Date Received: 2023-11-11
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Department of Nelnet XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX Subject : Demand for Swift Deletion of Inaccurate Account Information - FCRA Violations To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to demand the swift deletion of the following accounts from my credit report, in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 1. Account Number XXXX : This account is reporting an inaccurate date opened, and there are 10 more accounts with the exact same account number reporting inaccurate dates opened, constituting violations of the FCRA . 2. Account Number XXXXXXXX : This account is reporting the date last active inaccurately, and there is 1 more account with the same exact account number reporting the date last active inaccurately as well, which represents an FCRA violation. 3. Account Number XXXXXXXX : This account is reporting the date of the last payment inaccurately, and there are 10 more accounts with the same exact account number reporting the date last active inaccurately, also in violation of the FCRA . I wish to make it unequivocally clear that I am not requesting investigations, as the inaccuracies are evident and in clear violation of the FCRA. Further investigations would be frivolous. My demand is for the swift and complete removal of the inaccurate account information due to its erroneous reporting, as required by the FCRA. Any delay or failure to comply with this demand will be viewed as ongoing violations of my rights under the FCRA, and I will not hesitate to pursue the necessary legal recourse to rectify these serious violations. I earnestly hope to find an amicable resolution to this matter through constructive dialogue and cooperation, avoiding the necessity of pursuing any legal actions at this time but if we cant you are criminally and civilly liable for all actual damages pursuant to 15 USC 1681n and 15 USC 1681o. I will have to also follow up with an invoice for said violations ( { {$10000.00} } per violation ). Sincerely, XXXX XXXX please see attachments to see all the inaccuracies ive been contacting them about since march ive sent in countless letters and received no help with these violations
Company Response:
State: NY
Zip: 117XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-12
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: I have entered my bank account information for auto pay for my federal student loans before XX/XX/XXXX ( when my first payment was due after the payment pause ). This would result in a XXXX XXXX interest rate reduction. I was notified that my payment was denied due to insufficient funds in my bank account ( I have significantly more money in there ). I tried instead to do a one-time payment, and it was also denied for the same reason ( insufficient funds ). My payment is now late and I am at risk of my credit being impacted. I have not been able to get in contact with Nelnet yet over this issue and when I researched the problem it appears this exact scenario is common.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 752XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-12
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: So, reading the article just now is telling me nelnet is not under the Department of Education? For years, I have been doing income driven repayment plans. I applied to the Department of Education website .This whole time, I believed they were the department of education. In fact, I reapplied on XX/XX/XXXX, and it has been pending since. They wont answer the phone or emails. Now they are reporting to the credit bureau Im over 90 days late and running around trying to figure out how that is when repayment started on XX/XX/XXXX. Never once until now have I been late, nor has anything been reported. It even says loans that strat with e which mne does repayment starts XX/XX/XXXX. I would never have taken out a loan from a bank or whoever ever nelnet is, and my loan didn't even begin with nelnet it was 25 years ago and was a different name. I always believed the reason it couldn't be added to a bankruptcy is because it was the department of education. BTW it says I owe for 1 month almost XXXX. I don't even make that much a month.
Company Response:
State: IN
Zip: 46806
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-11
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Problem with customer service
Consumer Complaint: I have submitted a XXXX request to manually recertify my income to change my payment amount from {$0.00} XXXX to an actual payment amount XXXX on XX/XX/23 through studentaid.gov with all required documents. Nelnet received it and then made me resubmit all of the same documents. They have now been " processing '' it with no real update. In the meantime, I am unable to get a home loan due to any payment amount not showing up on my account and the long delay in processing times. It's also caused a problem because Nelnet originally showed my loans in forebearance but they just recently updated it to XXXX even though the application hasn't moved along in the process. Also, the wait time to talk to someone has exceeded XXXX hours and I've given up. This is unacceptable.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 488XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-11
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: I did not give written instructions to furnish this information on my consumer report, furthermore, the fair credit reporting act 15, usc 1681 ( 2 ) ( a ) states exclusion from a consumer credit report ( A ) Exclusions- Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ) the term consumer report does not include information solely as a transaction or experience between the consumer and the person making the report. Also the information on the report is not valid it states I was current and up to date on the moth of XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019 And XXXX XXXX How was I 90 days pass do? Id was current those months before XXXX The documents I submit shows the same thing on my credit report on all XXXX accounts
Company Response:
State: OH
Zip: 452XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-10
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account information incorrect
Consumer Complaint: Please remove alleged XXXX loan from my name. Loan was returned. Balance is {$0.00}. Remove from credit. Shouldve never been added to credit due to me returning loan before it was disbursed.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 77706
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-10
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Problem with customer service
Consumer Complaint: On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Firstmark Services responded to CFPB complaint XXXX regarding a request for an administrative forbearance. In that complaint I cited that statements were not being generated within a twenty-one day period. Firstmark responded by declining my request for an administrative forbearance, claiming there were XXXX ( XXXX ) irregularities for the account that would necessitate any sort of administrative forbearance. Additionally, Firstmark alleged that my payments have been late ten ( XXXX ) times within the past year. They then cited a condition within the XXXX that does not absolve a borrower to pay on the outstanding obligation even when a bill is not received. Rather than address the issues raised Firstmark has resorted to bullying to prevent from taking any action regarding their unfair, unlawful, and abusive acts and practices. Firstmark alleges a request for an administrative forbearance is somehow tied to the timing of my payments, alleging my payments have been late ten ( XXXX ) times within the last XXXX months. That allegation has nothing to do with the request. Nevertheless, Firstmark chose to make such an assertion without acknowledging their own contributory negligence. From XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX Firstmark had been mailing statements to addresses that I do not live at, some of which I have not lived at in over fifteen ( XXXX ) years. While XXXX XXXX claim they do not know about such issues, they have been made aware on at least XXXX ( XXXX ) occasions, as they have been the basis of CFPB complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, directly sent to Firstmark. Moreover, Firstmark has also been notified of it's failure to send statements to the correct address through at least XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dispute XXXX resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ), and XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ) XXXX all of which were filed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX along with CFPB complaint XXXX. Those disputes and their CFPB responses all claimed FM had verified the " accuracy '' of the payment history furnished to the CRAs, when Firstmark knows, or has had reasonable cause to believe they were not sending statements to my correct mailing address. In fact, FM acknowledged they resorted to skip-tracing as a result of an alleged returned piece of mail in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX. And, since Firstmark conducted their skip-tracing haphazardly, one piece of mail that is alleged returned caused the system to randomly select another address from some ethereal list of prior addresses. Each subsequent mailing that resulted in returned mail then caused Firstmark 's system to randomly change to a different address where I do not currently reside. Thus, a chain of failures to deliver statements resulted due to a single piece of mail being accidentally returned or lost by XXXX in XXXX. Within the last XXXX ( XXXX ) months I have spoken with a FM customer service representative who stated she'd personally seen FM systems behaving in this manner leading to borrowers not receiving their billing statements. In fact, in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to XXXX, FM alleged they verified the validity of a current mailing address for me in the State of FL, a state I had not lived in since XXXX, claiming no returned mail from that address constituted the address as a valid mailing address for me. Any reasonable individual would conclude verification of an address using FM 's method is a poor method for verifying the current mailing address of an individual because it expects a third-party ( unrelated to the account in question ) to notify the XXXX that XXXX individual does not live at the address to which a statement is mailed. If this were an open-ended account FM 's practice would fail as a reasonable billing error investigation method under 15 U.S.C. 1666. The fact is FM has resorted to skip-tracing WITHOUT verifying the accuracy of the pool of possible addresses and expected that a third-party individual with no interest in the matter would take the time to notify FM and/or XXXX that the borrower no longer resides ( if ever ) at the address. As consequence, a piece of mail sent to an address that is returned causes FM 's system to randomly select another address using skip-tracing, without verifying accuracy, resulting in a cascading effect even after a borrower may have provided and/or corrected information for a current address on one ( 1 ) or more occasions. Now, make no mistake TILA/Regulation Z requires FM to mail periodic statements at steady intervals whose due date is established by that printed on the the first statement generation date when the loan enters repayment ( ). However, that statement must be mailed to the borrower ( at a current mailing address ) in order to establish the first cycle. In my case it is very possible FM mailed a notice that my student loans would be entering repayment, and upon return of that notice, the system resorted to skip-tracing beginning from my first statement. Firstmark may claim the accounts they service are closed-ended accounts and as such those accounts are not subject to the timing of payments requirements specified in 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( b ). Nevertheless the lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX, acknowledges a minimum XXXX ( XXXX ) day interval between the statement generation date and statement due date in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaints { XXXX, XXXX and XXXX }, " you were still provided the required XXXX between our notice date and your first payment due date ''. Firstmark claims the provisions under the original XXXX do not permit a borrower to claim a failure to receive statements as a defense to non-payment on the student loan. And, it is true, as FM 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 quoting this provision in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX, FM conveniently makes a serious omission in the language of the MPN. The portion of Section E to which FM refers establishes the aforementioned non-receipt of statement provision only after declaring what the lender/servicer must do. In fact, 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. '' In other words, the opening sentence establishes a borrowers right of notice : to be notified on a monthly basis about the status of their loan account ( s ) such that they may review the payment required for the current billing cycle, and review any payments, charges, and adjustments made to the account since the end of the previous billing cycle. This is all the more important because although the loan in question is a student loan, it has an adjustable interest rate, like an open-ended line of credit such as that attached to a credit card and as such adjusts with the change interest rates set by the Federal Reserve XXXX It then follows that given the XXXX XXXX XXXXcknowledgment of a minimum XXXX ( XXXX ) day interval between statement generation date and statement due-date in response to CFPB complaints { XXXX,, }, and given the MPN Section E.2 obligation of the lender/servicer to send periodic statements on a monthly basis, that although the account in question pertains to a closed-ended account, any reasonable individual would construe the lender would send statements that are compliant with TILA/Regulation Z on a periodic ( monthly ) basis with a minimum duration between statement generation date and statement due date that is not less than twenty ( 20 ) days, which is one ( 1 ) day less than what is required under TILA/Regulation Z for open-ended ( credit card ) accounts. Finally, it is not without mentioning the abusiveness in Firstmark 's response to CFPB complaint XXXX. I am a XXXX individual that manages a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. I am also an individual that was XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX when my loan entered repayment. 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 That Firstmark would repeatedly send statements to incorrect addresses and then report missed payments to the CRAs is not only a furnishing of false/misleading/inaccurate information, but is also abusive. I repeatedly notified Firstmark directly through CFPB complaints and through the CRAs of their failure to send statements to my correct address. I also corrected my address on more than one occasion with FM only o have it overwritten due to errant skip-tracing. That after doing such on multiple occasions Firstmark would seek to paint me as " another individual that is habitually unable to pay their bills, '' and then furnish derogatory information to the CRAs, is abusive. The fact is I have done everything I am supposed to do to protect my interests. Yet there is a limit to which I can protect my interests if periodic statements are not mailed to me. Firstmark has engaged in unfair, unlawful, and abusive acts and practices that have harmed me as a consumer, for which the harm is magnified for me as a XXXX individual. At this point Firstmark knows, or has reasonable cause to believe the information they are furnishing to the CRAs is false/misleading/inaccurate under 15 U.S.C. 1681e as result of their engagement in unlawful acts and practices that are prohibited under 12 U.S.C. 5531.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 48104
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-10
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: In XX/XX/2023 I called Nelnet, my student loan servicer, to switch my payment plan from the graduated repayment plan ( plan that starts with a low payment and incrementally increases over the years ) to a standard repayment plan ( set payment amount for the duration of the loan lifecycle ). The individual I spoke to said she would be able to switch my plan without issue, and also remove my deferment because I was automatically placed on it without wanting it. I wait for over a month and find that my plan has not been switched over. I call back again, this time on hold for over an hour. I was told that the prior customer service representative did not execute the plan switch correctly. She promised she would have it corrected. Then put me on hold for more time to speak with her supervisor and then told me it was corrected. I asked for a confirmation and this individual told me it would be coming. I keep checking back to confirm whether my account has been corrected, and of course, it had not. So I called back again, for a third time, now on hold for over an HOUR AND A HALF, this time practically begging for help. This representative told me yet another error had occurred, and they switched me to the same plan that I was already on? How does that make sense? I stated multiple times and very slowly which plan I needed to be on. She said it was corrected, that a confirmation would be coming, and to wait a few days for the change to reflect in my account. I waited. And waited, until about two weeks pass by and I log into my account to find that it is completely messed up. My account says my next payment due is around {$190.00}, much lower than what I should be paying, and that three of my loans have been placed back into deferment without my knowledge or consent. I was so furious it almost brought me to tears. I decided to call back then was told by the IVR that the wait time was over an hour long. At this point I need help because I can not get this resolved on my own. I am not a borrower who is looking to defer my loans or find my way out of an obligation. I want to pay these loans down and not get buried in interest, and I am doing my best to get on a plan that will allow me to stay ahead of interest and pay these down in a manner I can afford. Nelnet 's incompetence creates serious risk for borrowers. I am at risk for getting buried in interest by setting payments so low, combined with a lack of transparency on how to make a principal payment to offset this nightmare, I don't know how to protect myself from a financial harm I am trying to avoid and Nelnet has represented as being available to me without additional approval processes. I need my account corrected immediately because the outcome of this could result in months and even years of hardship. Please help.
Company Response:
State: CO
Zip: 80920
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-10
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: Nelnet has, for the past two months, effectively prevented me from signing up for the SAVE IBR plan. I submitted all of my material to Nelnet via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, before student loan payments resumed. I linked FSA to my XXXX W2 form, as the application required. I clearly qualified for the plan. Yet Nelnet, despite receiving my application, never processed it. For the next two months, I received intermittent emails from Nelnet stating that my application was " in process. '' Meanwhile, loan payments had resumed, and my interest was accruing at $ XXXX. Under the SAVE plan, it would not have accrued at all. Finally, on XX/XX/XXXX, I called Nelnet to check on the status of my application. After waiting on hold for about two hours, Nelnet 's customer service representative told me that my application was incomplete, as I had not submitted proof of income from XXXX. Not only was this falseI had submitted my W2 as required through FSAbut Nelnet NEVER INFORMED ME that it was missing documentation. I immediately submitted my proof of income directly through the Nelnet site, but now need to wait another 30 days or more for Nelnet to process my application. Meanwhile, my interest continues to accrue. Nelnet 's failure to communicate has thus far cost me more than {$1000.00}, and will likely cost me another {$1000.00} before my application is approved. Its hold times are unconscionable. Nelnet is an agent of the federal government, and it should not be allowed to prevent its clientswho often have no choice but to use its servicesfrom enrolling in federal programs as is their entitlement.
Company Response:
State: VA
Zip: 22314
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-11-10
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: My student loans have already been paid in full which is a billing error on Nelnet end. The payments that they are trying to make me pay is an error pursuant to 12 CFR 1026.13. Since the inception of the account which is defined under 12 CFR 1002.2 defined as extension of credit and the word account refers only to open-end credit. Open-end credit is defined via Truth in Lending ( 12 CFR 1026.2 ) see below : Open-end credit means consumer credit extended by a creditor under a plan in which : ( i ) The creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions ; ( ii ) The creditor may impose a finance charge from time to time on an outstanding unpaid balance ; and ( iii ) The amount of credit that may be extended to the consumer during the term of the plan ( up to any limit set by the creditor ) is generally made available to the extent that any outstanding balance is repaid. They are requiring XXXX XXXX notes as payment, when in fact the application with financial information ( social security number ) attached served as an asset, which satisfied the monthly obligation pursuant to 12 CFR 360.6 ( 2 ) as well as self-liquidating paper pursuant to 17 CFR 260.11b-6. This is considered an unauthorized use since I have received NO BENEFIT. This will also serve as Notice of breach of fiduciary duty ( U.C.C. 3-307 ). Following this notice if said financial assets are not either returned to the referenced creditor/bailor/beneficiary via mail within Three ( 3 ) business days or accepted for its intended purpose within Three ( 3 ) business days of the receipt of this notice, an XXXX complaint will be filed pursuant to 17 CFR 240.15c1-2, IRS 3949a due to Fraud, and 17 CFR 240.10b-5. As well as an IRS complaint for abusive tax.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 31763
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-11-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A