InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB issues summer supervisory highlights
On June 29, the CFPB released its summer 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of auto loan servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, payday lending, private education loan origination, and student loan servicing. The findings of the report, which are published to assist entities in complying with applicable consumer laws, cover examinations that generally were completed between January and December of 2020. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Auto Loan Servicing. Bureau examiners identified unfair acts or practices related to lender-placed collateral protection insurance (CPI), including instances where servicers charged unnecessary CPI or charged for CPI after repossession. Examiners also identified unfair acts or practices related to payoff amounts where consumers had ancillary product rebates due, and also found unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to payment application.
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau found deficiencies in consumer reporting companies’ (CRCs) FCRA compliance related to the following requirements: (i) accuracy; (ii) security freezes applicable to certain CRCs; and (iii) ID theft block requests. Specifically, examiners found that CRCs continued to include information from furnishers despite receiving furnisher dispute responses that “suggested that the furnishers were no longer sources of reliable, verifiable information about consumers.” Additionally, the report noted instances where furnishers failed to update and correct information or conduct reasonable investigations of direct disputes.
- Debt Collection. The report found that examiners found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors (i) made calls to a consumer’s workplace; (ii) communicated with third parties; (iii) failed to stop communications after receiving a written request or a refusal to pay; (iv) harassed consumers regarding their inability to pay; (v) communicated, and threatened to communicate, false credit information to CRCs; (vi) made false representations or used deceptive collection means; (vii) entered inaccurate information regarding state interest rate caps into an automated system; (viii) unlawfully initiated wage garnishments; and (ix) failed to send complete validation notices.
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E and Regulation DD, including error resolution violations, issues with provisional credits, failure to investigate, failure to remediate errors, and overdraft opt-in and disclosure violations.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of HMDA/ Regulation C involving HMDA loan application register inaccuracies, and instances where lenders, among other things, violated ECOA/Regulation B “by engaging in acts or practices directed at prospective applicants that would have discouraged reasonable people in minority neighborhoods in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from applying for credit.”
- Mortgage Origination. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation Z and the CFPA related to loan originator compensation, title insurance disclosures, and deceptive waivers of borrowers’ rights in security deed riders and loan security agreements.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation X, including those related to dual tracking violations, misrepresentations regarding foreclosure timelines, and PMI terminations.
- Payday Lending. The report discussed violations of the CFPA for payday lenders, including falsely representing an intent to sue or that a credit check would not be run, and presenting deceptive repayment options to borrowers that were contractually eligible for no-cost repayment plans.
- Private Education Loan Origination. Bureau examiners identified deceptive acts or practices related to the marketing of private education loan rates.
- Student Loan Servicing. Bureau examiners found several types of misrepresentations servicers made regarding consumer eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, and identified unfair acts or practices related to a servicer’s “failure to reverse negative consequences of automatic natural disaster forbearances.” Additionally, examiners identified unfair act or practices related to failing to honor consumer payment allocation instructions or providing inaccurate monthly payment amounts to consumers after a loan transfer.
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
CFPB highlights consumer complaints related to pandemic response
On July 1, the CFPB released a new bulletin analyzing consumer complaints and responses related to actions taken by Congress or the Bureau to provide relief for consumers impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The bulletin expands upon the Bureau’s 2020 Consumer Response Annual report (covered by InfoBytes here) and specifically focuses on consumer complaints related to: (i) suspended monthly federal student loan payments; (ii) Economic Impact Payments (EIPs); and (iii) the Bureau’s interim final rule supporting the CDC’s eviction moratorium. With respect to student loans, the bulletin noted a significant decrease in federal student loan complaints following the suspension of payments, but identified complaints related to potential customer service issues concerning repayment options or available relief and discussed servicers’ ability to respond timely to complaints. With respect to EIPs, the bulletin discussed complaints about overdraft fees charged to consumers after advances made by financial institutions to allow consumers access to all of their EIP funds were reversed, and highlighted steps taken by institutions to refund these fees. According to the bulletin, consumers who received EIPs via prepaid debit cards also reported issues accessing funds, while some consumers claimed their accounts were locked following the second and third disbursements. The bulletin also described the various types of consumer complaints related to the eviction moratorium, including complaints related to collection activities and credit reporting.
Department of Education discharges roughly $500 million in student loan debt
On June 16, the Department of Education announced the approval of 18,000 borrower defense to repayment claims for individuals who attended a now-defunct for-profit educational institution, providing borrowers with 100 percent loan discharges and providing approximately $500 million in relief. The educational institution has been subject to several investigations and settlements related to its private student loan origination practices, including allegations brought by the CFPB claiming the educational institution forced borrowers into “high-interest, high-fee” private student loans knowing that borrowers could not afford them. (See InfoBytes coverage on matters related to the educational institution here and here.) According to the Department’s announcement, the approvals cover two categories of borrower claims related to employment prospects and the ability to transfer credits, and mark “the first approval of a new category of borrower defense claims by the Department since January 2017.” Among other things, the Department found that borrowers’ “job prospects were not improved by attending” the educational institution and that credits from the educational institution rarely transferred.
HUD issues mortgagee letter on student loan payments
On June 18, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2021-13, which provides updates to its student loan monthly payment calculations to offer greater access to affordable single family FHA-insured mortgage financing for creditworthy individuals with student loan debt. According to HUD, the revised policy more closely aligns FHA student loan debt calculation policies with other housing agencies, which further helps clarify originations for borrowers with student loan debt obligations. The updated policy eliminates a current requirement “that lenders calculate a borrower’s student loan monthly payment of one percent of the outstanding student loan balance for student loans that are not fully amortizing or are not in repayment.” According to HUD, the updated policy “bases the monthly payment on the actual student loan payment, which is often lower, and helps home buyers who, with student debt, meet minimum eligibility requirements for an FHA-insured mortgage.”
District Court approves new settlement in student debt-relief action
On June 15, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney in 2019, which alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the complaint asserts the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments.
The finalized settlement issued against the relief defendant—who acted in an individual capacity and also as trustee of a trust, and who neither admits nor denies the allegations—requires the liquidation of certain assets up to but not exceeding $3 million as monetary relief to go to the CFPB and the People of the State of California. If the liquidation value of the asset is less than $3 million, the relief defendant “will be additionally liable for the difference between the liquidation value of the [asset] and $3,000,000, up to but not exceeding $500,000.” The relief defendant is also liable to all plaintiffs for $88,381.80. In addition, the relief defendant must comply with certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements and fully cooperate with the plaintiffs.
The court previously entered final judgments against four of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here and here). Orders have yet to be entered against the remaining defendants.
CFPB reports low delinquency rates despite Covid-19
On June 16, the CFPB released findings on delinquency trends for auto loans, student loans, mortgages, and credit cards. The post—the first in a series that will document consumer credit trend outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic—examines how trends have evolved since June 2020. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August, the Bureau issued a report examining trends through June 2020 in delinquency rates, payment assistance, credit access, and account balance measures, which showed that generally there was an overall decrease in delinquency rates since the start of the pandemic among auto loans, first-lien mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. According to the Bureau’s recent findings, as of March 2021, new delinquencies remain below pre-pandemic levels, despite a slight rise since July 2020 in auto loan and credit card delinquencies. These levels, the Bureau noted, may be attributed to federal, state, and local policy interventions that provide payment assistance and income support to consumers. Researchers also found that overall trends in new delinquencies were consistent across credit score groups, although “trends were more pronounced for consumers with lower credit scores.” Additionally, the Bureau reported that while stimulus payments and increasing vaccination rates may boost economic activity and keep delinquency rates down, accounts that would have been delinquent in the absence of payment assistance may begin to be reported as delinquent as assistance programs begin to end. Later this year, the Bureau will release a post in this series discussing payment assistance trends since June 2020.
Cordray streamlines process for student loan information requests
On May 28, Richard Cordray, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid (FSA) at the Department of Education, issued a memorandum to FSA vendors revising guidance related to handling outside requests for Department records and data. In 2017, the Department instructed loan servicers working for FSA to avoid responding directly to inquiries from third parties, including state and federal regulators, and required state attorneys general and regulators to submit requests for information directly to the Department. However, according to a blog post announcing the revised guidance, Cordray noted that FSA usually rejected the requests, thus forcing states to file lawsuits against FSA and student loan servicers in order to obtain the information. Cordray further emphasized that states and regulators need access to company policies and procedures, handbooks, consumer complaints, and other information should they think a student loan servicing company might be violating a law or regulation. The revised guidance supersedes the Department’s 2017 guidance and creates a “streamlined and expedited process” for reviewing information requests made by any state or federal authority for information pertaining to companies engaged in student loan lending or collections. Instructions are provided for vendors that receive information requests seeking to obtain Department records or data.
Colorado sues PSLF student loan servicer
On May 26, the Colorado attorney general filed a complaint against a Pennsylvania-based student loan servicer that handles the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, alleging the servicer failed to comply with state law when asked to provide certain documentation. Under the Colorado Student Loan Servicers Act (SLSA), the state is “authorized to conduct examinations and investigations of student loan servicers that are servicing student education loans owned by residents of Colorado.” The SLSA also allows the state to enforce compliance by bringing a civil action to prevent servicers from violating the SLSA and to obtain other appropriate relief. According to the AG’s press release, the state requested information related to the servicer’s handling of the PSLF program during the Covid-19 pandemic. The servicer allegedly refused to produce the requested materials and only provided certain limited documents regarding non-government owned loans related to its business line. The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling the servicer to comply with the AG’s oversight authority and provide the requested documentation.
District Court rules FCRA waives sovereign immunity
On May 13, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied a motion to dismiss filed by the Department of Education (Department), ruling that the FCRA “unequivocally waives sovereign immunity” concerning the allegations at issue in the case. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Department violated Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA by “negligently and willfully” failing to conduct a proper investigation of her dispute and by failing to remove an erroneous notation of “account in dispute” from a tradeline reported on her credit files. The Department moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that it could not be sued for damages under the FCRA “because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to that statute.”
The court, disagreed, pointing out that while the question of whether sovereign immunity is waived under the FCRA “has generated a circuit split,” the “authority finding that the FCRA waives sovereign immunity is more persuasive than the authority supporting the contrary view.” After examining the statute, the court noted that the FCRA defines a “person” to include a “government or governmental subdivision or agency,” and pointed out that the term “person” appears in other FCRA provisions cited within the plaintiff’s lawsuit. As an example, the court referenced Section 1681n(a), which states: “Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer.” The court also determined that the waiver of sovereign immunity “is sufficiently explicit” in Section 1681u of the FCRA.
FTC settles with remaining operators of student loan debt-relief scam
On May 17, the FTC announced settlements to resolve litigation against the remaining defendants involved in a student loan debt-relief operation charged with allegedly engaging in deceptive and abusive practices by collecting advance fees and making false promises to consumers that they could lower or eliminate loan payments or balances. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed complaints against two groups of defendants involved in the debt-relief operation claiming the defendants, among other things, charged consumers advance fees and enrolled consumers in a high-interest financing program without making required disclosures. These actions, the FTC, contended, violated the FTC Act, TILA, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and stipulated orders were entered against several of the defendants in 2019. The terms of the stipulated final orders reached with the remaining defendants (see here and here) prohibit the defendants from (i) engaging in transactions involving secured or unsecured debt relief products and services; (ii) making misrepresentations and unsubstantiated claims regarding any products and services; (iii) violating the TSR; and (iv) collecting any further payments from consumers who purchased debt-relief services prior to the entry of the order. Additionally, certain defendants are required to pay a more than $24.5 million monetary judgment, which will be partially suspended due to inability to pay. One of the defendants is also required to pay $11,500, which will go towards consumer redress.