While HAMP is not mandatory for the banks, nor does it provide any financial incentives for the banks to modify loans ($1,000.00 per loan – are you kidding me? Why was there not public outrage back when this laughable figure first appeared in the press? I certainly was indignant...), HAMP may still useful in fighting what Neil Garfield calls "the BIG LIE" – the banks' asserted claims to properties in foreclosure in spite of a glaring lack of documentation to support such bogus claims.
I see the main benefit of HAMP and its publicity as providing us the ability to change the narrative in most foreclosure defense cases. To change the story about whether anyone is trying to get a free house by asserting "technical" defenses to foreclosure, such as an alleged lender's lack of standing, broken chain of title, etc.
In seems that instead of coming to court and saying to the judge that the bank does "not have the right to foreclose," which is often frowned upon as a meager attempt to grasp at a technicality to stall the inevitable, we can come to court and say: "Judge, we have been trying to get a modification from these people; the government says we should be able to do so of the numbers are right, the government pushes the banks to do so, yet, we have received four (two, three, whatever) denials from these people even though our income and other numbers stack up. In pursuing the matter further, we have uncovered the existence of serious issues as to these people's authority and ability to approve a modification. It appears that the lack of such authority is the real reason for the inexplicable multiple denials of a mod in spite of our steady, qualifying income."
Thus, homeowners are not trying to get a free house, but rather press the bank for discovery for the common goal which now has the imprimatur of the government – a loan modification. Of course, regardless of any loan modification, the only party trying to get a free house is a bank that neither originated the loan nor purchased it.