Date Received: 2023-04-29
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: I just checked my credit report and XXXX and XXXX is reporting student loan with Nelnet in the amount of {$30000.00} on my report as being past due on XXXX in XXXX as 120 days, nothing. On my XXXX report it states in that same time frame in XXXX I am 90 days late, This is incorrect. In accordance with the 15 U.S. Code 1679c this agency is reporting incorrect information to the credit agencies which in turn is dropping my credit score. Please remove this incorrect information off my credit report.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 191XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-29
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: I just checked my credit report and XXXX and XXXX is reporting student loan with Nelnet in the amount of {$38000.00} on my report as being past due on XXXX in XXXX as 120 days late. On my XXXX report it states in that same time frame in XXXX I am 90 days late, This is incorrect. In accordance with the 15 U.S. Code 1679c this agency is reporting incorrect information to the credit agencies which in turn is dropping my credit score. Please remove this incorrect information off my credit report.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 191XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-30
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: There are 7 student loans reporting on my credit report, however there is only one account with the loan servicer and only one payment due. When I was selecting the repayment option for my student loans when I graduated, I was not informed that there was a payment due, which was {$0.00} because of the income based repayment plan. I wasn't made aware until I saw a 120 day late on my credit report. They told me I would have to send them tax returns, which I had yet to file, before they could revert back to the original repayment plan. Which took me 30-60 days to get to them. They have been reporting 7 separate accounts being 120+ days past due. But when I get a statement, there is only 1 payment due, not 7. This has been impossible to correct and extremely unfair. I have not been able to get approved for almost anything in over 7 years. I had to refinance the student loans so that they would stop reporting negatively. The next year when I sent them my returns, they said that " they '' didn't file my paperwork timely which then resulted in even more of lates. However, they were unwilling to correct he information reported to the credit bureau. These accounts should be deleted based on the first late payment, which should have already happened. In accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, NelNet Account # XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, has violated my rights. 15 U.S.C 1681 Section 602 A. States I have the right to privacy. 15 U.S.C 1681 Section 604 A Section 2 : it also states a consumer reporting agency can not furnish a account without my written instructions. They are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 328XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-29
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: My Federal student loans were being serviced by Great Lakes which was recently bought out by Nelnet. Great lakes had a very user friendly website allowing us to set up repayments in many ways and was very user friendly. Nelnet informed us that our current auto debit settings would be stopped and we would have to login and set up our account with them. As soon as I got the information ( XX/XX/2023 ), I logged in today and set up my account but they would not give me an option to start auto payments for 5 months ( XX/XX/2023 ) and did not have an option to pay more than the minimum amount due. The fine print on the website stated that we could may more to pay off our loan more quickly at our request but since there was no place to do it online, I called their phone number. I explained to the representative that for years I've had auto debit set up even through the federal loan forbearance period and I've been paying a few XXXX dollars more per month to reduce the loan burden. The auto payment system works best for me since I own and run a small business, have two small kids, and don't want to drown in debt until I'm retirement age or accidently forget and miss a payment. The customer service rep said there is no way to set up auto payment to start sooner or to set it up at paying a higher rate, I would just have to go on their website each month to make a higher payment. It doesn't make sense and just seems like this new loan servicer is trying to prolong people 's debt avoid accepting payments which interest rates are deferred, and increase risk of people missing payments. I then tried to go on and just schedule payments out until the auto payment could start but it would only let me schedule 1 payment out over the next month and nothing else. I believe this bank is taking advantage of me as a consumer, not giving proper information out, not allowing best banking practices, and shouldn't be allowed to service federal loans. Please help make this right or get me another loan servicing company that can help. Thanks.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 19426
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-28
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: The company has been provided with an official student loan deferment document that was signed by a school administrator. The company refuses to cooperate with federal laws that govern credit reporting. I would like to reference these credit laws/act that protect consumers against negative reporting by bureaus and creditors. The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) - The FCRA requires that credit reporting agencies maintain accurate and complete credit reports for consumers. If you believe that the late payments on your federal student loans account are being reported inaccurately, you can dispute the information with the credit reporting agencies under the FCRA. The Higher Education Act - The Higher Education Act includes provisions related to the reporting of student loans to credit reporting agencies. Specifically, the Act requires that credit reporting agencies remove any negative credit reporting related to a defaulted federal student loan if the borrower enters into a rehabilitation agreement and makes nine on-time payments in a ten-month period. The Department of Education 's Credit Reporting Guidance - The Department of Education provides guidance to loan servicers regarding the reporting of federal student loans to credit reporting agencies. This guidance includes information about how late payments should be reported and may provide grounds for disputing any inaccurate information on your credit report.
Company Response:
State: NC
Zip: 283XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-28
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: Nelnet is my student loan servicer. I was part of the XXXX vs. XXXX class action law suit. This case won, I was awarded {$45000.00}. Nelnet has taken this amount and applied it to my student loans. These loans were discharged. My wages were garnished in XXXX and XXXX and I made other payments. I am to receive a full refund for all payments made. Nelenet has deleted all of my payment history, statements ( only 2 statements show XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) and loan details. I attended XXXX XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the school was fraudulent, hence the discharge. Nelnet won't give me a straight answer on how much my refund amount is? They have deleted federal documents which is against the law. I talked to the federal student aid customer service and was told Nelnet can get into big trouble for deleting federal documents, and they should not be able to delete any information on students accounts. Please help me get my refund and punitive damages. Nelnet is hiding and deleting nformation because they don't want to give students their refunds. I paid thousands and I only received a check in the amount of {$150.00}. I received a letter in the mail from Nelnet with this information. How will I know the real amount I paid since my payment history has been deleted? I have called Nelnet many times and I get a different answer every time. Nelnet can put in false information at this point since they have deleted my payment history and statements. I tried getting payment history through my bank but the bank only has statements available for the past 7 years. Nelnet needs to be investigated and made to pay my refund with punitive damages for their lack of integrity and fraudulent activity.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 77477
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-28
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: NOTICE OF DEFAMATION, FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT & RELATED DAMAGES CIVIL SUIT TO NELNET, NELNET , INC., NELNET BANK, NELNET BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL EDUCATION LOAN NETWORK , INC. & ALL SUBSIDIARIES In the State of Maryland, Defamation of character falls into two categories : libel and slander. Libel is a written, including signs or pictures, defamation. Slander is oral, involves speech. " A statement that is merely unflattering, annoying, embarrassing, or that hurts only the plaintiffs feeling is not considered defamatory. '' R. Sack, Libel, Slander and Related Problems ( 5th. edition, 2018 ) ( Vol. 1 ). To prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish the following : 1. That the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person ; 2. That the statement was false ; 3. That the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and 4. That the plaintiff thereby suffered harm. " A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or associating with, that person. '' Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 20-21 ( 2016 ) Maryland recognizes the distinction between defamation per se and defamation per quod. The determination of whether an alleged defamatory statement is per se or per quod is a matter of law. Determining whether the defamatory statement is per se or per quod is intertwined with the issue of fault. Shapiro v. Massengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 773 ( 1995 ) If the statement is defamatory per se, the plaintiff must prove actual damages if the defendant was merely negligent in making a false statement. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 774. Damages are presumed, however, when a plaintiff can demonstrate actual malice, by clear and convincing evidence, even in the absence of proof of harm. Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 135 Md. App. 483, 549-550 ( 2000 ). Additionally, a court may take judicial notice if conduct is so egregious and/or injurious in nature. In such an instance, damages are self-evident. M & S Furniture v. De Bartolo Corp., 249 Md. 540, 544, ( 1968 ). For example, a statement which falsely charges a person with the commission of a crime is a case in which the statement is so egregious and injurious in nature, damages are self-evident. If the statement is per quod, then the jury must decide whether the statement carries a defamatory meaning. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 773. That is, actual damages must be alleged and proved by the plaintiff. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Accordingly, convincing evidence of falsity is required. Other privileges may be asserted in defense of an allegation of defamation, including, but not limited to, opinion or fair comment privileges. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 ( 1964 ) In determining fault, public officials must prove by clear and convincing evidence that statements were made with actual malice, i.e., knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of whether false or not. In contrast, private individuals use a negligent standard, i.e., failing to act with due care considering the circumstances. Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 21 ( 2016 ) If the defamatory words are actionable per se, the law implies or presumes general damages, but if the words are actionable per quod, the plaintiff has the burden of proving damages. Compensatory Damages are recoverable. With this type of damages, the injured party may recover only as much as will fairly compensate for the injury sustained. Compensatory damages may be general or special damages. Punitive damages are recoverable where fraud, malice, evil intent or oppression has been proven. NELNET is being negligent and dismissive in its response to my consumer complaint. Pursuant to the FCRA, the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the 5th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Maryland Bill of Rights, Maryland Code ( MD Code ) 5-105 - Assault, libel, or slander ; 8-301. Identity fraud ; 8-303. Government identification document ; 8-304. Report ; and 8-522. Use of simulated documents to induce payment, I demand that NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX, and PHEAA provide the following certifying documentation validating the TRUTH and the ACTUAL AMOUNT the disputed debt : 1 ) Copies of ALL five ( 5 ) 30-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 2 ) Copies of ALL 60-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 3 ) Copies of ALL 229 90-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 4 ) The Original PROMISSORY NOTE for ALL Student Loan Accounts, with my Original Signature and/or the IP Address of the computer that was used to sign any documents electronically. 5 ) Disclosure of the Date, Time, Bank, Bank Address, Bank Routing Account Number, and Bank Account Number of the School /College/University that received all of the disputed {$190000.00} of Installment Accounts on my behalf along with any confirmation or transaction numbers associated with any bank transfers and/or direct deposits into all banks and bank accounts which documents that the funds were even disbursed from the Creditor to the Consumer in the first place. 6 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with all Federal and State Notice , Service, Reporting and/or Timing requirements associated with both the FCRA and the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act. 7 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 8 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 9 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 607. Compliance procedures [ 15 U.S.C. 1681e ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 10 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 609. Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 11 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [ 15 U.S.C. 1681i ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 12 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681n ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 13 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681o ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 14 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 618. Jurisdiction of courts ; limitation of actions [ 15 U.S.C. 1681p ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 15 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [ 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. If this information is not provided within the next 15 days I plan to file a Civil Suit in the Federal District Courts of Maryland against NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA 30 Counts EACH ( representative of the number of instances that information has been INACCURATELY reported regarding Student Loans on EACH Credit Report ) of Defamation, Libel, Identity Theft and Fraud for EVERY false Credit Report from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and ALL other Credit Reporting Agencies that has falsely reported INACCURATELY on my credit profile using the following calculations : XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA.
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: 20721
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-28
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: NOTICE OF DEFAMATION, FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT & RELATED DAMAGES CIVIL SUIT TO NELNET, NELNET , INC., NELNET BANK, NELNET BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL EDUCATION LOAN NETWORK , INC. & ALL SUBSIDIARIES In the State of Maryland, Defamation of character falls into two categories : libel and slander. Libel is a written, including signs or pictures, defamation. Slander is oral, involves speech. " A statement that is merely unflattering, annoying, embarrassing, or that hurts only the plaintiffs feeling is not considered defamatory. '' R. Sack, Libel, Slander and Related Problems ( 5th. edition, 2018 ) ( Vol. 1 ). To prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish the following : 1. That the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person ; 2. That the statement was false ; 3. That the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and 4. That the plaintiff thereby suffered harm. " A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or associating with, that person. '' Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 20-21 ( 2016 ) Maryland recognizes the distinction between defamation per se and defamation per quod. The determination of whether an alleged defamatory statement is per se or per quod is a matter of law. Determining whether the defamatory statement is per se or per quod is intertwined with the issue of fault. Shapiro v. Massengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 773 ( 1995 ) If the statement is defamatory per se, the plaintiff must prove actual damages if the defendant was merely negligent in making a false statement. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 774. Damages are presumed, however, when a plaintiff can demonstrate actual malice, by clear and convincing evidence, even in the absence of proof of harm. Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 135 Md. App. 483, 549-550 ( 2000 ). Additionally, a court may take judicial notice if conduct is so egregious and/or injurious in nature. In such an instance, damages are self-evident. M & S Furniture v. De Bartolo Corp., 249 Md. 540, 544, ( 1968 ). For example, a statement which falsely charges a person with the commission of a crime is a case in which the statement is so egregious and injurious in nature, damages are self-evident. If the statement is per quod, then the jury must decide whether the statement carries a defamatory meaning. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 773. That is, actual damages must be alleged and proved by the plaintiff. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Accordingly, convincing evidence of falsity is required. Other privileges may be asserted in defense of an allegation of defamation, including, but not limited to, opinion or fair comment privileges. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 ( 1964 ) In determining fault, public officials must prove by clear and convincing evidence that statements were made with actual malice, i.e., knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of whether false or not. In contrast, private individuals use a negligent standard, i.e., failing to act with due care considering the circumstances. Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 21 ( 2016 ) If the defamatory words are actionable per se, the law implies or presumes general damages, but if the words are actionable per quod, the plaintiff has the burden of proving damages. Compensatory Damages are recoverable. With this type of damages, the injured party may recover only as much as will fairly compensate for the injury sustained. Compensatory damages may be general or special damages. Punitive damages are recoverable where fraud, malice, evil intent or oppression has been proven. NELNET is being negligent and dismissive in its response to my consumer complaint. Pursuant to the FCRA, the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the 5th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Maryland Bill of Rights, Maryland Code ( MD Code ) 5-105 - Assault, libel, or slander ; 8-301. Identity fraud ; 8-303. Government identification document ; 8-304. Report ; and 8-522. Use of simulated documents to induce payment, I demand that NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX, and PHEAA provide the following certifying documentation validating the TRUTH and the ACTUAL AMOUNT the disputed debt : 1 ) Copies of ALL five ( 5 ) 30-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 2 ) Copies of ALL 60-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 3 ) Copies of ALL 229 90-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 4 ) The Original PROMISSORY NOTE for ALL Student Loan Accounts, with my Original Signature and/or the IP Address of the computer that was used to sign any documents electronically. 5 ) Disclosure of the Date, Time, Bank, Bank Address, Bank Routing Account Number, and Bank Account Number of the School /College/University that received all of the disputed {$190000.00} of Installment Accounts on my behalf along with any confirmation or transaction numbers associated with any bank transfers and/or direct deposits into all banks and bank accounts which documents that the funds were even disbursed from the Creditor to the Consumer in the first place. 6 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with all Federal and State Notice , Service, Reporting and/or Timing requirements associated with both the FCRA and the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act. 7 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 8 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 9 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 607. Compliance procedures [ 15 U.S.C. 1681e ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 10 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 609. Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 11 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [ 15 U.S.C. 1681i ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 12 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681n ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 13 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681o ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 14 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 618. Jurisdiction of courts ; limitation of actions [ 15 U.S.C. 1681p ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 15 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [ 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. If this information is not provided within the next 15 days I plan to file a Civil Suit in the Federal District Courts of Maryland against NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA 30 Counts EACH ( representative of the number of instances that information has been INACCURATELY reported regarding Student Loans on EACH Credit Report ) of Defamation, Libel, Identity Theft and Fraud for EVERY false Credit Report from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and ALL other Credit Reporting Agencies that has falsely reported INACCURATELY on my credit profile using the following calculations : EQUIFAX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA.
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: 20721
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-28
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: NOTICE OF DEFAMATION, FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT & RELATED DAMAGES CIVIL SUIT TO NELNET, NELNET , INC., NELNET BANK, NELNET BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL EDUCATION LOAN NETWORK , INC. & ALL SUBSIDIARIES In the State of Maryland, Defamation of character falls into two categories : libel and slander. Libel is a written, including signs or pictures, defamation. Slander is oral, involves speech. " A statement that is merely unflattering, annoying, embarrassing, or that hurts only the plaintiffs feeling is not considered defamatory. '' R. Sack, Libel, Slander and Related Problems ( 5th. edition, 2018 ) ( Vol. 1 ). To prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish the following : 1. That the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person ; 2. That the statement was false ; 3. That the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and 4. That the plaintiff thereby suffered harm. " A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or associating with, that person. '' Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 20-21 ( 2016 ) Maryland recognizes the distinction between defamation per se and defamation per quod. The determination of whether an alleged defamatory statement is per se or per quod is a matter of law. Determining whether the defamatory statement is per se or per quod is intertwined with the issue of fault. Shapiro v. Massengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 773 ( 1995 ) If the statement is defamatory per se, the plaintiff must prove actual damages if the defendant was merely negligent in making a false statement. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 774. Damages are presumed, however, when a plaintiff can demonstrate actual malice, by clear and convincing evidence, even in the absence of proof of harm. Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 135 Md. App. 483, 549-550 ( 2000 ). Additionally, a court may take judicial notice if conduct is so egregious and/or injurious in nature. In such an instance, damages are self-evident. M & S Furniture v. De Bartolo Corp., 249 Md. 540, 544, ( 1968 ). For example, a statement which falsely charges a person with the commission of a crime is a case in which the statement is so egregious and injurious in nature, damages are self-evident. If the statement is per quod, then the jury must decide whether the statement carries a defamatory meaning. Shapiro 105 Md. App. at 773. That is, actual damages must be alleged and proved by the plaintiff. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Accordingly, convincing evidence of falsity is required. Other privileges may be asserted in defense of an allegation of defamation, including, but not limited to, opinion or fair comment privileges. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 ( 1964 ) In determining fault, public officials must prove by clear and convincing evidence that statements were made with actual malice, i.e., knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of whether false or not. In contrast, private individuals use a negligent standard, i.e., failing to act with due care considering the circumstances. Hosmane v Seley-Radtke , 227 Md. App. 11, 21 ( 2016 ) If the defamatory words are actionable per se, the law implies or presumes general damages, but if the words are actionable per quod, the plaintiff has the burden of proving damages. Compensatory Damages are recoverable. With this type of damages, the injured party may recover only as much as will fairly compensate for the injury sustained. Compensatory damages may be general or special damages. Punitive damages are recoverable where fraud, malice, evil intent or oppression has been proven. NELNET is being negligent and dismissive in its response to my consumer complaint. Pursuant to the FCRA, the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the 5th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Maryland Bill of Rights, Maryland Code ( MD Code ) 5-105 - Assault, libel, or slander ; 8-301. Identity fraud ; 8-303. Government identification document ; 8-304. Report ; and 8-522. Use of simulated documents to induce payment, I demand that NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX, and PHEAA provide the following certifying documentation validating the TRUTH and the ACTUAL AMOUNT the disputed debt : 1 ) Copies of ALL five ( 5 ) 30-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 2 ) Copies of ALL 60-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 3 ) Copies of ALL 229 90-day delinquent notices that were mailed out to XXXX XXXX, with date stamp of postage mailing, clearly showing how postage was paid, with the specific person and address that it was delivered to and includes delivery confirmation. 4 ) The Original PROMISSORY NOTE for ALL Student Loan Accounts, with my Original Signature and/or the IP Address of the computer that was used to sign any documents electronically. 5 ) Disclosure of the Date, Time, Bank, Bank Address, Bank Routing Account Number, and Bank Account Number of the School /College/University that received all of the disputed {$190000.00} of Installment Accounts on my behalf along with any confirmation or transaction numbers associated with any bank transfers and/or direct deposits into all banks and bank accounts which documents that the funds were even disbursed from the Creditor to the Consumer in the first place. 6 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with all Federal and State Notice , Service, Reporting and/or Timing requirements associated with both the FCRA and the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Agencies Act. 7 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 8 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 9 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 607. Compliance procedures [ 15 U.S.C. 1681e ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 10 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 609. Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 11 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [ 15 U.S.C. 1681i ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 12 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681n ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 13 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [ 15 U.S.C. 1681o ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 14 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 618. Jurisdiction of courts ; limitation of actions [ 15 U.S.C. 1681p ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. 15 ) Proof that the Creditor and/or CRA timely and fully complied with 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [ 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ] regarding this credit account and the disputes of the consumer above and herein. If this information is not provided within the next 15 days I plan to file a Civil Suit in the Federal District Courts of Maryland against NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA 30 Counts EACH ( representative of the number of instances that information has been INACCURATELY reported regarding Student Loans on EACH Credit Report ) of Defamation, Libel, Identity Theft and Fraud for EVERY false Credit Report from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and ALL other Credit Reporting Agencies that has falsely reported INACCURATELY on my credit profile using the following calculations : XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA. XXXX - NELNET, the U.S. Department of Education, XXXX and PHEAA will be charged 30 Counts EACH for INACCURATELY reporting debt information to this CRA.
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: 20721
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-29
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: Nelnet is failing to report my loans as paid. They continually tell me they have reported it as closed. But they have not. They keep reporting it at open. They are doing this for 3 student loans that I paid this year.
Company Response:
State: TN
Zip: 38017
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A