I have made nine monthly payments on time to BOA under the HAMP trial program since Nov. 2009. I was recently verbally told by BOA call center personnel that I did not qualify for a loan mod because my income was insufficient. I received nothing in writing. BOA told Treasury that I did not qualify because the NPV test revealed that it was more profitable for the Bank to foreclose than to modify my loan.
Treasury has requested the detail input data the Bank used in its NPV analysis. BOA has yet to comply with the request. I believe no NPV test was ever run. Because my case is complex, I assume Bank personnel chose to just say no without exploring the facts of my application. The fact that there appears to be no recourse against banks for non-compliance has made it difficult for HAMP Solution Center personnel to be taken seriously by the banks. In the interim, I am told that BOA
cannot foreclose while Treasury investigates my case as long as I continue to make my payments on time.
My case is complex because I am disabled on Social Security as my only income. While most Americans don't think they intentionally discriminate against disabled persons, many of the procedures businesses practice do not accommodate exceptions for the rights of disabled persons prescribed by law. BOA refuses to recognize that I am disabled and receive real property tax relief. Deducting the $426 per month in real property tax from my $842.43 monthly trial payment would make the payment $416.43 -- well within 31% of my Social Security income.
Not recognizing valid proof of my disability and tax relief status is a violation of Section 805 of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3600). It is also a violation of 36-96.18 of Virginia Fair Housing Law. The Fairfax County Human Rights Commission is investigating my complaint "Gardiner v. Bank of America, et al under HRC #2010064H/HUD #03-10-0289-8.
Another law that seems to have no teeth is the Social Security Act which protects public assistance income against creditor attachment, garnishment or court judgments. By law, my income is considered to be "judgment-proof" as if I had already gone through Chapter 7 bankruptcy and had gotten my unsecured debts discharged. The intent of the law is to prevent creditors from forcing Social Security recipients to have to file bankruptcy. I guess discounting unsecured debt just because the applicant's income is judgment-proof is not an exception banks are willing to make no matter what the law says.
There's more, but not enough room here to tell.
Is there anything LoanSafe.org can do to help me?