Date Received: 2018-08-28
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Investigation took more than 30 days
Consumer Complaint: confirmation number XXXX Issue # 1. XXXX hasnt not been corrected. Accounts still show bankruptcy. They were not included in a bankruptcy. So far I have submitted fedloan documents showings accounts paid in full not derogatory. I have also supplied bankruptcy papers showing not included in a bankruptcy. Also XXXX discharge due to XXXX papers. EVERY TIME I call XXXX they tell me they are not going to remove. They have also refused to conference call with the creditor. Now they told me on phone they dont have documents I submitted and will not call any bankruptcy court to verify. They have also sent me letters im being frivolous recently. This improper reporting has cost me many credit card applications and housing since I have so many fedloans not showing paid as agreed. I have been waiting and fighting a year to be fixed. Fix immediately. Should show 7 to 9 paid in full accounts. No more pending. XXXX refuses to fix immediately after this error has been partially there fault for over a year now. This needs to be rushed now. Im getting economic loss, high interest rates, and lost housing because of false reporting. no more waiting Issue # 2. around XX/XX/XXXX I submitted XXXX credit report to show status of the XXXX and they added XXXX using XXXX credit report. I have since disputed and they told me americu verified account. I have called XXXX and they have not reported to anyone about accounts in my name recently. There should not even be a dispute on my end since it was not correctly added to XXXX by using a credit report I gave then from another agency regarding something else. A representative stated that XXXX has always been they since XXXX. there resolve XX/XX/XXXX shouldnt be there since it wasnt correctly reported. A agent stated to me XXXX XXXX its always been there. This isnt true. XXXX has failed to give me how it was added in XX/XX/XXXX. I want proof americu initiated adding it recently. If they did not. It needs to be removed. Please XXXX dont send me something that is in progress. I have also included in the past another credit reporting agency XXXX stating all paid in full. Fix this immediately ( yes or no ). in this complaint im including. 1. A recent result for cfpb were XXXX states accounts were not included in a bankruptcy 2. something from the bankruptcy court stating XXXX were not included 3. A statment from XXXX stating they never reached out recently to equifax 4. A credit report from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX showing that it wasnt previously on my report until I submitted my XXXX dispute in XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX A XXXX letter stating accounts paid as agreed, paid in full not derogatory
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-28
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: My loan is being serviced by XXXX Account # XXXX Originally the loas were with XXXX XXXX and XXXX. Both companies failed to properly provide counsel regarding loan consolidation and the current company is calculating my payment using my gross payments.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 302XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-27
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: In consideration of the PSLF program, I consolidated my loans under the Direct Loans ( in XX/XX/XXXX ), and have worked with a qualifying employer ( federal agency ) since XX/XX/XXXX. I have been under the PSLF program since XX/XX/XXXX and have paid my payments in full every month under a qualifying income-driven repayment plan. My PSLF employment recertification form was completed and received by the servicer in XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ). In XX/XX/XXXX, I received an update on my PSLF qualifying loans, stating I have 30 qualifying payments for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans, and qualify for forgiveness in XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ). This is correct. I recently received a second update on my PSLF loans in XX/XX/XXXX which now states that I only have 11 qualifying payments and qualify for forgiveness in XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ). This is incorrect and came as a total surprise given that I received a different number only two months prior with no changes since then. I called the servicer right away and the Servicer representative could not explain what happened. They stated the computer automatically calculates payments under some criteria they couldn't explain. The rep flagged my issue for " manual review, '' but also stated that it would take 3 to 6 months before I get an answer. They could not provide any acceptable answer or honor my request expedite my issue. Considering this effects more than thousands of PSLF applicants, I would like to press the issue of the Servier incorrectly processing payments by " automated processing '' and improperly managing the accounts and communications to the customer. The review time is 90 to 180 days for a " computer glitch ''. Instead of addressing the inaccurate automated processing directly, the servicer is choosing to delay any correction by placing it under " manual review '' for an unreasonable period of time. Shouldn't the review be completed BEFORE the account is updated and BEFORE the communication is sent to the customer? Due to its automated nature, this is a blatent Servicing error that affects thousands of applicants, yet could easily be corrected by the Servicer. This issue presents as poor communication and handling by the Servicer. If this is a common issue with the PSLF program, it needs to be addressed immediately to maintain the integrity of the program. When applying for forgiveness down the line, I need to know that my payments will be honored. Please let me know what information you need to rectify this problem. Thank you.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 92354
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-27
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: In XX/XX/2014 I was told over the phone, by the representative whom assisted me, that the forbearance which was placed on my account would remove the credit reporting for the period of delinquency for the same months that it adjusted the loan. This is supported by my XXXX as it shows non-reporting for XX/XX/14 ( which is 1 month in arrears meaning that the actual suppressed month was XXXX ). If XXXX was suppressed, from a call in XXXX, then the other months are eligible to be suppressed as well. As your prior resolution indicated, you must report accurate information. As shown, your company is willing and able to suppress/not report and remain in compliance with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Responsible Servicing dictates that accurate information is to be given to the customer so that they may make an educated choice as to what to do. I was inaccurately informed that the account adjustment would also remove delinquency. I may not have used the adjustment period if I had been given the accurate information. I am limited to the number of months that I am able to have alterations to my repayment of the loan. Due to this I may have taken those months and utilized a different timeframe for use. I request that you review the telephone conversation to ensure accuracy of the information given. If this conversation is not available for review or when discovered that inaccurate information was provided, please remove the months of delinquency. Upon conclusion/ final response to this notification : REMOVE THE CREDIT DISPUTE NOTATION FROM EACH CRB AGENCY.
Company Response:
State: IA
Zip: 50265
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-27
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: Entered into an agreement to pay $ XXXX/month with XXXX XXXX. Applied for home loan and waas notified that my payment was 120 days past due with XXXX, however, I have bank statements showing the automatic payments come out every month between the 21-23 day and I have not missed any payments. I called XXXX and was told that they were not sure why it showed late payments. I submitted a dispute via certified mail on XX/XX/2018. I have not heard back from them as of today, XX/XX/18. The account is showing that I owe over {$400.00}.
Company Response:
State: NJ
Zip: 07304
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-27
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan
Subissue: Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan
Consumer Complaint: AES services my private student loans. I have been out of work for the last year, and have been struggling to make payments. Now the situation is, Im still actively applying for jobs and looking for work, but without an income I can not even make good faith payments. AES has applied all the options they can is what Im told. I am then encouraged to find someone I can borrow money from in order to at least make good faith payments. I do not have family or friends that can add my bill to their life while Im trying to find work, and its absurd to encourage people to borrow money from others. There needs to be options for people who are out of work. I can not control how quickly I am able to find a job. I would like to avoid being sent to collections, so an option to help until I find work would be nice.
Company Response:
State: VA
Zip: 23666
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-27
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: I have made every payment on my loans in a timely manner. However, my recent payment which was made on XX/XX/XXXX ( in the full amount due ) was not applied to my loans. As such, the account is showing as past due ( the payment was due on XX/XX/XXXX ). I have spoken with the servicer multiple times and they assured me that they would apply the payment from XX/XX/XXXX. However, no action has been taken and my account appears as past due.
Company Response:
State: IL
Zip: 60622
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-26
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt is not yours
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2004 a private student loan in the amount of {$25000.00} was disbursed to my mother by American Education Services ( AES ) and/or a lender represented by AES. To date, 14 years later I am still completely unaware if AES was the original lender or simply the servicer on behalf of the lender, all I know is the American Education Services/XXXX XXXX XXXX ( AES/XXXX ) appears on my credit report regarding the account in question. At the time of origination, I was XXXX years old and under the impression I was signing forms for my federal financial aid and did not realize I was signing a credit agreement for a private student loan. It was not until some time after the fact that I learned what had actually occurred. On multiple occasions throughout the years I have contacted AES requesting that the account associated with the loan be updated to remove me from the account. I explained to AES that I did not recall completing/submitting the initial application for the loan and when I signed the credit agreement I did not understand what I was signing the document had been misrepresented to me as a financial aid form and not a private loan agreement. I also informed AES that I had personally never seen any documents or disclosures related to the loan, the funds from the loan were not utilized to fund any portion of my education. And most importantly AES and/or the lender never actually disbursed the loan to me ( borrower ) but instead disbursed funds directly to my mother ( co-signer ) and as a result I demanded that the account be updated to reflect the correct responsible party to whom which {$25000.00} was disbursed. AES refused to provide any form of assistance even though I stated that myself and the party who physically received the funds were willing to sign any required documents to have me removed from the account. It was not until my last attempt at requesting removal that a customer service agent at AES/XXXX informed me that he didn't think they could update the account to remove me and name my mother as borrower because the original loan was a " student loan '' and should have been accessible only to students enrolled in a higher education program. He shared that even though my mother had maintained all payments on the loan because was not a student at the time he didn't think he could correct the account. After receiving this information a few years ago I realized that AES/XXXX was not willing to update the account because it would force someone ( lender/loan officer etc. ) to be held accountable for utilizing deceptive lending practices. Although it's been 14 years since the loan was initially disbursed I am reaching out to CFPB because until now I failed to possess concrete proof that the loan was never disbursed to me. The original AES/XXXX account has now gone into default and since been sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). After receiving calls from XXXX, I submitted a dispute letter stating that although AES had not removed my name from the account the debt did not belong to me and requested that they contact my mother ( co-signer ) regarding repayment of the debt. I inquired as to options and or arrangements my mother could utilize to settle the account because I refused to provide XXXX with any of my information because I never received the loan in question. I told XXXX that although my mother is working now she initially fell behind as a result of job loss and a decline in her husband 's health but if they contacted her to make arrangements I be willing to assist her, if necessary, because I am sympathetic to the circumstances that led to her current financial state however because I never received the loan in question I refused to take personal responsibility for the matter. It was at that time I was told by XXXX collection agent XXXX XXXX that after reviewing the credit and assets of myself and my mother, XXXX has decided to solely pursue me for the debt because based on my mother 's current credit she would not be able to access another loan to cover the balance of the defaulted account. Mr. XXXX told me I either needed to charge the balance of {$17000.00} on my credit cards, obtain a personal loan to cover the balance dues or refinance my home to access funds to cover the XXXX account all to which I told Mr. XXXX he was crazy. Mr. XXXX provided me a settlement offer of $ 13,000+ which I refused because I told XXXX the debt not mine and under no circumstances would I take out a personal loan for which I'd be responsible for repayment to cover a debt that is legally not mine. At that point Mr. XXXX stated since I was not willing to do any of the options he suggested, he would report to XXXX that I was unwilling to resolve the debt so they could begin steps to sue me for the balance. It was not until after I received a packet of information from XXXX attempting to validate the original debt and the sale of the debt from AES/XXXX to XXXX that I realized AES/XXXX has been in possession of documentation that verified the loan was never disbursed to me ( sole borrower listed on the account ) and as I suspected my request for removal from the initial account were not honored in efforts to cover the deceptive lending practices utilized by the original lender/lending officer. At the time the loan was disbursed my mother had been out of work for a short period of time due to a XXXX. It was my suspicion that the loan officer utilized deceptive practices to justify disbursing a loan to a party that did not qualify for the purpose of increasing the number of loans that he/she processed and closed. In essence the loan officer used my status as student as a loophole to provide a " private student loan '' to my mother who was not a student and therefore not eligible to apply for and/or receive the student loan. It is clear on the credit agreement which we both signed I am listed as borrower ( sole borrower ) and my mother is listed as cosigner. At the time of disbursement, I was of legal age so in accordance with credit/lending practices funds associated with the loan should have been disbursed directly to me. It is my assumption that the original lender/loan officer hoped everything would remain intact in terms of my mother 's employment and her ability to repay so that the lending discrepancies would not be highlighted. In an effort to " justify '' disbursing the loan to someone other than myself, on the lenders " note disclosure statement '' they identify myself and the party who received funds as borrower ( s ), although our signatures are not on this form, however in the credit agreement which both parties signed, I am identified as borrower and she as cosigner. According the Credit Practice Rules outlined on the Federal Trade Comission 's website for businesses located at : https : //www.ftc.gov/XXXX The section subtitled " Notice to Cosigners '' reads as follows : A " cosigner '' is different from a co-buyer, co-borrower, or co-applicant because a cosigner receives not tangible benefit from the agreement, but undertakes liability as a favor to the main debtor who would not otherwise qualify for credit. On the other hand, a co-buyer ( one who shares in the purchased goods ), a co-borrower ( one who shares in the loan proceeds ), or a co- applicant or co-cardholder ( a person who is authorized to use a credit card account ) do receive benefits. Therefore, they are not considered cosigners under the Rule, and you are not required to provide the notice to them. As a result I'm confident that the lending agency was aware and the loan officer should have been aware that a cosigner does not possess tangible rights to the goods/funds associated with a loan, a cosigner simply guarantees repayment of the debt associated with the loan. Because I now possess proof of what I've stated all along in that I never received the loan, I've again reached out to XXXX XXXX XXXX and American Education Services and again requested that they remove me from all accounts. In addition I have also requested to AES/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX that the accounts for both AES/XXXX be completely removed from my credit history. The original credit agreement should have been deemed null and void upon disbursement in 2004 because the lender failed to adhere to the terms by disbursing the loan to someone other than the assigned borrower. I also requested that the both AES/XXXX and XXXX accounts be removed from my credit history because for years my credit score and creditworthiness have been negatively impacted by the initial delinquency on the AES/XXXX account and now more so by the default status and collection account that have added all in connection with the original AES account that I should have been removed from.
Company Response:
State: NC
Zip: 280XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-25
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: I have been disputing the accounts with AES -- AES/XXXX ( original : {$14000.00}, balance : {$22000.00} ) and AES/XXXX XXXX ( original : {$14000.00} ; which apparently transferred to AES/XXXX -- was never informed of this either, if so, then PROOF PLEASE ). I've been disputing for the past few months because I have been monitoring my reports and having accounts validated. After some time, AES sent me a promissory note that was not even originally sent to them ; it was not for them at all. I asked for validation that included original documentation bearing my signature and that shows a clear contractual agreement with the company/companies reporting on my credit files. The promissory note sent to me absolutely does not -- because again, as you will see from my attachments, the note was not even addressed to them for payback at all. I am filing separate complaints against the bureaus for constantly coming back with results claiming truly unverified, invalidated accounts are " verified '', " verified as accurate '', and " validated '', basically taking these companies ' word for it -- NOT that there is actual proof, which is required under the FCRA and FDCPA. They are essentially violating law, which is one of the reasons for my complaints. In addition to the promissory, I have included one redacted letter sent to XXXX as an example to them of what I've been requesting from each of the major bureaus ; it is the final letter I sent to XXXX and displays the seriousness of this matter.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 32792
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-08-26
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Trouble with how payments are being handled
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/18, I asked for my loan to be recalculated to a different IDR plan. I had an income change, and also hoped hoped to go from an IBR to either a PAYE or REPAYE plan. I specifically DID NOT check the box stating that I wanted to go into forbearance because I do not want my interest to capitalize. I wrote a letter along with the application clearly stating that I did not want to go into forbearance, so there would be no confusion. The paperwork states that one month of a standard payment rate would be necessary, but it does not state that forbearance is required. I received two letters on XX/XX/2018 in the same envelope. The first letter said my loans were placed in forbearance and that I must pay a reduced standard repayment for one month, which is listed as XXXX. The next letter was a disclosure of repayment terms, which is not based on any IDR plan, and suggests that I will be paying around {$520.00} per month, and that I could apply for an IDR plan. Neither of these are what I requested, and neither is acceptable. This is the second time I have been mistakenly placed into forbearance, and it will be the second time that my interest was incorrectly capitalized. This is at least the fifth letter I have written to CFPB for assistance. I no longer reach out to the servicer, because when I have in the past, the issue does not get resolved. There is a reason I have chosen to pay my loans under IDR, as I make very little. As a public servant seeking PSLF, I have very little room for financial fluxuation, and zero willingness for an extra {$5000.00} dollars to be added to my loan every time my paperwork is misread. So I am reaching out again to CFPB requesting assistance.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 151XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-08-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A