Date Received: 2022-08-26
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Need information about your loan balance or loan terms
Consumer Complaint: I have been trying to locate two pieces of information with no luck : 1. My Pell Grant history and 2. My original loan documents ( MPNs ) for all the student loans that were consolidated. I cant locate any information.
Company Response:
State: WA
Zip: 98370
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-26
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: PHEAA/AES continues to improperly report information based on their own internal policies while ignoring what the Consumer Laws dictate with respect to reporting information to the Credit Bureaus XXXX I have had conversations with PHEAA agents and when I explain to them that this behavior has the potential to generate fines against the agency, the PHEAA agents pretend to act like what I'm telling them is not correct and that their agency could never do anything like this ( WITHOUT INVESTIGATING MIND YOU ). Agents who I've spoken with over the phone most of the time sound as though they are completely new, incompetent, careless, eating while on the phone, having a bad day and taking it out on the consumer who just wants legitimate answers instead of 1st grade reading level answers, or even people who get upset when I ask why they're having a bad day. CFPB Reps, you should hear some of these agents on the phone. I'd be interested to know how many of them actually abuse controlled substances in the workplace. PHEAA has openly admitted multiple times to me that the payments that are made through their online portal ( with the use of a valid checking account ) would take 2 business days to process. When I ask them if they consider the payment paid on the date it was submitted, they claim no. When I ask them what would happen in the event that this action occurs right as the month ends, they admit to reporting inaccurate credit information, and that if they do and find that the payment was posted on the day it was submitted after their 2 day processing threshold, that they would reach out to the Credit Bureaus to fix the mistake. This means that they are violating the law. The agents who respond to this are also violating the law by allowing the reports made by consumers to go un-investigated as clearances require oaths. Financial Entities can not just misreport information to the Credit Bureaus because of their own policies that contradict statutes set forth by the US Government. Again, PHEAA acts like these complaints I make against them are ridiculous, as they've stated in the past. Unfortunately, these complaints are necessary to keep the company accountable. As of this complaint, the company still refuses to act appropriately when responding to complaints by failing to provide all information to every single aspect of a complaint. PHEAA selectively answers only some questions while completely ignoring others.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-24
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: I consolidated my loans more than 10 years ago for PSLF. I have made payments for 11 years under a income based repayment plan. I have certified my employment with the same employer, the State of Ohio government, every year. Fedloan servicing decided they will not certify my employment for a period of time in the middle of my tenure at the State of Ohio, even though I have submitted certification for that time period multiple times as recently as XXXX. This has stopped my from getting PSLF discharge for more than a year. I have tried to straighten this out over the phone, they recognize there is a problem, but then do nothing to fix it. The two loans are consolidated and I make one payment per month, but somehow there are different payment counts on the two loans. I don't see how this is possible. I have documentation to back up my claims. I am fully eligible and have been for over a year. They refuse to discharge my loan or give me credit for my payments made.
Company Response:
State: OH
Zip: 430XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-24
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: Since the waiver rules for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were announced in XX/XX/XXXX, I have been trying unsuccessfully to have my qualifying payment count credited correctly. By rights, I should receive credit for roughly XXXX payments toward forgiveness under TEPSLF rules. Instead, FedLoan Servicing has credited me only XXXX payments as of my latest application for forgiveness in XX/XX/XXXX- which is to say, those payments since consolidating into Direct Loans from FFELP loans. I have been in repayment on my federal loans since XXXX. They were consolidated in XXXX into an FFELP consolidation loan ( s ). Since then, with the brief exception of a short forbearance in XXXX or XXXX, I have paid the full monthly amount, in full, on time, every month. Since the PSLF only goes back to XXXX, I am only entitled to credit under the waiver for months I was in repayment on my federal loans and in qualifying employment between then and present. And during that period of time, I have two periods if qualifying employment. I worked for a qualifying non-profit from midXXXX through XXXX, XXXX. And I have been a federal employee with XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX through present. When the TEPSLF rules were announced, I followed the direction on Dept. of Ed. 's website to reconsolidate my FFELP consolidation loan into a Direct Loan. And when that process was complete, I submitted an application for loan forgiveness, with the supporting documents verifying my qualifying employment, confidently expecting the forgiveness of my outstanding balances ( about $ XXXX ). Instead, in XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, I received notice from FedLoan Servicing that I had only 1 qualifying payment. I spent many hours over the next several months trying to contact someone at Dept. of Ed. or FedLoan Servicing who could straighten out the problem. On the rare occasion I got through to a person at FedLoan Servicing- and could make them understand the problem- I was told " be patient '' and that they were waiting for updated payment counts from Dept. of Ed. So I waited patiently. And months went by. So I submitted another application for forgiveness in XXXX. They rejected that application too, upping my qualifying payment count to XXXX. In short, they are refusing to credit any of the payments on FFELP loans before consolidation into the Direct Loans, which is not in accord with the temporary waiver rules for PSLF. It's now coming up on 10 months - almost a year - since I submitted my application for forgiveness and was entitled to receive it. I have reached out repeatedly since XXXX to FedLoan Servicing, Dept. of Ed., even my congressman. I have sought help from Dept. of Ed. 's ombudsman 's office and received no response. About a month ago, I filed a request for reconsideration of my payment count with Dept. of Ed. As yet, no response. We are shortly coming to the end of XXXX, when the waiver period ends. Right now, instead of the loan forgiveness I should have, I have a Direct Loan that has added 10 years to my repayment schedule and has raised my interest rate over the schedule and interest rate on the FFELP loans I had in the first place. That is, I'm actually worse off right now for having sought PSLF loan forgiveness. The program is clearly not operating as it should - in my case, anyway. If you can help resolve this for me, I would be very grateful.
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: 20815
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-25
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: Completed forms for the PSLF & TEPSLF certification and application were submitted for time periods that I worked full time at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX, XXXX ) and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) were submitted twice on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. However FedLoan did not count these time periods as part of my qualifying payments.
Company Response:
State: IN
Zip: 467XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-23
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Need information about your loan balance or loan terms
Consumer Complaint: To whom it may concern : I am a federally protected consumer and I am writing this complaint myself. I have been attempting to resolve my concerns with Fed Loan Servicing since XX/XX/XXXX and have not received the requested documents or response Ive requested. I sent letters on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. I received an email stating my documents were received but never received anything else. My request includes the original instrument of indebtedness, account production, and general ledger. I have only received copies of the consolidation request not the contract signed by both parties nor an invoice. Recently, I received an email stating that my loans have been sold without my consent and still no response to my initial request. My loans should not have been transferred especially after not honoring my request. FedLoan Servicing has had ample time to provide the items requested and the loans should be discharged d/t non compliance and not honoring my request as a federally protected consumer. Assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated. Please see the attached correspondence sent to FedLoan Servicing.
Company Response:
State: IL
Zip: 60466
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-23
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: I have had my student loan since 2006 I have always attempted to be on the income-based repayment program IBR. The student loan servicer AES has continually lost applications not processed them and often times pushes me into programs that are beyond what I get monthly from Social Security XXXX. many times I will take pictures or send my applications by certified mail they are often lost and then my loan is recapitalized enriching the company well damaging a XXXX persons life. The callous nature in which they have dealt with us the violations of law must be investigated. By not allowing me too enroll in the IBR they have caused dramatic financial hardship for my family and have continually flaunted and violated the law by not accurately recording my payments to IBR and making it so hard for a person with a XXXX to get a ADA accommodation to assist in solving it. I have this year sent to certified overnight packages with the IVR program and tax information as requested I videotaped that the information going into the envelopes was what they asked for and showed on the video handing it to the post office the post office says they were delivered and received and yet AES company denied as they received them the third attempt I went online and with assistance from a Student Loan counselor at AES completed the IVR application and electronically submitted my tax information all of this was verified during the call and yet they denied they received it and re-capitalized my loan and clear violation of the law.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 342XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-23
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Consumer Complaint: I attended a XXXX XXXX institution from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, I took out a direct-to-consumer XXXX XXXX XXXX made by AES/XXXX for {$22000.00} XXXX Funds were sent directly to me in the mail via paper check, completely bypassing the schools financial aid office. Like any commercial loan, it was based on creditworthiness and came with a variable interest rate. This loan did not originate from the financial aid office and the amount was above and beyond the schools published cost of attendance. AES never bothered to verify the published cost of attendance nor did they consider any federal student loans or other private loans I had already received. I filed for bankruptcy on XX/XX/XXXX ; it was discharged XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX AES received the Notice of XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines ; the debt at issue was listed on Schedule F of my petition. The deadline to object to the discharge was XX/XX/XXXX. Under 523 ( a ) ( 8 ), as written in law practice guides, the lender ( AESXXXX XXXX has the initial burden to establish the existence of the debt and that the debt is an educational loan within the statutes parameters ( Roth v. Educational Credit Mgm't Corp. ( In re Roth ), 490 B.R. 908, 916 ( 9th Cir. BAP XXXX ) ). To meet this burden, the creditor must prove that the debtmore likely than notfalls entirely within the meaning of one of Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) s exceptions ( Love v. Navient Solutions, XXXX ; McDaniel v. Navient, XXXX ). If the creditor does not prove that the debt is an educational loan that more than likely falls entirely within the meaning of one of Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) s exceptions, it is automatically and as a matter of law discharged upon entry of the Discharge Order. This includes XXXX XXXXr and other direct-to-consumer loans that exceed the schools cost of attendance ( pp. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Morally Bankrupt, XX/XX/XXXX ). AES did not challenge dischargeability ; they did not establish the existence of the debt ; they did not prove the debt is presumptively non-dischargeable ; nor did they prove that the debt is an educational loan within the statutes parameters. Therefore, this loan was discharged upon entry of the Discharge Order in my XXXX XXXX bankruptcy case. Following receipt of the Discharge Order, AES temporarily ceased collection efforts but soon thereafter encouraged forbearance ; they began collecting monthly installments of {$170.00} in XXXX XXXX AES misled me as to the status of this loan. It is because of the many recent court cases and reports filed by the CFPB and XXXX, namely Morally Bankrupt ( XX/XX/XXXX ), that I learned that this loan servicer is in violation of Bankruptcy Code Section 524 and violating my rights as a consumer. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a notice via certified mail to AES requesting that they immediately stop debiting my bank account and refund me all the money I have paid toward this loan since XX/XX/XXXX, the date of my Discharge Order. On XX/XX/XXXX, AES acknowledged receipt of my written correspondence via email. On XX/XX/XXXX, they uploaded a notice to my online portal stating my loan debt is presumptively not dischargeable and that I would have to file an adversary proceeding ( an untrue and deceptive statement that violates California law AB-376 1788.101 ( b ) ( 2 ) ). AES claims the outstanding balance is {$24000.00} with a current variable interest rate of 7.13 % and continues to collect on this debt at the rate of $ 208 monthly. In previous filings, XXXX has not claimed their private loans are excepted from discharge under 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) ( i ) or 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ). Nor has XXXX claimed that any of their private loans should be excepted from discharge under 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) ( ii ) as an obligation to repay a scholarship or stipend. Rather, they argued that the purpose of the loan, not its use, controls whether the loan confers an educational benefit. The purpose test can not be used to elevate a non-qualified educational loan into a qualified educational loan ( Murphy v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency ( In re Murphy ), 282 F.3d 868, 870 ( 5th Cir. XXXX ) ). The Second, the Fifth, and the Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals have all rejected arguments made by creditors that courts need only confirm that the promissory note expresses an educational purpose for the loan to be non-dischargeable. Boilerplate language in loan agreements can not bring loans that are outside of the definition of qualified education loans within that definition. In XX/XX/XXXX, United States Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX XXXX said the question of dischargeability of a private student loan under Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) turns on objective, not subjective, matters including the facts and circumstances of the loan and the applicable cost of attendance. If the facts show that a private student loan exceeds the applicable cost of attendance, then that borrowers statementboilerplate or otherwisethat a loan does not exceed the cost of attendance does not change those facts. Judge Strong wrote private [ student ] loans that exceed the cost of attendance do not meet the nondischargeability requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ), and are therefore within the scope of [ the student borrowers ] bankruptcy discharges. AES bears the burden of showing that the debt is nondischargeable. Creditors who act to collect XXXXischarged debts in contravention of 524 are subject to claims for declaratory judgment that the debt was discharged, equitable claims to cease the collection and return the money collected, as well as claims for compensatory damages and contempt sanctions for knowing and willful violations of the Bankruptcy Code ( Homaidan and Youssef v. Navient ( In re Homaidan ) ( In re Youssef ) Adv. Pro. No. 17-1085 ( E.D.N.Y. XX/XX/XXXX ) ). Academic Answer loans are not qualified education loans under Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) because they are simple consumer loans subject to the same discharge rules as any other consumer debt ; they lack the traditional characteristics of educational loans ; and they were made through a direct-to-consumer lending program not through the financial aid office of an eligible school. These types of loans were not limited in amount, were for sums that were above and beyond the published cost of attendance, and were assigned adjustable/variable interest rates at the time of origination, the same as any commercial loan. AES originated these loans using consumer loan methods taking into account credit scores and other underwriting considerations. They should not be able to behave like commercial lenders while simultaneously receiving the same protection in bankruptcy as governmental student lending programs. Academic Answer loans are not qualified education loans as defined in section 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of XXXX ( any indebtedness incurred solely to pay qualified higher education expenses, which are defined as the [ published ] cost of attendance at an eligible educational institution reduced by the sum of certain amounts excluded from gross income and the amount of any scholarship, allowance, or payment ) under Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ), nor do they constitute an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) ( ii ). In fact, this Academic Answer loan does not fall into a category of debt that is excluded from discharge under ANY subsection of Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) and was therefore discharged pursuant to the Courts Discharge Order in my XXXX XXXX bankruptcy case. Direct-to-consumer loans that exceed the schools published cost of attendance do not meet the specific legal definition of a qualified student loan. The cost of attendance is a concrete value determined by the eligible institution based on the average costs for individual students. Institutions must report the cost of attendance as a concrete value to the Department of Education to participate in federal student aid programs. The reported cost of attendance is published on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) website. If an educational loan exceeds the published cost of attendance or, alternatively, is within the cost of attendance but exceeds the qualified higher education expensesfor example, because the amount is greater than the cost of attendance reduced by a scholarship receivedthe loan is not solely for qualified higher education expenses and hence it is not a qualified education loan. Such a loan ( exceeding either the cost of attendance or the qualified higher education expenses ) is not exempted from discharge under Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ). The loan at issue exceeded the schools published cost of attendance, less other scholarship grants and loans. Funds I received from AES while attending school totaled {$22000.00}. During my enrollment, I also received {$100000.00} through XXXX XXXX XXXX and Unsubsidized qualified federal student loans ( XXXX ), {$110000.00} in other private student loans, at least {$500.00} in scholarship funds, and {$110000.00} in gross income. While the published cost of attendance ( PCOA ) for the academic years I was enrolled in school ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ) can not be found in the XXXX website archives ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), the PCOA for the current XXXX academic school year on XXXX is {$31000.00}. Using the current PCOA to calculate the total PCOA for the duration of my enrollment arrives at a sum of {$95000.00}, which is no doubt greater than the PCOA from 14 years ago. The amount I received in qualified federal student loans and scholarships totaled {$100000.00}, demonstrating that this loan absolutely exceeded the published cost of attendance less other scholarship grants and loans. Therefore, this loan is not a qualified education loan and, as such, was automatically and as a matter of law discharged upon entry of the Discharge Order. In a blog article, the CFPB published that several types of loans associated with education expenses are dischargeable in bankruptcy, like most other types of unsecured consumer debt for example loans where the loan amount was higher than the cost of attendance which can occur when a loan is paid directly to the consumer without the filing of an adversary proceeding ( XXXX, XXXX : Busting myths about bankruptcy and private student loans ( consumerfinance.gov ) ). It further explains that using loan funds to pay for fees or expenses related to studying for a professional exam may also fall into the dischargeable category. I received a degree in medicine and had to pay thousands of dollars for board exam reviews, study materials specific for the exam, the board exam itself, and travel costs, as the several-day exam was held out of town. Congress enacted 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) because there was evidence of an increasing abuse of the bankruptcy process that threatened the viability of educational loan programs and harm to future students as well as taxpayers ( Cazenovia College v. Renshaw ( In re Renshaw ), 222 F.3d 82, 87 ( 2d Cir. XXXX ) ). By enacting section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ), Congress sought principally to protect government entities and nonprofit institutions of higher educationplaces which lend money or guarantee loans to individuals for educational purposesfrom bankruptcy discharge ( Santa Fe Med. Servs., Inc. v. Segal ( In re Segal ), 57 F.3d 342, 348 ( 3d Cir. XXXX ) ). Such loans are not based upon a borrowers proven creditworthiness. Therefore, any private loan based on creditworthiness is not exempt from discharge under Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, loan servicer XXXX XXXX filed a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing that student loans made to consumers may be dischargeable if they were dispersed directly to the borrower ( e.g., Academic Answer loans ). XXXX further stated, pursuant to Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ), only private loans made for qualified expenses were excepted from discharge, warning investors that these types of direct-to-consumer loans do not involve school enrollment verification, may be used for things other than qualified education expenses, and can be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Academic Answer loan is the very same type of direct-to-consumer loan as Navients Tuition Answer Loan XXXX As such, it does not fall into a category of debt that is excluded from discharge under ANY subsection of Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) and was therefore discharged pursuant to the Courts Discharge Order in my XXXX XXXX bankruptcy case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rules [ direct-to-consumer private student ] loans are not protected in bankruptcy and can be discharged, confirming that the legal burden to prove otherwise fell on AES ( the creditor ) in my bankruptcy case, which it failed to do. Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) requires that a student loan be within the cost of attendance at an eligible educational institution in order to be outside the scope of the debtors discharge ( Golden v. JPMorgan Chase Bank ( In re Golden ), 596 B.R. 239, 267-69 ( Bankr. E.D.N.Y. XXXX ) ). AES has made no effort to determine whether the loan was within the cost of attendance ; I am providing proof it was not. The loan at issue was discharged in my Chapter 7 bankruptcy case because it does not meet the requirements to be nondischargeable under Bankruptcy Code Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) that is, my loan is not a qualified education loan pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 221 ( d ) ( 1 ). Namely, this loan does not meet Internal Revenue Code Section 221 ( d ) s requirement that a loan must not exceed the cost of attendance, less other scholarship grants and loans, at a XXXX XXXX institution to be a qualified education loan. AES shirked the qualified written request I sent them dated XX/XX/XXXX ; they provided a boilerplate response with no resolve. XXXXSunTrust failed to meet its legal burden to prove its Academic Answer loan is protected by Section 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) of the Bankruptcy Code in my bankruptcy case. Their continuing collection efforts on my outstanding private loan that was discharged violates the statutory bankruptcy discharge contained in Bankruptcy Code Section 524 ( a ) ( 2 ). I now must rely upon the CFPB to enforce the law and act on my behalf for complete and permanent relief and restitution on the grounds that this private loan is within the scope of my XXXX XXXX bankruptcy discharges, and AES has disregarded that fact as they have continued their collection efforts for nearly a decade. The servicers efforts to collect on this debt is unlawful and violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Additionally, " collecting on debts discharged through bankruptcy might not only violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act 's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive practicesit could also violate the order of a United States bankruptcy XXXX '' ( XXXX, XXXX ( CFPB ) ).
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 949XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-22
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2022 I logged in to myfedloan.org to view my loan information plan for repayment. These loans were automatically put on forbearance for COVID-19, and even though mandatory repayment is resuming they are not providing several pieces of crucial information about my loans. They do not provide the interest rate. It is listed as 0 %, which I understand is from the forbearance, but there is no information listing the actual interest amount. For each loan they list " IDR Forgiveness Payments Made '' listed at XXXX. The following message is provided in a help modal : " If your loan is on an Income-Driven Repayment ( IDR ) plan, this is an estimate of your forgiveness payments made, which will be validated as you approach forgiveness. For more information on forgiveness and the amount of payments needed, visit https : //studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven. '' This is not acceptable. It should be displaying each payment from the start, especially in light of loan servicers ' record of losing payment record and information. I can not find full terms for my Pay As You Earn ( PAYE ) plan on the website. I have only heard from third-party sources that forgiveness occurs at the end of the repayment term of 20 years, but I have to pay taxes on the forgiven amount as if it were income. Nowhere on the site tells me this, nor how much that amount could be. I can not calculate this myself either, as they have interest rates listed as 0 %. I have called the organization and been on hold for an average XXXX hours, only to have the call dropped 3 times.
Company Response:
State: NY
Zip: 10027
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-08-22
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted the attached employment certification. I have not not been given credit for XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. The company insists there was a typed or type like signature. The attached is in BLUE ink and is a hand written signature. On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted the attached employment Certification from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX certifying I was employed there for XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response:
State: MA
Zip: 02128
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-08-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A