Date Received: 2021-10-15
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Need information about your loan balance or loan terms
Consumer Complaint: I have for years had problems logging onto the Navient account. When I try to log on it locks me out of my account. I also have a problem getting misinformation and incorrect information when it comes to my account when I talk to a Navient representative on the phone.They 'll misstate status of account, what the call is about and give contradictory information. Sometimes this results in late payments. But I believe there is something in the site that prevents passwords from being recognized and you are always prompted to reset or get locked out. My co- borrower reached out recently and said his credit had been dropped from over 800 to XXXX because of Navient reporting the student loan he cosigned as late. I went on again, got locked out again, but eventually got in and brought account current. It wasn't late enough to be reported by credit agencies but somehow it hit both our credit. When I called Navient to find out what was happening I was met with rude customer service and told the only way Navient handles disputes is by writing to Navient through snail mail and waiting for 30 days for a response. There is no online option. There is no phone or fax number. And no visibility in to the status of your request. Navient actively discourages customers reporting disputes by making it incredibly difficult to access. They don't want to address issues with access to the online site, or with misinformation provided by their agents. The worst part is these delays in terms of online access or misinformation provided by agents actually results in them being able to tack on more penalties and interest on your account. I believe Navient is incentivized to make it more difficult to access account or have clear up to date information because it results in them be able to collect more money. An example : Navient Supervisor told me was told that there was no negative reporting on my account on XXXX I asked for proof in writing as part of my complaint that I would have to send to Navient and she said she would send me an email stating that there have been no reporting to mine or my co-borrowers credit. I was told it would be sent to me by XX/XX/XXXX. If they know that it wasn't reported negatively then they can fix it with the bureau themselves instead of insisting I snail mail write a department with no phone number, email or online contact information. If there is no negative reporting then why are mine and my co -borrowers credit being impacted? Why can't I get a clear answer? And why must I write an address that may or may not get back to me in 30 days for an answer, when they already have it internally? If she's telling me they didn't report my credit will writing the Credit Dispute department even do anything? It's weird and suspicious. Then I was told {$47.00} late payment resulted in the reporting. I would never allow {$47.00} to drop my credit by 76 points! Or my co-borrower 's credit by 150points. If had been able to received accurate information or log on to my account without getting locked out this could have been prevented. The amount of misinformation I was given on XXXX is a great example of how their agents do their best to misdirect and misinform you and how that only results in a bigger bottom line for Navient. It doesn't make sense and I can't get a clear answer from them.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 90034
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-14
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: I became fully XXXX in 2018. None of this was by choice ; unfortunately I became very ill. After recovering from the first event, I notified Navient of the situation. I applied for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. For some reason unknown to me, the application for XXXX never went thru. Navient continued to report all kinds of different late payments on my credit reports. Not only did they report late payments, but none of it makes sense at all on how its reported. Some of the accounts were being reported never late and some late all the time. Some of the accounts went from not late to 120 days late. It does not make sense. All of this is 100 % incorrect and needs to be corrected. I have sent information to all 3 credit bureaus showing complete discharge of all student loans due to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When the credit bureaus contact Navient, someone within the company is reporting that my information given is not correct and the credit bureaus state that the debt is still owed. I have submitted the information received directly from Navient and from the Department of Education!
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 48066
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-14
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Information belongs to someone else
Consumer Complaint: I natural person, consumer, and creditor PULLED MY CONSUMER REPORT AND SEE UNAUTHORIZED REPORTINGS OF ACCOUNTS ON MY REPORT. THE COMPANY IS IN VIOLATION OF : 15 USC 1681 ( a ) ( 4 ) 15 USC 1681 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( b ) 15 USC 1681 ( b ) ( a ) ( 2 ) 15 USC 1681 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( a ) 15 USC 1681 ( c ) ( 2 )
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 30144
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-14
Issue: Getting a loan
Subissue: Fraudulent loan
Consumer Complaint: My Son applied for loans to enter XXXX XXXX in XXXX IL. In the process he signed up electronically while he was in High School, age XXXX. He is now almost XXXX!! Then, XXXX XXXX, approved him to go. The problem is, I was set up fraudulently to be a cosigner or owner of this loan. It is on my credit and they want me to pay. I believe my Son set up a cosigner/owner account and charged or incurred {$38000.00} in debt in one year at college. I did not even have proper income or give authorization for this debt. I filed a fraud report, and police report. Because XXXX XXXX was bought out by Navieat, they had no proof Because everything was signed electronically. I want to hire a lawyer but I don't know what to do. I saw an article that claims you are suing them already for these types of reasons. I haven't had a job in 7 years, never made payments. I tried through XXXX XXXX to file fraudulent accounts but it keeps being sent back. My Son, is XXXX years old, and has medical issues. He is still attending college at another college, in Illinois, and I have no idea how. I refuse to pay this bill ever. I owe less on my home, than I do on his 1 year at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Can you please help me?? I have all the copies of everything I tried to file years ago. This has caused me so much XXXX, I have to be on medication now, and my Son says he would try to help but doesn't know how to get it under his name. We don't even know how the charges got this high in 1 year!!! It should be or is illegal.
Company Response:
State: IL
Zip: 604XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-14
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX my wife and I filed for bankruptcy. Navient was collecting your discharged debt during the entire time we were in bankruptcy. We were successfully discharged from bankruptcy in XXXX.
Company Response:
State: ME
Zip: 041XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-13
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I received a full discharge of debts via Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy. See Bankruptcy Discharge Order, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. However, Navient, a creditor has refused to acknowledge the discharge of the debts and continues to report the discharged accounts as open as well as illegally engage in collection activities. It was determined that the private loan debts associated with Navient do not qualify as non-dischargeable, and thus did not require an adversary proceeding for discharge, therefore making them included in the general discharge order. The two statutes that dictate dischargeability are 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) and 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ). Navient has already affirmed the loans do not fit the requirements under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) and that they do not have information to prove or show cause that the loans fit under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ). It is important to note that this complaint is not an argument that the loans should be discharged. This complaint is to assert the fact that the discharge already happened and Navient refuses to comply with the legal discharge order. The exact language of statutes being referred to throughout this complaint are written below as a reference - 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) states : ( a ) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [ 1 ] 1228 ( a ), 1228 ( b ), or 1328 ( b ) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ( 8 ) unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtors dependents, for ( A ) ( i ) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution ; or ( ii ) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend ; or ( B ) any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual ; As referenced by 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) - section 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 states : ( d ) Definitions For purposes of this section ( 1 ) Qualified education loan : The term qualified education loan means any indebtedness incurred by the taxpayer solely to pay qualified higher education expenses RE : 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) The loans are not considered an educational benefit per the most recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which stated The defining characteristic of a loan, by contrast, is an unconditional obligation to pay it back. Interpreting educational benefit to cover all private student loans when the two terms listed in tandem describe specific and quite limited kinds of payments that... do not usually require repayment, In re Crocker, 941 F.3d at 220, would improperly broaden 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) ( ii ) s scope. Homaidan v. SLM Corp. ( In re Homaidan ), 596 B.R. 86 ( Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019 ). As such, they would not be exempt from the general discharge order. In fact, Navient agreed with and recognized this fact in an email from their Customer Advocate, XXXX XXXX and both her Supervisor, XXXX XXXX, and Navients Associate General Counsel, XXXX XXXX, conceded to this fact. Yet, they still have not removed me from the account nor updated the credit bureaus ; and persist with unlawful collection attempts. In prior communication with Navient, Navient already agreed and stated that the private loans associated with Account # XXXX " do not meet the criteria for non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( A ) ( ii ) '' [ a direct quote from Navient ]. See Navient Response Email dated XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, the loans did not require additional action beyond the general discharge i.e., did not require an adversary proceeding. As a result, the loans were included in the general discharge ordered on XX/XX/XXXX ; and are to be recognized as discharged which requires Navient to remove my name from the account and update the credit bureaus accordingly. RE : 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) It also has already been confirmed that the loans also did not meet the criteria for non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ) as they do not meet the definition of a " qualified education loan '' as defined in section 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ; because " Navient would not have information regarding how the proceeds were applied '' [ a direct quote from Navient ] and thus Navient can not factually assert that they were used " solely '' for qualified education expenses. See Navient Response Email dated XX/XX/2021. To be clear, if even one ( 1 ) cent of any loan is used for anything other than a qualified education expense, that means it was not " solely '' used for qualified education expenses and as such it can not be deemed a " qualified education loan '' per section 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. I have already affirmed and informed Navient that the loans were not " solely '' used for qualified education expenses, and Navient conceded that they have no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the private loans associated with my Navient account failed to meet the criteria for non-dischargeability that would require an adversary proceeding, and as a result were included in the general discharge order. In fact, when presenting this information to Navients Associate General Counsel, XXXX XXXX, he did not argue against or challenge the fact that the loans were not used solely for qualified education expenses. Furthermore, he inaccurately stated that the loans " are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy because they were certified by XXXX XXXX as being within the total costs of your attendance '', and related this to the term " qualified education loans, as that term is defined in 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code ''. See Navient Response Letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. However, this attribution is wrong and misleading- the language in the statute is very specific and narrow ; and makes it clear that a certification by the university as to the cost of attendance is not what makes a loan a " qualified education loan ''. Thus, Navient is not arguing or asserting that the loans were used solely for qualified education expenses which is the requirement under 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ). In this complaint, I provided the exact language from the statute and it is explicit in that it states the indebtedness must be " incurred by the taxpayer solely to pay qualified higher education expenses ''. XXXX XXXX XXXX certification of the cost of attendance does not certify that the funds were incurred " solely to pay qualified higher education expenses ''. It is a gross misrepresentation of facts by Navient to state that this in any way certifies the purpose of the loan- as it is clear the university only certified the amount of the loan as it compares to the cost of attendance, not the purpose of the loans. In fact, by Navients own assertion, " the stated purpose of your Loans, and not the ultimate use of proceeds, is what controls dischargeability under Bankruptcy Code 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ''. See Navient Response Letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. As such, neither the university nor I certified the stated purpose of the Loans. Thus, the loans do not fall into the purview of 11 U.S.C. 523 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( B ), and therefore they do not fit the definition of 'non-dischargeable ', and as such, were included as part of the general discharge order related to my bankruptcy proceeding. To reiterate, the loan amounts falling within the total cost of attendance does not indicate nor serve as proof that they were incurred solely for qualified higher education expenses. Furthermore, the promissory agreement signed for the Loans concedes that the Loans may be incurred for and consist of " funds that can not reasonably be attributed to meeting the education expense of the student borrower related to attendance at the School ''. See Sallie Mae Promissory Note XXXX. In addition, the School Certification section of the loan applications simply state " the Total Certified Amount does not exceed the student 's cost of attendance ''. See Sallie Mae Promissory Note XXXX. XXXX XXXX did not in any way certify the stated purpose of the loan - which by Navients own assertion, the stated purpose of the loan is what courts have used to interpret 221 ( d ) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code, and represents Navient 's position. To reiterate, a stated purpose would have to be explicit in stating that the loans were incurred solely and only for qualified education expenses not simply that they may be used for those expense but that they would only be used for those qualified expenses. Thus, by Navients own assertion - since there is an absence of the stated purpose of the loan, the Loans would qualify as being included in the general discharge ordered on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX, on behalf of Navient, stated that the sole and only reason for Navients refusal to recognize the discharge is that, XXXX XXXX certification that your Loans were used to pay for the cost of attendance controls. Thats their stated purpose. See Navient Email Dated XX/XX/XXXX. However, this assertion is undeniably false. XXXX XXXX directly disagreed with and contradicted XXXX XXXX statement that characterized their certification process. How can XXXX XXXX, on behalf of Navient, stand by this false assertion and refuse to acknowledge the legal discharge when the certifying entity in question, XXXX XXXX, has confirmed that their certification does not provide or verify a stated purpose? Attached to this complaint is email from XXXX XXXX confirming that their certification process does not verify, assert, and is not any way related to the stated purpose of the loans nor the usage of the proceeds. Per XXXX XXXX Financial Aid Office, " Certification '' is the name of the process in which a financial aid counselor at a school verifies the amount of a loan a student is eligible to receive with the loan provider. A student is eligible for a loan if they are credit approved by the loan provider and the amount requested fits within the student 's Cost of Attendance budget for the year. See XXXX XXXX Email dated XX/XX/XXXX. Conclusion : There are only two things that could have made the loans ineligible for discharge - and these loans fit neither of those requirements. Navient has already agreed that the loans do not meet the definition of educational benefit as defined by recent court rulings. Navient has also agreed that there is no evidence to show that the loans were used solely for qualified education expenses. XXXX XXXX has also confirmed that their certification process does not verify, allude to, confirm, or in any way represent the stated purpose of the loans. Thus, all attendant facts that show that the loans were not exempt from discharge and also did not fit the criteria of qualified educational loans. It is abundantly clear that the private loans associated with Navient account were discharged via the general discharge ordered on XX/XX/XXXX. However, Navient refuses to comply with the discharge order. Furthermore, to avoid correcting their errors, XXXX XXXX has explicitly stated that Navient will not engage with me about my account, which boldly and unabashedly violates my consumer rights. He has also insinuated that obtaining an attorney is the only way that they will communicate with me about the debts. The seriousness of an attorney, unlicensed in my home state and representing the creditor at the highest level, withholding my account information unless I follow his inappropriate and unsolicited legal advice can not be understated. This is a result of their efforts to illegally collect on loans that have been discharged and to proceed with illegally reporting them as active. This is not an opinion or dispute ; it is a matter of law and facts that Navient has blatantly decided to disregard. Thank you, XXXX XXXX
Company Response:
State: OR
Zip: 97062
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-13
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan
Subissue: Problem lowering your monthly payments
Consumer Complaint: I believe I am a victim of predatory loan practices. attended XXXX XXXX University from XXXX and graduated in XXXX. As the first woman in my XXXX-American family to graduate from college, I have struggled financially. Five of my loans with Navient ( formerly XXXX XXXX ) more than doubled from the original principle amounts. I have been in repayment for 10+ years and will not pay off loans and interest for more than 20+. This company is legally holding myself and others in financial bondage with no repercussion.
Company Response:
State: NJ
Zip: 07631
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-13
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: I am deeply concerned about the lack of access to my personal account statements through my loan servicer, Navient. Unfortunately, Navient only allows access to monthly statements within the last 12 months in your inbox through their website. Thus, I sent an email requesting that all of my monthly statements from XXXX until current be sent to me so that I can keep accurate records, especially in the setting of Navient 's lack of renewal with the US Department of Education. Their first response to my request did not answer my question in the slightest, so I was forced to send my request again, only to be told I have access to only 12 statements. I am alarmed that I am being denied access to my own personal information about past payments I have made.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 77006
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-13
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX Principal {$13000.00} XX/XX/XXXX payment XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payment XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payment XXXX XXXX principal {$13000.00} As I see is the same making or not making payments.. Should I stop making payments?
Company Response:
State: PR
Zip: 00959
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-10-13
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Keep getting calls about your loan
Consumer Complaint: Navient is contacting people not associated with my account to speak about my account. On either XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, Navient contacted a someone not associated with my account by phone to try and reach me. Navient falsely claimed they are trying to reach me to " help me '' regarding my account. The individual they contacted is not on my account and not authorized to speak on behalf of my account. I am not disclosing this individual 's name and contact information in this complaint, but I may be able to provide a screenshot of the incoming phone call. Navient should have record of this phone call in their logs, and should be aware of this incident. If they claim not to be aware, then I will file a separate complaint about their conduct. I have filed other complaints against Navient regarding contacting unauthorized individuals regarding my account. The CFPB previously ruled that Navient should not do so, and Navient previously agreed to stop doing this. However, once again, Navient is violating this agreement.
Company Response:
State: IL
Zip: 60622
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-10-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A