Tag Archives: bureaucracy

Why Have a Complaint Window?

Posted on by

733px-Complaint_Department_Grenade

Angela Littwin of the the University of Texas School of Law has posted Why Process Complaints? Then and Now to SSRN. The abstract reads,

The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) established the first comprehensive federal forum for processing consumer complaints about financial products and services. The CFPB not only handles consumers complaints; it also publishes a database that includes most complaints and their initial resolutions. For a symposium honoring the scholarship of Professor William C. Whitford, I analyze the CFPB’s complaint system and database using a framework he developed to explore the reasons why government agencies process consumer complaints and whether these reasons justify the resources that complaint processing entails. Whitford and his co-author proposed three “obvious” reasons to process consumer complaints: to settle consumer disputes; to inform the agency’s regulatory activities; and to generate good will for the agency among constituencies such as consumers, government actors, and the companies the CFPB regulates.

I find that the CFPB has mixed success in providing an alternative dispute resolution forum for consumers. I am, however, missing key information for this evaluation. The CFPB Consumer Complaint Database contains the financial institutions’ responses to consumer complaints but there is almost no information available about any follow up actions the CFPB takes. The CFPB is particularly strong on the regulatory function. It makes significant use of complaint data in its regulatory roles and evinces a commitment to ensuring that companies are handling complaints well. Last comes good will. With respect to public good will, I was unable to find much evidence one way or the other. As for good will among government actors, the CFPB appropriately appears not to apply different treatment to complaints referred by government entities or officials. Finally, the CFPB’s complaint data reveal an intriguing possibility that the process may provide some legitimization of financial institutions’ complaint resolutions. But given that consumer financial companies are pushing for the CFPB’s elimination, working to generate good will among financial institutions in this way may be entirely reasonable on the CFPB’s part. This is especially true because the CFPB has made important complaints decisions – such as publishing the database without redacting company names – despite financial companies’ vociferous objections.

I was interested by the “argument regarding bureaucratic companies . . . that a complaint process can find and resolve violations of the bureaucracy’s own rules.” (944) But Littwin also notes that the key issue is the “ineffectiveness in handling the harder cases, such as those raising issues of fact or law.” (Id.) We are still a long way off from figuring out the optimal system for addressing consumer complaints, but this article helps to frame the issue nicely.

Appraisals in the Coal Mine

Posted on by

The Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General released an Audit Report, FHFA’s Oversight of the Enterprises’ Use of Appraisal Data Before They Buy Single-Family Mortgages. As the IG notes,

Assessing the value of collateral securing mortgage loans is one of the pillars in making sound underwriting decisions. Since September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has operated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the Enterprises) in conservatorship, due to poor business decisions and risk management that led to enormous losses. While in conservatorship, the Enterprises have relied on Treasury’s financial support to operate in the secondary mortgage market, buying loans in order to provide needed liquidity to lenders. In 2010, FHFA directed the Enterprises to improve single-family residential loan quality and risk management through, among other things, developing a uniform collateral data portal (portal).

Unfortunately, the IG found that

  • from January 2013 through June 2013, Fannie Mae spent $13 billion buying over 56,000 loans even though the portal’s analysis of the associated appraisals warned the Enterprise that the appraisals were potentially in violation of its underwriting requirements.
  • from June 2013 through September 2013, Freddie Mac spent $6.7 billion buying over 29,000 loans despite the portal warning the Enterprise that either no property value could be provided or the value of the property was in question.

  • the Enterprises bought nearly $88 billion in loans when system logic errors in the portal did not allow them to determine if the appraiser was properly licensed to assess the value of the properties, which served as collateral for the loans.

The IG did not characterize these problems as particularly worrisome, but I wonder if they are somewhat symbolic of the limbo state that the Enterprises find themselves in. Like canaries in a coal mine, they alert us to a serious problem.

Neither private companies nor government instrumentalities, the Enterprises must stagger on until the federal government decides what to do with them. Let’s hope that the Enterprises are not silently building up to another crisis, one not driven by the profit-motive as the last one was, but driven by bureaucratic incompetence. “Bureaucratic” in the sense of the “rule of no one,” as Mary McCarthy defined it.

Fannie and Freddie’s current profitability should not be used as an excuse to delay reform further. They are too important to have been left in limbo for so long.

 

$2.7 Million Punitive Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

Many argue (see here, for instance) that wrongful foreclosures aren’t such a big deal. A recent case, Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 2011-05295 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Aug. 27, 2013)  highlights just how bad it can be for the homeowner who has to defend against one.

Dollens, the borrower, died in a workplace accident but had purchased a mortgage accidental death insurance policy through Wells Fargo, the lender (although the policy was actually underwritten by Minnesota Life Insurance Company). Notwithstanding the existence of the policy, Wells Fargo kept trying to foreclose, even five months after the insurance proceeds paid off the mortgage.  Some lowlights:

  • “Apparently, ignoring its ability to to make a death benefit claim is typical of how Wells Fargo deals with such situations. . . . This is a systemic failure on the part of Wells Fargo.” (4)
  • “There is no doubt that Wells Fargo’s conduct was intended to take advantage of a lack  of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of decedent’s family members, and tended to or did deceive.” (5)
  • “Wells Fargo charged the Estate for lawn care of the property” even though the “property did not have a lawn.” (6)

The court found that the”evidence of Wells Fargo’s misconduct is staggering.” (6) The court also found that “Wells Fargo used its computer-driven systems as an excuse for its ‘mistakes.’ However, the evidence established that this misconduct was systematic and not the result of an isolated error.. . . The evidence in this case established that the type of conduct exhibited by Wells Fargo in this case has happened repeatedly across the country.” (7) As a result of these findings, the Court awarded over $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Mary McCarthy famously said that “[b]ureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.” We generally think of this in terms of government actors, but it applies just as well to large financial institutions that implement “computer-driven systems” that seemingly cannot be overwritten by a human being who might exercise common sense and common decency.

Given that this type of problem seems to affect all of the major loan servicers, I must reiterate, thank goodness for the CFPB.

 

[HT April Charney]