Product: Student loan

The school is XXXX, a XXXX XXXX, in XXXX XXXX FL. 
XXXX XXXX was the lender, but they have relinquished the loan. A company called UAS is sending collection notices for the loan, but would not honor the income based payment arrangement with XXXX. When called, the company instructed us to go to the website. The website instructed us ( The borrower and the co-signer ) to email. After numerous attempts to call and e-mail with no response, we sent in the payment that was negotiated with XXXX. We then recieved late payment notices. We made more attempts to call and e-mail with no response. We sent a certified letter to UAS, which was also not answered. We filed a complaint here, on this website. A man from UAS called on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX in response to the complaint, but refused to identify himself. He said that we had to send XXXX checks to the same address, XXXX remitted to XXXX Student Funding and XXXX remitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX explaining that UAS is just a third party collector. The co-signer explained that neither of these financial institutions had contacted either the borrower or the cosigner to introduce themselves as the holders of the loan. She explained that without FDIC numbers and the location of their home offices with something in writing showing they were the legitimate holders of the loan, there was no way we would send any more money. The man said he would arrange for these to be sent. UAS then began calling the borrower and the co-signer daily, but when the phone was answered, no one was on the line. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, the co-signer called UAS and talked to XXXX XXXX and repeated the nature of the conversation on the XXXX. She instructed the co-signer to call XXXX directly to obtain the information, giving the phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX and saying the company is now called XXXX. The co-signer called and left a voice mail. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX from UAS called the co-signer, but when the co-signer asked her why she was calling, XXXX apologized and hung up with no furtehr explanation for the call. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX called the co-signer and said he was returning the voice mail she had left. The co-signer explained that she had called XXXX and asked who was XXXX XXXX. XXXX said they are the same company. He did not tell her why the company was using XXXX names. He then told her that she was not listed on the loan, and he could not discuss it with her, only with the borrower. The co-signer told XXXX that she most certainly is the co-signer and she distinctly remembers signing the loans, but XXXX would not discuss it further with her. After this, the co-signer started to recieve phone calls from a caller with a foreign name on the caller ID - it appeared to be XXXX script, not XXXX alphabet, but it was the same as the UAS calls, no one on the line when answered. The borrower, who had been recieving daily calls with no one on the line began recieving multiple calls from UAS per day, always with no one on the line. Returning the call always results in no answer. Both the borrower and the Co-signer recieve multiple billing statements per week from UAS, and still have not recieved any proof of debt or proof of legitamacy of the financial institutions for which they claim to be collecting. In the period from XXXX XXXX, XXXX to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the borrower has recieved XXXX collection letters, and the co-signer has recieved XXXX collection letters ( even though XXXX told her she is not the co-signer ).