A. Eligibility
PR-01 R1 Tried-but-blocked
Why can’t you just start paying again?
Where you hear it servicer calls · VA higher-level-review responses · hearing testimony · comment sections
DOCUMENTED FACT Being able to resume payments is the partial-claim test. An ongoing hardship is not.
The authority 38 U.S.C. § 3737(a), three conditions: VA-guaranteed loan · primary residence · in default or at imminent risk of default. The same standard applied to the COVID-era program: 38 CFR § 36.4803(d) required that "the veteran indicates that the veteran can resume making scheduled monthly payments, on time and in full." Ability to resume the payment, not resolution of the hardship, in both programs, five years apart. MERGED FROM LIVE: the resolution-of-hardship condition belongs to the loan-modification rule, 38 C.F.R. § 36.4315(a)(2), not to the partial-claim rule.
The receipt receipts/3737h.png; receipts/ecfr-36-4803.png; receipts/36-4315a2.png; § 3737(a) beside § 36.4803(d)
What to say back "The partial claim exists for borrowers who can resume the regular payment but cannot cure the arrears, that’s the statutory test. I can resume the regular monthly payment. I’m asking for the arrears to be handled under the partial claim." If you were told this, ask in writing which rule’s eligibility criteria were applied, and cite § 36.4803(d).
If they say it again Request the denial in writing with the specific eligibility criterion cited. File CFPB attaching the written denial.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-02 R8 Name-the-omission
"You don’t qualify, you’re already in foreclosure."
Where you hear it servicer calls · loss-mitigation denials
DOCUMENTED FACT The statute makes loans in default eligible. The no-foreclosure bar is agency-added, not statutory.
The authority § 3737(a)(3) makes loans "in default or at imminent risk of default" eligible. The "no pending/active foreclosure" bar is M26-4 Ch. 22 § 22.02 a.5 (FINAL, June 1 2026), not in the statute.
The receipt § 3737(a)(3) beside § 22.02 a.5
What to say back "The statute makes loans in default eligible, that’s the whole point of the program. The bar you’re citing is in VA’s handbook, not the law. Please cite the statutory provision that disqualifies me."
If they say it again Put "cite the statutory provision" in writing to VA and to your congressional office. An unanswered request for a citation is itself a finding.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-03 R1 Tried-but-blocked
"You had a loan modification recently, so you’re locked out."
Where you hear it servicer loss-mitigation reviews
DOCUMENTED FACT The 24-month modification lockout was written by the agency, not by Congress.
The authority M26-4 Ch. 22 § 22.02 a.7 (FINAL, June 1 2026), not in § 3737. Verified: this criterion appears in the final chapter and not in the February 2026 draft. The draft instead required six payments since the most recent modification. The final replaced that with a flat 24-month lockout.
The receipt § 22.02 a.7, final chapter
What to say back "That restriction isn’t in the statute. If a prior modification was itself unaffordable or improperly offered, please explain how it can now disqualify me from the remedy Congress created."
If they say it again Note the serial-modification trap in the CFPB complaint: a bad modification creating a 24-month lockout from the statutory remedy.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-04 R1 Tried-but-blocked
"You filed bankruptcy, so you’re not eligible."
Where you hear it servicer loss-mitigation reviews
DOCUMENTED FACT Congress wrote no bankruptcy bar. The agency did.
The authority M26-4 Ch. 22 § 22.02 a.4 (FINAL, June 1 2026), not in § 3737. Dismissed Ch. 7, dismissed or discharged Ch. 13, and discharged Ch. 7 with reaffirmation are carved out.
The receipt § 22.02 a.4
What to say back "Active bankruptcy isn’t a statutory disqualifier. If my case is dismissed or discharged, the handbook’s own carve-outs apply. Please state which subsection you’re relying on."
If they say it again This is the catch-22: bankruptcy is often the only emergency stay against eviction, and using it forecloses the loss-mitigation remedy. Document it for oversight.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-05 R4 One-to-many
"The home isn’t in your name anymore."
Where you hear it post-foreclosure · successor-in-interest situations · after divorce or a death
DOCUMENTED FACT The statute says "the borrower." The owner-of-record requirement is agency-added.
The authority § 3737(a)(2) refers to the borrower’s primary residence. "Current legal owner of record" and the successor-in-interest exclusion are M26-4 Ch. 22 § 22.02 a.8 (FINAL, June 1 2026), not in § 3737.
The receipt § 22.02 a.8
What to say back "The statute refers to the borrower. The owner-of-record condition comes from VA’s handbook. Please identify the statutory basis."
If they say it again This is a primary mechanism excluding already-foreclosed families. Raise it as an oversight item, not a servicer dispute — the servicer can’t waive it.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
B. Loss mitigation and process
PR-06 R8 Name-the-omission
"You were offered help and you turned it down." / "They were offered help and refused it."
Where you hear it VA response letters · servicer notes · press statements
DOCUMENTED FACT Declining an unaffordable offer is not declining help.
The authority 12 CFR § 1024.41 (RESPA / Reg X) loss-mitigation evaluation duties · 38 CFR § 36.4319. MERGED FROM LIVE: federal rules cap rate-raising modifications — 38 C.F.R. § 36.4315(a)(8), not more than one percentage point above the existing rate. In reported cohort cases the "assistance" offered was a modification that raised the interest rate several points, on fixed incomes, raising the payment by half or more.
The receipt receipts/1024-41d.png; receipts/36-4315a2.png; receipts/36-4315a8.png; § 1024.41 evaluation-duties screenshot
What to say back "I didn’t decline assistance. I declined one offer that wasn’t affordable. Please send the written evaluation notice for every option I was evaluated for, and the reason each was denied." Get every offer’s rate, payment, and denial reasons in writing; compare the new rate to your existing rate plus one point.
If they say it again A denial with no per-option reason is itself a Reg X problem. Note it in the CFPB complaint.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-07 R8 Name-the-omission
"We have no record of that at this address."
Where you hear it servicer call centers · document-upload portals · written responses
DOCUMENTED FACT "No record at this address" is not "we didn’t receive it."
The authority 12 CFR § 1024.41(b), written acknowledgement of a loss-mitigation application within 5 business days · § 1024.41(c), evaluation timeline. MERGED FROM LIVE: servicers keep a single designated address for formal error notices, 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35–.36, and a carefully worded "no record at this address" does not deny receiving the document through other active channels, including the federal loan technician.
The receipt receipts/1024-41c1.png; receipts/1024-41g.png; § 1024.41(b)
What to say back "Under RESPA, receipt of a loss-mitigation application triggers a written acknowledgement within five business days. Please send that acknowledgement, or confirm in writing that none was sent." Send formal notices by certified mail to the designated address, and keep proof of every other channel. Both matter.
If they say it again Send a Qualified Written Request for the full servicing file including the upload log. Non-response is a separate violation.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-08 R2 Flip-the-villain
"You’ll owe the whole forbearance amount in one lump sum."
Where you hear it servicer calls during and after forbearance
DOCUMENTED FACT Federal guidance told servicers the opposite, in writing, from the start.
The authority CARES Act forbearance fact sheet for FHA/VA/USDA servicers, repayment section · VA COVID-19 borrower guidance
The receipt the "not a lump sum" passage
What to say back "The federal guidance issued to servicers says forbearance amounts are repaid over time and a lump sum isn’t required. Please point to the document that says otherwise."
If they say it again Keep the recording or written statement. A lump-sum demand contradicting published guidance belongs in the CFPB complaint and the OIG supplement.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-09 R1 Tried-but-blocked
"You should have known payments would balloon, you signed a disclosure." / "These families overextended themselves."
Where you hear it servicer responses · agency correspondence · comment sections
DOCUMENTED FACT The written guidance said the opposite. A disclosure cannot undo what the government told servicers to do. These are federally guaranteed loans.
The authority CARES Act § 4022 · federal servicer guidance on forbearance repayment, repayment section · 12 CFR § 1024.41
The receipt receipts/cares-fs-repayment.png; receipts/cares-fs-guidance.png
What to say back "Please produce the specific disclosure you’re referring to, with my signature and its date. Then explain how it squares with the federal guidance stating repayment is over time and not a lump sum." These are federally guaranteed loans. Federal agencies told servicers in writing that paused CARES Act payments would be repaid over time and that a lump sum would not be required. Ask which of those written instructions my servicer followed, and when.
If they say it again Request the document. If it doesn’t exist, the request itself is the record.
COMPLETE — receipt available, not yet placed · last verified 2026-08-05
D. Pattern and process
PR-13 R2 Flip-the-villain
"If the bank was really in the wrong, they wouldn’t be foreclosing."
Where you hear it comment sections · family conversations · staffer prep · reporters before they call
DOCUMENTED FACT The mortgage industry warned the VA this would happen, in writing and under oath, before it happened.
The authority Mortgage Bankers Association white paper, December 12, 2024. MBA testimony to the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, March 11, 2025, in which Elizabeth Balce, asked what happens to veterans without the rescue program, answered: "the short answer is foreclosure. Period."
The receipt the hearing transcript page, and the white paper cover with its date
What to say back "The companies that do the foreclosing told Congress this would happen, seven weeks before the program ended. They asked the VA to fix it. This isn’t a family that didn’t pay, and it isn’t a bank acting alone."
If they say it again Send the hearing link. The quote does the work; do not editorialize on top of it.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-16 R8 Name-the-omission
"You can’t prove they didn’t send it."
Where you hear it agency responses · servicer disputes · anywhere a family is asked to prove a negative
DOCUMENTED FACT You don’t have to. The rule puts the record-keeping duty on them.
The authority RESPA / Regulation X acknowledgement and notice requirements. Servicers must maintain and produce the servicing file on a Qualified Written Request.
The receipt the acknowledgement provision
What to say back "I’m not asked to prove a negative. You’re required to keep the record and produce it. Please send the acknowledgement, the evaluation notice, and the upload log."
If they say it again QWR for the full servicing file. Non-production is its own finding, and it shifts the burden back where the rule puts it.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-18 R8 Name-the-omission
"The partial claim is a benefit you’re not entitled to."
Where you hear it VA responses · appeals guidance · anywhere a family asks how to challenge a denial
DOCUMENTED FACT VA has written the program as discretionary, not a benefit, and not judicially reviewable. Families should know that before they rely on an appeal.
The authority M26-4 Ch. 22 § 22.01(b) (FINAL): the authority "is fully discretionary and is not a home loan benefit." 38 U.S.C. § 3737 provides that a decision under the section is not subject to judicial review and, for § 511 purposes, is not treated as a decision under a law affecting the provision of benefits.
The receipt § 22.01(b) beside the § 3737 review provision
What to say back "I understand VA treats this as discretionary and not reviewable. I am asking for the denial in writing with the specific criterion cited, so the record is complete regardless of the review posture."
If they say it again This is a structural finding, not a case dispute. It belongs in front of committee staff: discretionary, not a benefit, and not reviewable, stacked together in one program.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-07-26
PR-19 R8 Name-the-omission
"Nothing changed between the draft and the final."
Where you hear it anyone who commented on the draft and assumes the final matches it
DOCUMENTED FACT Two of the most exclusionary criteria were added after the comment window closed.
The authority February 2026 draft Chapter 22 compared against the June 1, 2026 final. The draft required six payments since the most recent modification; the final replaced that with a flat 24-month modification lockout (a.7). The final added a.10, extending the bar to COVID-19 partial claims and Refund Modifications. Neither appears in the draft.
The receipt the two versions, side by side, with their dates
What to say back "The criteria in the final are not the criteria that were open for comment. Two of them were added afterward."
If they say it again This belongs in the notice ledger and in any oversight correspondence. Draft, comment, final is a documented sequence, and the gap between what was commented on and what shipped is part of the record.
VERIFIED — both documents held · last verified 2026-07-26
E. Authority, oversight and access
PR-20 R8 Name-the-omission
"The servicer was only following the rules."
Where you hear it servicer responses · agency correspondence · comment sections
DOCUMENTED FACT Servicers were bound by federal servicing law the entire time.
The authority Only the numbered 2026 waterfall is new. Regulation X, binding the entire time, required servicers to evaluate a complete application against all options within 30 days (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c)(1)), give a specific reason for each denial (§ 1024.41(d)), and observe the dual-tracking restriction (§ 1024.41(g)). 38 C.F.R. § 36.4319(a) carries the VA-side duty.
The receipt receipts/1024-41c1.png; receipts/36-4319a.png; receipts/1024-41d.png; receipts/1024-41g.png
What to say back Request the written denial notice for each option. The law requires a specific reason per option.
If they say it again A denial with no per-option reason is a Reg X violation on its face. It goes in the CFPB complaint with the dates.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-21 R8 Name-the-omission
"Nobody was checking on the servicers."
Where you hear it agency testimony · oversight replies · press statements
DOCUMENTED FACT The agency built a system to determine servicer compliance. The question is whether the servicer reported into it.
The authority VA built VALERI specifically to track servicer loss-mitigation compliance and inspects servicer files: M26-4 Ch. 5 § 5.11; 38 C.F.R. § 36.4350(j). "We cannot determine compliance" and "the servicer never reported into the system we built to determine compliance" are different statements.
The receipt receipts/m26-4-5-11.png; receipts/36-4350j.png
What to say back The one question every oversight office can ask: produce the VALERI event history.
If they say it again A FOIA to the VA Regional Loan Center for the VALERI records resolves it directly. Twenty business days.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-22 R2 Flip-the-villain
"The VA isn’t the one foreclosing."
Where you hear it agency testimony · constituent-services replies · press statements
DOCUMENTED FACT The Department is the named plaintiff evicting veteran families.
The authority Roughly three of four foreclosed veteran homes are conveyed to the VA (Auction.com data); title passes to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; post-foreclosure evictions are then filed in the Secretary’s name and executed through the VA’s private REO contractor. 38 U.S.C. § 3732 is the disposition authority under which VA could choose otherwise.
The receipt receipts/vrm-contract.png; receipts/vrm-activity.png; receipts/collins-svac.png
What to say back Ask your Member: who is the named plaintiff in these evictions, and under what disposition authority (38 U.S.C. § 3732) could the VA choose otherwise?
If they say it again This is an oversight question, not a servicer dispute. Put it to the committee of jurisdiction in writing.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-23 R7 Concede-and-turn
"VASP was cancelled because it was illegal."
Where you hear it agency testimony · congressional replies · news coverage
DOCUMENTED FACT No neutral body ever found VASP unlawful, and the VA itself called the authority "existing."
The authority VA’s own April 2024 launch materials stated it had "existing authority to establish and implement VASP under 38 U.S.C. § 3732 and § 3720." No GAO opinion, CRS analysis, OGC memo, or court ruling ever held otherwise. 38 U.S.C. § 3737(h) separately authorises acting before regulations are prescribed.
The receipt receipts/vasp-hearing-existing-authority.png; receipts/vasp-hearing-40000.png; receipts/3737h.png
What to say back Read the authority analysis on the Policy and Fiscal page. Then ask which neutral body made the finding, and when.
If they say it again Ask for the legal opinion in writing. There is no published one. The absence is the answer.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-24 R7 Concede-and-turn
"Helping them would cost taxpayers more."
Where you hear it comment sections · fiscal-conservative framing · agency budget testimony
DOCUMENTED FACT Prevention was the cheap option, by the government’s own math.
The authority The multi-billion figures cited are gross loan-purchase volume, not net cost — buying a re-performing loan is an asset offset by repayments. CBO scored the replacement partial-claim law as reducing net direct spending by $147 million, including $294 million in offsets.
The receipt receipts/cbo-147m.png; receipts/cbo-table1.png
What to say back See the fiscal two-path on the Policy and Fiscal page: the foreclosure path costs more than the partial-claim path, and CBO scored it.
If they say it again Send the CBO score. It is a government document and it ends the argument on its own terms.
COMPLETE · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-26 R8 Name-the-omission
"Refer them to legal aid."
Where you hear it agency responses · VSO caseworkers · congressional casework replies
DOCUMENTED FACT Referral is treated as the end of the obligation. For a household still in the home after a sale, it frequently is not.
The authority Not a statutory claim. Describes how foreclosure-defense and eviction right-to-counsel programs are scoped: foreclosure-defense programs generally close the file at the sale, and eviction-counsel programs generally cover landlord and tenant cases. A post-sale former owner is neither.
The receipt N/A — structural finding. The evidence is the unmet referral itself.
What to say back "Which provider takes post-foreclosure veteran cases in my state? I need a name, not a referral line."
If they say it again Document every referral that did not produce representation, with the date and the reason. The pattern is the finding.
COMPLETE — structural finding, no receipt · last verified 2026-08-05
PR-28 R8 Name-the-omission
"We do everything we possibly can to keep them in their homes."
Where you hear it agency testimony · constituent-services replies · press statements
DOCUMENTED FACT The deflection runs in a fixed two-step sequence: blame the servicers, then blame the veterans. The original cause was federal action.
The authority Sec. Doug Collins, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, May 20, 2026, pressed by Sen. Blumenthal on the 15,000+ already foreclosed on. Step one: "Remember the VA is about putting people in homes. We don’t take people out of homes. Those are the mortgage bankers that take them out. We don’t take anybody out of homes." Step two: "we do everything we possibly can to keep them from that end. If the mortgage company decides to foreclose, it’s not because we have not done everything we possibly can." The original cause was federal: COVID forbearance protections ended, then the VA cancelled VASP with nothing operational to replace it. The framing leaves veterans at fault either way.
The receipt receipts/collins-svac.png; C-SPAN program 679573, SVAC 5/20/2026
What to say back "Everything you possibly can includes the partial-claim authority Congress gave you in July 2025 and the moratorium authority the VA used in 2023 and again in 2024. Which of those was exercised, and on what date?"
If they say it again Pair it with PR-27. The claim that VA did everything possible cannot survive next to two circulars in which VA did more.
VERIFIED · last verified 2026-08-08
PR-29 R5 Parity-invert
"Veterans already get plenty of programs and benefits."
Where you hear it comment sections · congressional replies · agency testimony · anywhere the ask is framed as special treatment
DOCUMENTED FACT Veterans got worse options than everyone else, not better ones. That is the whole finding.
The authority FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all retained permanent partial-claim programs. The VA let its COVID-era partial claim lapse in 2022, built VASP as the replacement, and cancelled VASP in May 2025 with nothing operational behind it — the only federal mortgage system to pull the net twice. Separately, the Homeowner Assistance Fund, the one program available to everyone else, disqualified many veteran households because it counted VA disability compensation as income. LEGAL PARITY ANCHOR, flagged: United States v. Shimer, 3d Cir., April 8, 1960, a VA-guaranteed-loan case holding that nothing in the Veterans Act supports depriving veteran-mortgagors of ameliorative state protections or placing them in a worse position than nonveteran-mortgagors.
The receipt the three agencies’ partial-claim programs side by side; the HAF income-eligibility rule
What to say back "Every other federal mortgage system kept its safety net. The VA is the only one that removed it, twice. And the fund everyone else could use counted a veteran’s disability compensation as income, so it did not reach us. This is not a request for more than other people get. It is a request for the same thing."
If they say it again Ask which comparable federal mortgage programme lacks a partial claim. There is not one.
SHIP — but do not cite Shimer as settled law until its treatment is confirmed · last verified 2026-08-08