Date Received: 2023-12-24
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account information incorrect
Consumer Complaint: According to Nelnet, which is currently my student loan servicer, I have no student loan payment due at the moment. But last month, my credit dropped from XXXX points because Nelnet reported late payments and increased balance. I called them to make sure, and they confirmed with me that my student loans are on deferment and my balance is XXXX.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 30088
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-24
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: Throughout Covid, I received communications from the department of education and Nelnet referencing my loan, which was consistently referred to as one on an Income based repayment plan. However, when I asked why the govt forbearance months werent counted towards forgiveness ( I had XXXX remaining payments at the start of COVID ), I was told I was on standard repayment. My monthly payment was {$880.00}. The Nelnet app, website and email comms from Dept of Edu and Nelnet all cited by REPAYE/IDR plan throughout this period. I spoke to a counselor from Nelnet in XXXX upon realizing this mistake, and they said the payments would be counted, and I should recertify on a SAVE plan to have that retroactively applied. I recertified, the months were not applied, and my payment nearly tripled. Now I owe XXXX payments at {$2300.00} a month rather than XXXX payments at {$880.00}. I was told by Nelnet/govt representatives that SAVE was the best option, and now owe nearly double. Had they been forthright to begin with, Id have stayed on the existing plan in the worst case scenario. And now Ive submitted another case, reached out multiple times about a resolution, and not received even an acknowledgement since XX/XX/XXXX, the last time I tried to contact them.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 193XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-24
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: I made my payment before my due date, I got a letter a few days later from NelNet that my payment was returned. I contacted my bank and they told me that NelNet never even attempted to charge my account. I called NelNet and asked them why my payment was returned and they can't even tell me why.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-24
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: Institutions subject to CFPB supervisory authority We supervise a range of companies to assess their compliance with federal consumer financial laws. We have supervisory authority over banks, thrifts, and credit unions with assets over {$10.00} XXXX, as well as their affiliates. In addition, we have supervisory authority over nonbank mortgage originators and servicers, payday lenders, and private student lenders of all sizes. The depository institutions and affiliates included in the list below are currently under CFPBs jurisdiction and subject to CFPB supervision and examination. We also supervise the larger participants of other consumer financial markets as defined by Bureau rules. To date, this includes larger participants in the following markets : consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, student loan servicing, international money transfer, and automobile financing. Company failed to provide all necessary elements of a contract with consideration being the number one element. Company didn't put anything up of value. Company mentions in annual financial report that they borrow money from the Department of Treasury. " The Departments liabilities totaled {$1200.00} XXXX as of XX/XX/2023. As shown in Figure 4, most of the Departments liabilities are also associated with loan programs, primarily amounts borrowed from the U.S. Department of the Treasury ( Treasury ) to fund student loans. Debt associated with the XXXX XXXX XXXX totaled {$1100.00} XXXX as of XX/XX/2023. The Department borrows funds to disburse new loans and pay credit program outlays and related costs. The Department repays Treasury after consideration of cash position and the liability for future cash outflows. Total debt increased largely because of new borrowings from Treasury during FY 2023 to fund the disbursement of new loans and downward modifications. '' Page 34 explains this. What this mean is that they used me application/ promissory note and sold it to receive cash. '' Which means they didn't put up anything of value. Meaning they didn't disclose that our signature and application with the promissory note was being used to borrow money. This goes against the meaning of a contract. One essential element of contract is Certainty and Consideration and I was never made aware of this. To be enforceable, a contract must include certain terms, and the ability to fulfill the essential terms of an agreement must be guaranteed. These terms must be clear and unambiguous. There are two essential terms in any agreement : the first one is consideration or price to a bargain ( something of value given in exchange for something else of value. They didn't put up anything of value at all. consideration-XXXX XXXX XXXX Consideration is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Consideration is the main element of a contract. Without consideration by both parties, a contract can not be enforceable. For instance, if a person used the money to purchase an apple, the apple is the merchants consideration, and the money is the persons consideration. Department of Education didn't put up any consideration. contract-XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX A contract is an agreement between parties, creating mutual obligations that are enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are : mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance ; adequate consideration ; capacity ; and legality. In some states, elements of consideration can be satisfied by a valid substitute. Possible remedies for breach of contract include general damages, consequential damages, reliance damages, and specific performance. Background : Contracts are promises that the law will enforce. Contract law is generally governed by state common law, and while general overall contract law is common throughout the country, some specific court interpretations of a particular element of the contract may vary between the states. If a promise is breached, the law provides remedies to the harmed party, often in the form of monetary damages, or in limited circumstances, in the form of specific performance of the promise made. Elements -- Consideration and Mutual Assent Contracts arise when a duty comes into existence, because of a promise made by one of the parties. To be legally binding as a contract, a promise must be exchanged for adequate consideration. The contract with Department of Education is void ab initio and no debt is owed. It was never a lawful contract from the start. They are in breach of written agreements, use false and misleading advertisements, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrowers knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to them and return it as a loan plus interest. They never gave me a loan. I extended my own credit. In their GAAP ( account system ) it shows that the actual cash value shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank or as a deposit which it is not taxable. So they are committing fraud, tax and securities fraud to be exact and the IRS and SEC will be knowing about this. Case law that supports this is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX jointly and severally, Case No. XXXX Defendants. XXXX XXXX XXXX Remedies for Breach of Contract -- Damages If the agreement does not meet the legal requirements to be considered a valid contract, the contractual agreement will not be enforced by the law, and the breaching party will not need to indemnify the non-breaching party. That is, the plaintiff ( non-breaching party ) in a contractual dispute suing the breaching party may only win expectation damages when they are able to show that the alleged contractual agreement actually existed and was a valid and enforceable contract. In such a case, expectation damages will be rewarded, which attempts to make the non-breaching party whole, by awarding the amount of money that the party would have made had there not been a breach in the agreement plus any reasonably foreseeable consequential damages suffered as a result of the breach. Also to note is that they sold the debt to Great Lakes and also Nelnet. Once the debt was sold my obligation was paid off anyway. Which means I don't owe anything at all. The debt would have been charged off and I need to be sent a 1099 to file my taxes. If not, I will fill out a IRS 3949a form to report this fraud and audit these accounts. I will also contact the the Office of Inspector General ( OIG ).
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 31763
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-23
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Problem with customer service
Consumer Complaint: I have been denied relief for Firstmark 's billing errors in which FM sent multiple billing statements and payment reminders to incorrect addresses. Although I made several attempts to correct my address information, FM errant skip-tracing practices allowed cascading skip-tracing to occur from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX. Firstmark blames me for their errors alleging that I did not contact them to let them know the addresses were invalid. I explained that I have attempted to correct FM mistakes to the best of my ability specifically citing my XXXX as limiting factors. I explained that I have XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I requested relief from FM to include correction of credit files to mark as " No data '' or " paid as agreed '' for the period XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, administrative forbearance for thirty ( 30 ) days to stop any additional skip-tracing, and a payment schedule that ensures at least twenty ( 20 ) days between billing cycle statement generation date and statement due date. All of this has been communicated through CFPB complaints. Firsmark has consistently declined to provide relief. In response to CFPB complaint XXXX, Firstmark stated it would not respond to any further complaints regarding the issues within XXXX unless I submitted " compelling documentation. '' I submitted CFPB complaint XXXX with nearly one-hundred ( 100 ) pages of documentation. The documentation included medical journal articles on XXXX, HHS and USDoJ guidance on long-COVID as a XXXX, articles on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I provided two ( 2 ) credit reports from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX both showing the address in XXXX was a previous address by that time and thus was no more valid in XXXX. I provided an e-mail from FM circa XX/XX/XXXX where FM stated the address in XXXX was an invalid address. I provided copies of billing statements and payment reminders that were inconsistent in the mailing address indicating a return of one piece of mail continued cascading skip-tracing to occur. I also provided a concise statement " For the period over which Firstmark was sending my billing statements to address, and the cascading skip-tracing that resulted, that beyond the extent to which I demonstrated an ability to correct my address information when skip-tracing may have overwritten my correctionsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX' I requested relief to ensure timely statement delivery, as quoted by the originator and original servicer of the loan : twenty ( 20 ) days. I requested corrections to my credit files strictly for the period of time over which Firstmark mailed my statements to the wrong addresses. I requested a thirty ( 30 ) day administrative forbearance so that adjustments in the billing schedule could be made to enable the twenty ( 20 ) days, and so that corrections to my credit files could be made. Firstmark responded with a near identical response to the previous response, again denying me any relief, citing no basis in law to cease normal servicing practices. I contacted Firstmark on XXXX XXXX XXXX and spoke with XXXX. I explained the situation and the latest response received from Firstmark. I explained all the CFPB responses have been written by a single individual : XXXX XXXX I explained her responses were concerning because they did not take the circumstances into consideration. XXXX looked for a dispute in my file and found one received on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX from all three CRAs. XXXX reviewed further quoting the notes which alleged " the appropriate department confirmed that all the information was 'factually " accurate as furnished to the CRAs. '' XXXX then explained the skip-tracing was conducted by another portion o the company on the backend and justified mailing to the incorrect address as Firstmarkt trying to get the info to me in any way possible and any previously verified address. Further she explained Firstmark had no way to know whether the address was valid or not, but simply that it was an alleged address for contact from their " database. '' I countered noting that FM used the oldest address when more recent addresses were available and more likely to be fruitful if information was to reach me. I pointed out a better address, and a newer address, would have been to mail a payment reminder and/or a billing statement to the address of my co-borrower, which has not changed in 30+ years. XXXX stated my co-borrower should have called in. I explained both the limits of my co-borrower as an individual of advanced age, and that my co-borrower had neither been mailed statements nor payment reminders and would have no way to know ANY payment was due, or that the loans even entered repayment. XXXX then read the notes in the file which claimed " the FCRA prevents Firstmark from applying the requested modifications to my credit '' and as such " need [ ed ] to dispute the matter with the CRAs. '' XXXX asserted the law is black and white for everybody and I counter with it being based upon what's based upon the circumstances. XXXX asked if it was unreasonable for an individual to call and make a payment if they " realize '' they have not received a statement in a couple of months. She pointed out that the account was past-due multiple times over the period of repayment. I countered reminding XXXX that the nature of my medical conditions makes it incredibly painful to communicate via light and sound when the condition is unmanaged. I explained Firstmark sent all statements to incorrect addresses from the moment the loan entered repayment and that skip-tracing continued to change addresses with each piece of returned mail on such a frequent basis that the address on a billing statement and payment reminder over the same billing cycle at points were different. I explained it was not reasonable for any individual to have to catch Firstmarks errors, let alone someone who has difficulty XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX again mentioned Firstmark didn't know the XXXX address was not a good address for me. I pointed out this was patently false because Firstmark sent an e-mail XXXX XXXX XXXX stating they received returned mail from the XXXX address. To the e-mail was a document dated XXXX XXXX XXXX noting the loans had gone into repayment. XXXX explained she didn't know what else it was she could do for me. I made clear that if this was not resolved I would be filing the matter withe the state and federal agencies responsible for civil rights, and would be faxing the committee members that have oversight responsibiliy of financial services within he US Congress. I then asked to speak with a supervisor. XXXX and I ended amicably and I was transferred. I explained the situation to the supervisor and the conversation I had with XXXX. The supervisor acknowledged what I was saying as a human being, but that the practices of Firstmark were the practices. I explained I am someone that holds or has held XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and asked how I can prevent this matter from occurring again. I was told there was a Release Authorization that I could fill out in case I needed someone to handle payments on my account and keep track of the account status. This form was neither mentioned nor offered by the individual responding to the CFPB complaints and had never been offered to me before when speaking with a representative -- the only other form I'd been offered was a loan modification form in around XXXX XXXX XXXX, which would reset my statement dates and increase the interest rates. The notes read by XXXX suggested I file disputes with the CRAs and that Fisrtmark was bound by the FCRA to report accurate information. Presumably the individual anotating the file regarding the FCRA was referring to the difference in the language of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( covering data furnishers ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( covering CRAs ). However, The Fourth Circuit has recognized the synergy between the language of both stating, " Although the majority of cases involve the duty the same standard of accuracy applies to a furnishers response under 1681s-2. Both 1681e and 1681s-2 serve the same purpose : ensuring accuracy in consumer credit reporting. A CRA can best fulfill its obligation to report accurately under 1681e if it receives accurate information from a furnisher under 1681s-2, '' ( XXXX v. XXXX Banking, 526 F.3d 142 ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). The Seventh Circuit came to a similar conclusion, " Section XXXX681s-2 at times uses incomplete or inaccurate. E.g., 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ). Section 1681e, on the other hand, speaks only in terms of 'maximum possible accuracy. ' One might draw the inference, then, that accuracy and completeness are different... We think not '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Quoting from the XXXX circuit, " Courts have long understood that, when it comes to the FCRA, accurate means more than just 'technically correct. ' E.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. For the definition of incomplete and inaccurate information one can look to the Sixth circuit, " We have interpreted the phrase incomplete or inaccurate to encompass not only false information, but also correct information that nevertheless create [ s ] a materially misleading impression. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Yet, given my situation Firstmark continues to verify that all the information furnished to the CRAs for my account i s " [ technically ] accurate, '' when it is Firstmark 's unfair practices that resulted the furnished derogatory payment history for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thus, While XXXX XXXX continues to claim there is no basis in law to honor what are alleged as " demands, '' nor a basis in law to " accommodate '' those demands, she is mistaken. On XXXX XXXX XXXX alleged Firstmark was require to make contact with me at all " verified '' addresses. Firstmark knew the XXXX address was not an address I received mail by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Consider, if the assumption was that I no longer lived in my current state of residence ( the same state I have continued to reside in since XXXX ), then the next previous address outside my current state for any extended period of time chronologically would have been the address listed on the MPN, which is NOT a XXXX address, but a XXXX address. It was the same address for the co-borrower, was the address listed on the loan MPN, was the address tied to my Driver 's license listed on the loan MPN, and was a newer address than the XXXX address. Although not a valid mailing address for me, Firstmark could have tried sending the billing statements and/or payment reminders to my last known physical and mailing address outside my current state of residence : XXXX The distinction between the two ( 2 ) is duration. The XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Yet, Firstmark neither mailed billing statements nor mailed payment reminders, to either the XXXX XXXX XXXX addresses. If, as XXXX claimed, Firstmark was " required '' to send mail to all verified addresses for me, there would substantial incentive to mail statements to a previous address that is known to coincide with the co-borrower. For Firstmark to forego mailing statement to newer, more relevant addresses, in favor of an older address, in a state with which I have no nexus, is indicative of unfair acts and practices. For Firstmark to employ skip-tracing practices Either Firstmark saw an opportunity to charge-off a loan they believed was non-performant and/or Firstmark has poor skip-tracing practices. XXXX XXXX references the MPN in at least three ( 3 ) of the responses, claiming the provisions under the original MPN do not permit a borrower to claim a failure to receive statements as a defense to non-payment on the student loan. It is true, as XXXX XXXX points out, there exists language in Section E.2 of the MPN that states " I am not relieved of my responsibility and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements and any other written payment notices from you. '' While the MPN makes clear a borrower is not absolved of responsibility to make payments, it makes zero ( XXXX ) mention regarding the time-frame those payments must be made in when billing errors arise. That the XXXX XXXX be silent on the specifics of Billing Error Resolution and Timing of Payments is not a surprise. The originator of this loan is XXXX and at the time of origination XXXX would have serviced this loan in its normal course of business as a banking and financial services institution. This MPN was written BEFORE Dood-Frank, before we collectively understood the collective and catastrophic economic impact predatory lending and poor service practices would inflict upon the entire financial system and individual consumers. With minimal oversight and regulation Financial Services Institutions engaged in poor acts and practices that nearly collapsed the United States economy, leaving many consumers in financial disarray and ruin. Although Financial Services institutions were thought able to best be equipped to handle Billing Error issues in a reasonable way on their own as good business practice, that viewpoint changed when multiple financial services institutions failed -- XXXX was one of them and ultimately merged with XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX overlooks the placement of the alleged defense to non-payment provision. The MPN makes a statement regarding non-receipt of statement, only after declaring what the lender/servicer must do. The opening sentence of E.2 reads : During the Repayment Period, you will send me monthly statements, coupons, or other notices that show the amounts of minimum monthly payments and the payment due dates. It is important for me, and my co-borrower, to receive monthly statements because although the loan in question is a student loan, it has an adjustable interest rate like an open-ended card account and as such the portion of total amount due that is applied to both principal interest varies with changes interest rates set by the Federal Reserve XXXX There have been five ( 5 ) in-total over the time period when Firstmark was mailing statements and payment reminders to incorrect addresses. Therefore, to claim a borrower and/or co-borrower should know what the monthly payment amount is and make payments is unfair. In this case the XXXX borrower and their co-borrower of XXXX XXXX would have to be versed in the finer points of actuarial math and keep track of interest rate changes in order to " know '' what the payment " should '' be absent a statement and/or payment reminder -- that is unreasonable and unfair, especially if the first statement is not received. That from the first response to my CFPB complaints in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX never informed a Release Authorization existed, but at least one ( 1 ) representative over the same time period offered to help solve the issue by a loan modification is telling. The mechanism offered to me was one that would increase the amount of each monthly payment, and potentially the number of total payments until maturity, making it likely that Firstmark would increase its profit through is a deceptive act or practice ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ) and discriminatory. That after disclosing my XXXX to XXXX, they would allow XXXXXXXX XXXX to suggest it reasonable for me to rely solely on electronic statements, which would require me to stare at a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is discriminatory and cruel. That Firstmark after disclosing my XXXX to Firstmark they would allow XXXX XXXX to suggest it reasonable to contact Firstmark by phone to inquire about a payment that may e due, check a balance, etc., during periods of XXXX is discriminatory and cruel. It is unreasonable for Firstmark to expect I compensate for their poor acts and practices, especially when involves subjecting to me pain on account of my XXXX. To expect such is discriminatory and cruel on its face and shows Firstmarks willingness to engage in acts and practices that intimidate and discriminate against individuals with XXXX. That XXXX XXXX would claim my valid enhanced drivers license, all Driver 's licenses back to XXXX, which all show my current state of residence, were not not compelling to warrant any change in " normal servicing practices '' is abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ). That XXXX XXXX would claim credit reports that show the XXXX address was a previous addess by XXXX was not compelling to warrant any change in " normal servicing practices '' is abusive ( 12 U.S.C 5531 ( d ) ). That Firstmrak knew by XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX address was not an address at which I receive mail, but allowed XXXX XXXX to respond to a CFPB complaint in XX/XX/XXXX claiming Firstmark believed I received mail at the address because no mail was returned from that address to Firstmark is abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ) and deceptive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ). That Firstmark has refused to offer relief by removing false/misleading/inaccurate information it supplied to the CRAs is unfair ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ) and unlawful ( 12 U.S.C 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) as covered person, 15 U.S.C. 1681e and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 as data furnisher ). That Firstmark would deny me relief is retaliatory, The very concept of retaliation [ being ] that the retaliating party takes action against the party retaliated against after, and because of, some action of the latter. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX An individual need not even file a complaint for retaliation to occur ; rather an individual can be engaged in any lawful conduct connected with exercise of a protected right ; in this instance the act of filing billing errors via CFPB complaints is one form of exercise ( 12 U.S.C. 5534 ), request for access to paper statements in a timely manner at the proper address ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.2, MPN at E.2 implying 12 C.F.R. 1026.41 ) via CFPB complaint process ( 12 U.S.C. 5534 ) ( separate from and in conjunction with requests for reasonable accommodation under Section 302 of the ADA / 42 U.S.C. 12182 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii ), and 28 CFR 36.202 prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability ) is another, and complaints to state and federal agencies filed in good faith alleging discrimination, unfair, deceptive, abusive, or any other unlawful acts/practices, are yet others. Complaints that expose predatory servicing practices within the private student loan industry, make it more likely the CFPB will compel covered persons to implement reasonable procedures designed to ensure the mailing or delivery of statements at least twenty-one ( 21 ) days before the payment due date by using their power under the CFPA, which enables the CFPB to bring enforcement action to prevent a covered person or service provider from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. '' Student loan trusts are now considered covered persons and as such are subjected to CFPB XXXXforcement authority ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ). XXXX knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information they were furnishing to the CRAs from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and continue to furnish for that period, is false/misleading/inaccurate. While they may contend the the payment history for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is [ technically ] accurate, " 'accurate ' [ under the FCRA ] means more than just 'technically [ accurate ], ' '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The payment history furnished by Firstmark to the three ( 3 ) major CRAs was generated as a result of Firstmark 's own unfair ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ), deceptive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ), abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ), unlawful ( 12 U.S.C 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) as covered person, 15 U.S.C. 1681e and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 as data furnisher ), and discriminatory ( 42 U.S.C. 12182 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii ), and 28 CFR 36.202 ), acts or practices. As of today I have filed a Civil Rights compaint with my State 's Civil Rights department. I will be providing a copy of this CFPB complaint and a legal brief to DOJ Civil Rights Division and ADA Section. I would like to resolve this matter here so that I may let my State 's Civil their assistance will no longer be needed.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 48104
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-23
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: Nelnet ED you are in violation of the Fair Credit Reorting Act and the CFPB reguation for not reporting the complete payment history of this federal consolidation loan from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, orginated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX consolidation loan in the amount of {$49000.00} and now over {$80000.00} Nelnet ED to report to the credit reporting agency the complete payment history of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX federal consolidation loan from XXXX to present that was terminated by the US Department of Education XXXX. I have not paid a XXXX to Nelent ED and have not signed a forebearance or deferrment. Nelnet XXXX currently has not sent XXXX and XXXX an accurate month by month. payment history of ED/Nelnet student federal loan and it has been over 120 days. Nelnet ED has not sent me monthly billing statements. I have called Nelnet ED and the representative said they have no account in my identity. XXXX and XXXX to report the complete accurate payment history on my online credit report account required by law of the fedral student loan. If Nelnet, XXXX and XXXX do not report the complete accurate paymebt history on my online credit report the law state you must remove the account immediately. Nelnet ED to obtain the approval from the US Department of Education General Counselor to report on my credit reports.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 48075
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-22
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan
Subissue: Problem with your payment plan
Consumer Complaint: I applied for the SAVE payment plan with Nelnet in both XXXX and XXXX of 2023. My application has not been processed after countless requests to Nelnet that they do so. I submitted a formal complaint with the consumer finance department on XX/XX/2023. In response to that complaint I received a letter from Nelnet dated XX/XX/2023 requesting that I make a payment of {$5.00} for my SAVE application to be processed. I have made that payment on the Nelnet website. In addition to that payment request on XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet has removed my account from the IBR ( income-based-repayment ) plan that I have been on over XXXX years! They have moved my account to the standard payment plan. This was not my request. My request was to have my account transferred from the IBR plan to the SAVE plan ; which has still not occurred. In sum, not only has my SAVE application not been processed, but I have now been removed from the IBR plan all together which will have an incredibly detrimental impact on my student loan account that ( according to my records ) has been in repayment for over twenty-five years! Please help!
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 934XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-22
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: Subject : Formal Complaint Against Nelnet for Refusal of Tender Following Receipt of 1099C Dear CFPB, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Nelnet regarding their refusal of tender following the receipt of a 1099C for the cancellation of debt. The events leading to this complaint are outlined below : 1. XXXXXXXXTimeline of Events : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX I received a 1099C for the cancellation of debt. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I forwarded a copy of the 1099C ( Copy B ) to Nelnet as proof of the cancellation of debt. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Nelnet sent a written refusal of the tender. 2. XXXXLegal Basis : XXXX The refusal of tender by Nelnet falls under U.C.C-3 3-603. According to this statute : - Subsection ( b ) states that if tender of payment is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and is refused, there is the discharge of the obligation, to the extent of the amount of the tender, for indorsers or accommodation parties. - This refusal invokes the discharge of obligations under the principles of law applicable to the tender of payment under a simple contract ( U.C.C-3 3-603 ( a ) ). 3. XXXXRequested Remedies XXXX XXXX XXXX Immediate discharge of the sum total listed on the 1099C attached. - Alternatively, compensatory damages of {$1000.00} for every day Nelnet continues to be delinquent in acknowledging the discharge. 4. XXXXDocumentation XXXX XXXX Enclosed with this complaint, please find : - A copy of the 1099C ( Copy B ) received on XXXX - Evidence of the tender of payment on XXXX - Written refusal of tender received on XXXX 5. XXXXConclusion : XXXX The actions of Nelnet are in violation of U.C.C-3 3-603, and I kindly request the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate this matter promptly. I appreciate your attention to this complaint and look forward to a resolution that ensures compliance with applicable laws. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX
Company Response:
State: CO
Zip: 80012
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-22
Issue: Money was not available when promised
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: STOP CONTACTING ME! SEND ALL FURTHER COMMUNICATION TO XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX I DID NOT REPORT IDENTITY THEFT! I REPORTED FRAUD - WHICH IS ONGOING! I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PROCESSES OR LEGAL THEORIES! YOU ARE HARASSING ME! PHYSICS IS UPSTREAM OF POLITICS. I'M DONE WITH THE JURISDICTION! GO XXXX YOURSELF!
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 950XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-12-22
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: My loans were discharged in XXXX under the XXXX XXXX dispute. The Department of Ed sent me a confirmation letter that confirmed that those loans were 100 % forgiven and provided me with intruction to consolidate in order to finalize the forgiveness. I consolidated the loans with Nelnet. I have called numerous times regarding the loan group forgiveness for over a year and with each call, I receive the standard prompt from each representative claiming they dont have any idea what is going on with my loan. In XX/XX/XXXX, I called and spoke to a supervisor names XXXX who confirmed that Nelnet DID receive confirmation from Department of Ed to proceed with cancelling the loans on XX/XX/XXXX. She stated that it would be escalated to their " claims '' department. I followed up a few times after that call for subsequent representatives stating " they dont know what is happening with the loan. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, after being on hold for almost 2 hours, I called and spoke to another supervisor who promised me a call back because he confirmed that the loans should have already been processed. The supervisor stated he would give me a call on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX with an update. The call never came. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called about my loan. I was transferred to the " Solutions Department '' and spoke to XXXX, who rudely informed me that " he couldnt do anything about my loan he is just there to answer calls that want to be transferred '' as he proceeded to yawn on the phone. I waited another hour to be escalated to another supervisor by the name of XXXX who stated that he does not see any information on my account that my loans were to be forgiven and refused to assist any further. Nelnet has been provided with the letter from XXXX by the Department of Education confirming the forgivenss and were instructed by the Department on XXXX to proceed and are failing to do so.
Company Response:
State: NC
Zip: 27703
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-12-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A