Date Received: 2018-06-02
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 a loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have always made my payments on time. For some reason I realized that there was a late payment on my credit report. As you can see, I have always had a stellar payment record with this company. I tried contacting both XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX with no successful resolution. XXXX only reporting me late. There was definitely an error on their part. I was never 90 to 120 days late in XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 33139
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-06-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-06-01
Issue: Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services
Subissue: Billing dispute for services
Consumer Complaint: I AM TRYING TO CLEAN UP MY CREDIT AND I SEND A GOODWILL LETTER TO THE SCHOOL ASKING IF THEY COULD REMOVE THE 3 LATE PAYMENTS I HAD BECAUSE I HAD HIT A ROUGH PATCH IN MY LIFE AND FOR 3 MONTHS I COULD NOT PAY. XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX AND XX/XX/XXXX I WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A PAYMENT. WELL WITH THOSE 3 LATE PAYMENTS IT SHOWS I HAVE 27 LATE PAYMENTS BECAUSE I HAVE A FEW LOANS SO ITS MAKING IT HARD FOR ME TO GET CREDIT OR TRY TO GET MY FINANCES IN ORDER, I AM BACK IN SCHOOL NOW AND I JUST NEED SOME HELP PLEASE.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 784XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-06-01
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: My name is XXXX XXXX. I have sent several Goodwill adjustment letters, disputed all three bureaus and contacted XXXX XXXX for validation and proof! They have overlooked every attempt I have attempted! They are violating my rights and arent willing to help me!. These dates that theyre saying I was 120 late were XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX and late 90-119 days in XX/XX/XXXX, then late again supposedly XX/XX/XXXX @ XX/XX/XXXX 120 days late. I have never been late and they will not budge. All of these are closed accounts my loans were all brought and Im in good standing! These dates are all closed accounts that I wasnt late on.
Company Response:
State: WA
Zip: 984XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-06-01
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: PSLF employment certification being denied. Form gives option to submit XXXX as proof of employment, servicer is demanding supervisory signature. There is not a central HR office with the XXXX. For employment verification we use my workplace. In addition to XXXX, I submitted the employment verification letter and 10 years of XXXX employment records forms. They said it's not proof of employment.
Company Response:
State: VA
Zip: 22556
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-05-31
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: Approximately one-year ago, when first ever becoming aware there was an issue, I filed my first complaint, following my attempts to get assistance and resolution through AES unsuccessfully. That initial complaint stemmed from entering repayment prematurely ( within the time-frame of roughly 2-weeks ), meanwhile I was still qualified and eligible for in-school deferment. It was at that time, it came to my attention, that these same ( older ) loans I was receiving unexpected and incorrect billing for, were in fact " Federal Stafford/Direct Loans '' both subsidized and subsidized, which originated between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX by ( then named ) XXXX XXXX College. These were not ever private loans, which is also indicated in the NSLDS, as well as in the mini-itemized breakdown on the AES Billing Statements. It is clear, these loans originated as Federal Loans, and have always been Federal Loans and were never refinanced with a private lender, or anything else of such nature, or by any means. Basically there is no reason whatsoever that the AES branch of PHEAA should have ever been handling my Federal Student Loans ( which should only be reserved for the private and commercial aspects of its business ) ; my Federal Loans however, should have only been ever handled by their XXXX division as guaranteed by FFELP. Last year, only a temporary fix occurred, which after filing my complaints, assisted with rectifying the erroneous late charges from being prematurely billed, and I was finally placed back into in-school deferment. Fast-forward one-year later and a similar issue is happening again, due to the filed corrections to return my Federal Loans back to their originating status, and/or explain, how they ended up being handled in the manner they had be, which was without my authorization or knowledge. I have been mixed with emotions for my upcoming graduation ever since learning these facts back in XX/XX/XXXX, and not having a complete resolution done at that time, which I am hoping to have done this time around. On one hand I am ecstatic to have graduated on XX/XX/XXXX ; but at the same time, I have suspected that I would be faced with ( early and once again ) prematurely entering repayment as soon as I graduated, or in my case even sooner. So, there are several issues, the first at hand is, having been billed for nearly two months now and in just over another two weeks, if things are not corrected, I do not want to reflect going from 30+ days past due, to 60+ days ... .when neither are correct. Since my loans are and have always been Federal Student ( " Stafford Direct Subsidized & Unsubsidized Loans '' ), I should not be entering repayment until approximately XX/XX/XXXX, after reaching the full maturity of my 6-Month " Repayment Grace Period '' which Federal Loans affords by their guidelines, and for which I fully intend to follow according to those guidelines and policies, as those were what was stated in all of my Master Promissory Notes that I signed from taking my first loan in XX/XX/XXXX through my most recent which was in this XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX - Spring School Year Semester, just prior to my graduate.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-05-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-05-31
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: My student loan servicer is XXXX XXXX. My issue began around XX/XX/XXXX when it came time for me to recertify my income based repayment ( " IBR '' ) plan. I went through the process and was approved for the IBR forXX/XX/XXXX. I was not comfortable with the monthly payment I was going to be required to pay forXX/XX/XXXX, so I reached back out to XXXX XXXX to see if there was any way to lower my monthly payment. The representative told me to recertify and pick the option that would give me the lowest possible monthly payment. The representative also told me that she would have to put me on a one month forbearance to give my application time to process. I asked if the forbearance would have any negative impact on my loan status or repayment status, and the representative responded " No ''. She did indicate that I would have to make a one-time {$5.00} payment, which I did on XX/XX/XXXX. So I went back and recertified and followed the representative 's advice. I was approved, but when I received my new monthly payment, I realized that it was unusually lower than what I had been paying over the last 6 years. Based on that, I again contacted XXXX XXXX. It was at this time that they told me that not all of my loans would qualify for the payment plan I applied for, so I would have to go back and recertify yet again for the loan that were not eligible for the lowest possible monthly payment. The fact that not all of my loans would qualify for a particular loan repayment program was never communicated to me until after the fact. I am pointing this out because XXXX XXXX XXXX lack of communication and failure to provide me with all relevant information is the main reason for this complaint. Nevertheless, I go back in and recertify for the third time. I finally receive the final IBR that I am going to be on forXX/XX/XXXX sometime inXX/XX/XXXX. I made my first payment on my new IBR for XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$880.00}. I make my next scheduled payment on XX/XX/XXXX, again in the amount of {$880.00}. Then comes today, XX/XX/XXXX I log in to my account and am proceeding to make my next scheduled payment when I noticed the issue. On XX/XX/XXXX, my principal balance increased by approximately {$37000.00}! I was shocked. I didn't know how that could have happened, so I immediately called XXXX XXXX. I spoke to four different people during the 50 minute call ; XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. They all told me the same thing : when I changed my Income Based Repayment Plan, the interest on my loans was capitalized and added to the principal balance. I could not believe what I was hearing. I told all them repeatedly, I was never told that was even a possibility. Not once during any of the calls between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX was I ever told that if I choose to change my repayment plan that all interest would be capitalized. Had I known that was a possibility, then I would have never changed my repayment plan!!! Nobody at XXXX XXXX cared, nor did they offer any relief. All they kept saying was that it was in the Terms and Conditions of the repayment plan and in the promissory note. Now let me put you in my shoes : My principal loan balance before XX/XX/XXXX was {$160000.00}. I had never missed a payment or even been late on a payment in the 6 years that I have been repaying my loans. I knew that I would never fully repay the loans, so my plan was to pay on them for 25 years and then apply for forgiveness. I was okay with that plan. Now fast forward to today, my principal balance is now {$200000.00}! Why you ask? Because the interest on my loans was capitalized when I changed my repayment plans. Was the fact that the interest on my loans would be capitalized if I changed repayment plans ever communicated to me once during the multiple phone calls with XXXX XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX andXX/XX/XXXX? NO! Not once was that ever communicated to me. Again, had it been communicated to me, I WOULD HAVE NEVER CHOSEN TO CHANGE MY REPAYMENT PLAN. Not only has this violation resulted in an increase of my principal balance, it also has a direct effect on my overall Debt-to-Income ( " DTI '' ) ratio. I have other bills, specifically my mortgage. Thanks to Fedloan Servicing 's lack of communication, I don't know if I'll be able to refinance my mortgage now. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, all covered persons or service providers are legally required to refrain from committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. It's my contention that XXXX XXXX has violated Dodd-Frank by committing an act that is unfair and deceptive. An act or practice is unfair when : ( 1 ) It causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers ; ( 2 ) The injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers ; and ( 3 ) The injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. A substantial injury typically takes the form of monetary harm, such as fees or costs paid by consumers because of the unfair act or practice. Here, the act was capitalizing the interest on my loans without ever telling me that it was a possibility. Let 's apply that to the test above : ( 1 ) I have suffered a substantial injury because my principal balance and overall DTI increased by approximately {$38000.00} ; ( 2 ) I could not have avoided it because I was never told of the possibility that my interest would be capitalized if I changed repayment plans ; and ( 3 ) I received no benefit from my interest being capitalized. Now to the deceptive test. An act or practice is deceptive when : ( 1 ) The act or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer ; ( 2 ) The consumers interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances ; and ( 3 ) The misleading act or practice is material. To determine whether an act or practice has actually misled or is likely to mislead a consumer, the totality of the circumstances is considered. Deceptive acts or practices can take the form of a representation or omission. Applying that test to the issue that I was never told that my interest would be capitalized if I changed repayment plans : ( 1 ) XXXX XXXX never told me the interest would be capitalized if I changed repayment plans. Had they told me, I would have chosen not to change plans ; ( 2 ) I asked multiple times during multiple calls if there would be any negative effects of changing plans and XXXX XXXX always responded that there would not be any negative effects, and also I was never told the interest would be capitalized and a reasonable person would need to know that information ; and ( 3 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX deceptive act is material because it has caused an increase to my principal balance by approximately {$38000.00}. Based on the above, I believe XXXX XXXX has violated the Dodd-Frank Act by committing an act that was both unfair and deceptive.
Company Response:
State: KY
Zip: 41501
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-05-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-05-31
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan
Subissue: Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan
Consumer Complaint: In XX/XX/XXXX I started to repay my student loans from the State University of XXXX XXXX - College of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, XXXX. My payments were just under {$500.00} per month ( approximately {$480.00} ) In XX/XX/XXXX after paying close to {$60000.00} ( over what I originally borrowed ) I stopped paying. In XX/XX/XXXX, a garnishment was placed on my paycheck and now {$220.00} is taken each paycheck for the past year and a half. Also my XX/XX/XXXX income tax return ( {$4600.00} ) ; XX/XX/XXXX income tax return ( {$3000.00} ) ; and XX/XX/XXXX income tax return ( {$750.00} ) have been swept. As of XX/XX/XXXX approximately {$9000.00} of income and {$8400.00} of income tax refunds have been taken for a student loan debt that has not already been paid off but supposedly still is {$60000.00} of a remaining balance. At this time I am requesting that my Public Service Loan Forgiveness approval be activated so this can be resolved and the garnishment be removed. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX
Company Response:
State: CT
Zip: 060XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-05-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-05-31
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: My wife is currently enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) Program, and has been working at a XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, she submitted an employment certification form to verify her umber of qualifying payments to then be 22 in total. XXXX instead recognized 12 of these payments. The discrepancy relates to the transfer of her loans from XXXX to XXXX when enrolling in the PSLF program, not any disqualifying factors for the loans held. They are the correct types of loan, are consolidated, and she has been making appropriate and timely payments. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called XXXX to fix the issue. The customer service agent agreed it appeared all of the payments should be qualifying, and flagged her account for a fuller manual review to rectify the number of recognized qualifying payments. We were told this should take 90 days. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called again. We were told that it actually is a 60-90 days window, but that there is a backlog of reviews, so it could take longer, and that we should call by XX/XX/XXXX if the account didn't appear correctly online before then. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called and were told that the agent can see the review as pending in the system, that it still has not been completed, and that the backlog is between 4-5 months, and to call back " in several weeks ''. We are now at 133 days from the date of original follow up, and even further past the original date of form submission ( XX/XX/XXXX ). We have no resolution, and no one can tell us when we can expect any resolution.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 30316
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-06-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-05-30
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Received bad information about your loan
Consumer Complaint: I had received advice from my previous lender to transfer my loan to XXXX XXXX to monitor my progress with the PSLF program. I did so in XX/XX/XXXX. I waited very patiently to have the number of qualifying payment calculated and uploaded on my account. When they were finally uploaded the numbers were drastically lower than they should have been. I have been making qualifying payments since XX/XX/XXXX with only a handful of months in forbearance due to delays in processing IBR eligibility and one late payment. Therefore my estimated eligibility date should only be a few months after XX/XX/XXXX. When I called XXXX servicing about this they told me it was likely due to a prepayment and they would recalculate my qualifying payments. By then it was XX/XX/XXXX and I was told it could take up to three months. Once the three months was nearly completed, I called and was told it would take three to six months. Today I called and I was told it could be up to nine months. In total I have waiting nearly a year and I have not received an accurate count of my qualifying payments. I understand there are many such requests but not having the staff required to service this loan properly is unacceptable.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 92373
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-05-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-05-31
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Subissue: Don't agree with the fees charged
Consumer Complaint: I was on an Income Based Repayment plan in XX/XX/XXXX with AES. In XX/XX/XXXX I had to submit new paperwork for a XXXX Income based repayment plan which was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I lost my job. I called AES and the person I spoke to said I could file an emergency application due to unemployment. That request was approved and my monthly payment was set at {$0.00}. I logged on to my AES account today and it showed that I am 25 days past due on {$150.00} + {$9.00} on a late fee. I called to ask how I could possibly be late on a payment since I was unemployed since XX/XX/XXXX, and was approved for an emergency recalculation of income based repayment that was set at {$0.00}. They said that because the original application that was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX was approved before the emergency application, I owe for XX/XX/XXXX 's payment. That is ridiculous. 2 separate AES representatives refused to correct their errors.
Company Response:
State: MA
Zip: 016XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-05-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A