015, the Bureau found violations in the student loan market, including illegal automatic defaults by student loan servicers and illegal garnishment threats by debt collectors performing services for the Department of Education. Examiners also found instances of international money transfer companies violating the CFPB’s new remittance rule, banks providing inaccurate information to credit reporting companies about customer checking accounts, and debt collectors illegally contacting consumers.

“It is deeply concerning that our examiners found private student loan borrowers being hit with automatic defaults when their co-borrower goes bankrupt,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “The problems plaguing the student loan market can have a domino effect on borrowers’ financial futures. The CFPB has made it a priority to police this market so that borrowers are not treated unfairly or illegally dead-ended into default.”            

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has authority to supervise banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets and certain non-banks. Those non-banks include mortgage companies, private student loan lenders, and payday lenders, as well as non-banks the Bureau defines through rulemaking as “larger participants.” To date, the Bureau has issued rules to supervise the larger participants in the markets of debt collection, consumer reporting, international money transfers, student loan servicing, and auto finance.

The report, which is the 10th edition of Supervisory Highlights, generally covers supervisory activities completed between September 2015 and December 2015. Among the findings:

Illegal automatic defaults of student loans: CFPB examiners found one or more student loan servicers engaged in an unfair practice by automatically defaulting on certain private student loans. As the Bureau highlighted last year, some private student loan promissory notes contain an “auto default” clause that lenders trigger to immediately demand payment on the entire loan amount if a co-borrower files for bankruptcy or dies. Examiners found that one or more student loan servicers made the entire loan due when a loan’s co-borrower filed for bankruptcy, regardless of whether the borrower was current on all payments. These auto defaults were unfair because a reasonable consumer would not likely interpret that clause in the contract to mean they would default based on their co-borrower’s bankruptcy. Further, one or more servicers did not notify the borrower that the loan was in default.
Illegal garnishment threats by student loan debt collectors: Examiners determined that one or more debt collectors used false, deceptive, or misleading representations when performing collection services of defaulted federal student loans for the Department of Education. The debt collectors threatened garnishment against certain borrowers who were not eligible for garnishment under the Department of Education’s guidelines. The debt collectors also gave borrowers inaccurate information about when garnishment would begin, creating a false sense of urgency.

Violations of the new remittance rule: This is the first Supervisory Highlights to report on exams of banks and nonbanks in the remittance market. The CFPB’s rule governing international money transfers became effective in October 2013. The new protections for consumers who send money abroad include disclosure requirements, error resolution requirements, and cancellation rights. Overall, CFPB examiners found that remittance transfer providers have implemented necessary changes to comply with the CFPB’s rule. But in some cases, at least one provider gave incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, disclosures to consumers. At least one provider also failed to cancel transactions within the required timeframe. And at least one provider failed to promptly credit consumers’ accounts when errors occurred.

Illegal inaccuracies with deposit account information provided to credit reporting companies: The CFPB examiners found that one or more banks or credit unions failed to update checking account information they had supplied to the checking account reporting companies. For example, when consumers paid charged-off accounts in full, one or more banks or credit unions would update their records but would not update the change in status and send that information to the credit reporting companies. Not updating an account to “paid in full” status could negatively affect a consumer’s attempt to open a new checking account. Federal law says that depository institutions must have systems in place regarding accuracy when they pass on information to checking account reporting or other credit reporting companies.

Failure to honor written requests by consumers to cease debt collection communications: The CFPB found at least one debt collector that failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requirement to stop contact. Federal law says that after a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that he or she refuses to pay a debt or wants a debt collector to stop contacting them, the collector must, with few exceptions, stop. Bureau examiners found at least one debt collector failed to honor this requirement. The failures resulted from system errors, such as mistakes during manual data entry.

The New URLA – What’s the Big Deal?

Lenders will need to update their technology stack to comply with the redesigned URLA.

Regulation and Compliance
Jun 14, 2021
Texas State Legislators Looks To Protect Reverse Mortgage Borrowers

A Texas House Bill has been introduced to prevent false, misleading or deceptive advertising by reverse mortgage lenders.

Reverse
Jun 02, 2021
Could Prudential Standards for Nonbank Mortgage Servicers be Eased?

From The Desk Of The “Om-Bobs-Man”

Regulation and Compliance
May 31, 2021
Get Ready to Duck and Cover

After years of hands-off attitude by regulators, a new wave of mortgage enforcement is building. Expect a tsunami.

Regulation and Compliance
May 13, 2021