Date Received: 2017-10-10
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Don't agree with the fees charged
Consumer Complaint: When applying for my student loan, I was under the mistaken belief that the bank would be loaning me depositors money, which it received from its depositors or investors. I have found by researching relevant case law on the matter and reading Modern Money Mechanics, published by the Federal Reserve XXXX XXXX XXXX, that banks create the money I borrowed by using my promise to pay. It generated computer entries to my account, listing the loan as a credit, in effect, creating money out of thin air. In none of my transactions with the bank did any officer or employee notify me that the bank created money by a journal entry ( out of thin air ). This is bank fraud. The banks transactions relating to me lacked two necessary elements of a valid contract. Perhaps you should be aware of the following : United States Code, Title 32, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confers upon a bank the power to lend its money, not its credit. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the court stated : ( T ) he provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power incidental of the business of banking. A bank can lend its money but not its credit. Again in : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law, being limited in its power and capacity, can not lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of another. All such contracts being entered into by its officers are ultra vires and not binding upon corporation. See also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). The bank did not notify me that it created money by journal entry ( out of thin air ), defined as bank credit. To do so would have disclosed that there was no consideration from the bank to me. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered, to support the note. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. I hereby revoke, rescind, and repudiate my signature on the original application. The original application was fraudulent on its face, as full disclosure was not provided. The application did not inform me the bank was loaning me bank credit created out of thin air. Had the bank so disclosed this fact to me, that I was in fact borrowing bank credit, I would have known that the element of consideration was missing from the contract and would have not entered into that agreement.
Company Response:
State: MD
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-10-07
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Old information reappears or never goes away
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX is currently reporting in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX that i am paying late on a closed paid account since XX/XX/XXXX, they are reporting lates to XXXX and XXXX currently which just caused a problem with my current job due to it showing deliquients in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, i am no longer liable for account and requesting account be deleted corrected asap there should be no new reportings on this account at all, i have received any communications from Nelnet at all, especially adding new entries of late pays in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ... i have attached my XXXX report showing Nelnet inaccurate reportings ... .Please remove asap this is causing a severe hardship and can affect employment this info is not correct and should not be reporting ....
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-10-06
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan
Subissue: Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan
Consumer Complaint: I submitted for my annual recertifiction well before it was due to Nelnet. I have a third party that checks on the status of my account and they indicated that the application was received and currently in process. It was n't until the application was almost expired that I received a notice requesting additional income documentation. When I originally submitted my income driven repayment plan recertification I had not filed my XXXX return as I had filed an extension so I submitted the application with my XXXX return as the application indicates. Nelnet took so long to process my application that I fell out my income driven payment and into the standard payment although it was submitted 2 months in advance on XX/XX/XXXX. I did not file my tax returns for XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX. No Nelnet is requesting that I submit a whole new application because it is too old although it is their fault that it has taken so long. I submitted my XXXX return as soon as I had it and they are making me wait an additional month to process and forcing me to submit another application since I am no longer in my program because of THEIR slow processing. If they would have told me initially to send them a copy of my extension I would have, but the DID N'T tell me ANYTHING until it was too late. They have just been wasting my time and now are putting me in a financial burden for THEIR error. Instead of trying to process my application quickly they have been stalling.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 33404
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-10-02
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX, some of my federal student loans were serviced by Nelnet , Inc. ( account # xxxxxxxxx ), and some of them were serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account # xxxxxxxx ). I used forbearance time when I needed to, but not always with both servicers at the same time. Thus, I had significantly more forbearance time remaining on my Nelnet serviced loans than I had on my XXXX XXXX serviced loans.. In XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet acquired the loans previously serviced by XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Nelnet to find out how this would affect me. I was told that all of my loan terms would remain the same. The only change was that my payments would now all go to Nelnet. I was given the amount of forbearance time left on the loans originally held by Nelnet ( called xxxxxx in their system ) as compared to the lower amount of forbearance time left on the newly acquired loans ( called xxxxxx in their system ).. In XX/XX/XXXX, I used up the last of the forbearance time on the acquired loans : xxxx. I still had 25 months of forbearance time left on the original loans : xxxxx. Thus, for my XX/XX/XXXXbill, the acquired loans were no longer in forbearance, and forbearance time was only applied to the original loans : xxxxx. This was expected, as I have always made sure to ask the Nelnet representatives to tell me the remaining forbearance time available for all of my loans, every time I have used forbearance. Not once in the last 2 years has a representative told me that the disparity between forbearance time left on my loans might become an issue.. In XX/XX/XXXX, the forbearance on original loans xxxxx was removed, my bill backdated, and the amount past due skyrocketed upwards. Apparently Nelnet has a policy in place to block the usage of remaining forbearance time on originally held loans if the forbearance time on acquired loans has been used up. Many phone calls all end up with the same answer, it is policy.. On xxxxxxxI filed a complaint with the ombudsman : case # xxxxxxxx.. On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet respond by contacting me to explain their policy. I told them that I needed a solution. I told them that I needed to know what I needed to do in order to use my remaining forbearance time. Nelnets representative, xxxxxx, was able to tell me that the available forbearance time on xxxxx is still xx months, but the only way to access it is to pay off the acquired loans xxxxxx in full over $ xxk.. I called the ombudsman back that same day and my case was escalated. I was told to wait 7-10 business days for further contact from Nelnet.. At the end of the 10th business day xxxxxxx I called the ombudsman back to report that Nelnet had failed to provide any further response. The ombudsman representative said that she had heard of this forbearance problem before, the ombudsman office had researched it on a previous complaint, and that they been hit by the same it is policy wall. The ombudsman office recommended that I file a complaint here.. I have contacted the Michigan Attorney Generals office, but they said that they also refer all student loan issue here.. To add salt to the wound, despite my income based repayment plan recertification approval on XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet has delayed the application of the recertification by 2 months. In XX/XX/XXXX, I called to ask about this. I was told that the recertification could only be applied after I had paid the overly inflated past due balance in full. I pointed out the incongruity of this statement with the fact that Nelnet HAD applied the recertification to my XX/XX/XXXX bill. I could not get a reasonable answer as to why the recertification could not simply be applied to my past due XX/XX/XXXX bill, as my recertification was approved before my XX/XX/XXXX bill was delinquent, or even my then upcoming XX/XX/XXXX bill.. The only option left, that I qualify for, is to consolidate everything into a new loan. Nelnet is trying to force me into this option early, thereby waiving, losing, and simply throwing away my remaining xx months of forbearance on groups xxxxxx I should not have to do this now. I should be able to finish using my remaining xx months of forbearance on groups xxxxx FIRST. Furthermore, why would I trust them to honor the new forbearance on a newly consolidated loan if they can outright rob me of my existing forbearance rights with financial trickery?. This is wrong.. Had my XXXX XXXX serviced loans never been acquired by Nelnet, I would not be blocked from using my remaining xx months of forbearance on groups xxxxx. This significant detail is proof of the adverse effect that their actions, and their actions alone, have produced. Student loan servicers are not supposed to be able to harm federal student loan borrowers through acquisitions and financial trickery. Not only does Nelnet do it, they apparently do it often enough to have a policy. A POLICY. Merely instating a policy does not make it legal or not harmful. Please tell this to Nelnet. If the policy is simply being misapplied, someone needs to fix the process. If this policy is real, please get them to stop this harmful policy. Please help.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 490XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-10-02
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: The capitalization process with Nelnet is unconscionable and unfair. I have a balance of over {$140000.00} in student loans with Dept of Ed serviced by Nelnet. I have been trying to pay them off one loan at a time. I was on an income-based repayment plan. Recently, I received a letter that I need to recertify otherwise my payment will go up. At the time, I was on maternity leave and out of the country, and my tax documents were not with me. So, I submitted my loan application on XXXX XXXX a couple of weeks late. I expected that I might pay a small fine or a higher payment for a month. My payment is going up on XXXX XXXX, XXXX from {$320.00} to {$1400.00}. However, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, all my interest on all the loans was capitalized. I never received a warning or letter that they will capitalize the interest if I do not certify. I have not been late with my payments. Because of the amount of my loans that means that I will pay extra thousands of dollars for the duration of the loan. When I contacted Nelnet, I requested that my capitalization is reversed as I have already recertified. They said that they can not reverse it. Even the team leader XXXX admitted that their education efforts are not sufficient. This is the third time XXXX has capitalized my interest : first time, at the end of my grace period, the second time at the end of my forbearance period couple of years ago and third time now. How is the Department of Education expecting us to pay these student loans when they are forcing us to pay interest over interest over interest over interest at 6.55 % and 7.65 %? Furthermore, Nelnet warns you only about the immediate increase of payment. They do not explain how the income-based plan works in a long-term ; basically, these are negative amortization loans : the interest per period is not fully paid, and the outstanding balance increases over time. So, the debt only gets bigger and bigger. At last, there is no information or warning that Nelnet is capitalizing your interest and why. I have attached one of the form letters that I received regarding the recertification. Nothing has been mentioned about capitalization of my interest if I am late with the recertification. Of course, that will mean that my loan gets bigger, my time for repayment is longer and Nelnet service contract is longer and more lucrative.
Company Response:
State: IL
Zip: 60640
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-10-02
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: My monthly payment is set up on auto pay, in addition to that payment I 've been making principal payments to the loan and requesting that the due date not be advanced. However, the due date was advanced anyway and is currently XXXX 2018. I have contacted Nelnet twice in regards to this, the first and second week of XX/XX/XXXX and have not received a response back. This is not the first time this has happened to my account, the mistake to the payment application or Nelnet 's complete lack of response to my inquiries.
Company Response:
State: NY
Zip: 14094
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-09-30
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted a request to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through their email address " XXXXXXXXXXXX '' inquiring about how they came to be the servicer of my loan when I was not disabled, had never alleged I was disabled, had no knowledge of anyone who would report me to be disabled. I asked them for the name of the agent who reported to them that I was disabled. I also informed them that while I had received a notice of transfer of servicing from XXXX to Nelnet in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, I never received any notice of transfer from Nelnet. I did receive a notice of a change in account number from Nelnet dated XX/XX/XXXX, however, according to the record on Federal Student Aid NSLDS that I just recently found, Nelnet was reportedly the servicer since XX/XX/XXXX, while I had been making monthly payments to XXXX since XXXX until XXXX. This could explain why my balance did n't go down. I also reported to Nelnet that I did not receive a XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX or any statements at all for XXXX or XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX. I am about to file my XX/XX/XXXX taxes and need the form. I received a letter yesterday ( XX/XX/XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX which simply enclosed a copy of my consolidated promissory note, and a note " Just know that we 're here for you when you need us ''. This is not very helpful. Finally, the consolidated promissory note they enclosed is being disputed because the underlying loans that XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX consolidated, were not known to me and XXXX the guarantor has not been able to provide me with any loan documents of them.
Company Response:
State: MA
Zip: 018XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-09-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-09-30
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was paid
Consumer Complaint: debt has been paid in full but still reporting negatively and unpaid on my credit report hurting my credit score .The incorrect amount of the loan is also reporting on my credit report .i mailed letters to company to removed the wrong loan amount reporting & to update my account paid .I never received a response mail.
Company Response:
State: LA
Zip: 70131
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-09-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-09-30
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: My loans are in an income based payment plan. My husband and I re-certified and a customer service agent informed us that if we sent in my husbands paystubs by the end of the week, the low payments would continue at we would stay on the payment plan. This was in early XXXX. Unfortunately, this was not true. After calling in multiple times and receiving different information, we were told that it would be processed the week of XXXX. We were also told to put our loan in forbearance while the IDR was being processed. We were also told to just not pay XXXX and take auto debit off. We also received multiple emails with different payment amounts over the last few weeks. Once it was processed, the effective date was XXXX. This caused two problems : 1. A lapse in IDR caused around {$9000.00} in interest to capitalize. 2. Our XXXX payment is over {$1000.00}. Nelnet 's practices are both unfair and deceptive. Nelnet should have all the respective documents so I will not be submitting any. Lastly, when you call Nelnet, they inform you " If you received multiple statements, please disregard the second one. ''
Company Response:
State: NY
Zip: 10033
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-09-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-09-29
Issue: Written notification about debt
Subissue: Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX, a unit of Nelnet, sent me a notice of increased payments calculated on my student loan due to a variable interest rate. They repeatedly refused, and continue to refuse, sending me the complete set of calculations supporting the change in payments. They sent partial libor related data but never sent the full equation and explanation. I contend this is egregiously wrong and evidence of bad faith in lending and the process of collecting payments. I would ask that they notified of a valid complaint and an investigation commenced. Failure to share details such as this generally implies there is something to hide. My name is XXXX XXXX and phone number is XXXX XXXX XXXX.
Company Response:
State: CO
Zip: 80126
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-10-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A