Product: Student loan

XXXX XXXX responded to the CFPB on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to CFPB complaint XXXX and XXXX. In one of the attachments she states : " When a private student loan comes out of forbearance the repayment schedule and billing statements are sent the day it enters in repayment. '' XXXX XXXX confirms that : " records show that your forbearance was approved and processed on XX/XX/XXXX good through XX/XX/XXXX, but since XX/XX/XXXX fell on a Friday the loan went into repayment the following business day which was XX/XX/XXXX. '' What her words establish is that the first billing statement has a generation date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, she confirms that the intended statement generation date was XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, but that the date fell on a non-business day and therefore was generated the next business day of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX the claims that subsequent statements were generated on the following dates : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX. Ms. XXXX XXXX asserts that the due dates fall approximately twenty ( 20 ) days after the statement date. Yet, the first statement was generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

Under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. That is, each statement generated after XXXX XX/XX/XXXX constitutes a statement that is offset from the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX statement outside of the prescribed interval as established from the date of the first statement. The effect is that Wells Fargo is reporting inaccurate payment and balance history for months that causally could not have payment history. 

Ms. XXXX XXXX is therefore acknowledging that each subsequent statement has a date outside the statement date established both by the bill with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( clearly marked " statement '' ) and as established by the repayment notice sent XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Ms. XXXX XXXX is effectively trying o dance around the statement issued XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, claiming it to be a " repayment statement, '' as opposed to a billing statement, despite the fact that the statement for each period beginning XXXX XX/XX/XXXX is identical in form and says " statement. '' To make matters worse, Ms XXXX XXXX claims that I am " not required to receive a billing statement to make a payment, '' which clearly indicates Ms. XXXX XXXX 's lack of understanding of my due process rights under the FCRA and enforced by the CFPB. The fact that someone listed within WF as a " specialist '' would make such a ridiculous claim is baffling. 

This is not new behavior for Wells Fargo as the CFPB brought Wells Fargo 's illegal student loan servicing practices to light and announced enforcement action against Wells Fargo on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB found that Wells Fargo was engaging in action that constituted the following law violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ofXX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Now, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair or deceptive practices. One of the terms of the consent order filed against in XX/XX/XXXX mandated that WF must " must remove any negative student loan information that has been inaccurately or incompletely provided to a consumer reporting company. '' In the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX CFPB press release, CFPB Director XXXX XXXX as states, Wells Fargo hit borrowers with illegal fees and deprived others of critical information needed to effectively manage their student loan accounts, Consumers should be able to rely on their servicer to process and credit payments correctly and to provide accurate and timely information and we will continue our work to improve the student loan servicing market. In my case Wells Fargo has charged illegal late fees on my account due to their billing practices stated above, supplied inaccurate and/or incomplete information to the CRAs, and failed to provide timely, accurate information in their billing statements. All of these are in violation of the consent agreement Wells Fargo entered into with the CFPB in late XX/XX/XXXX. With a XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dollar student loan portfolio, Wells Fargo 's practices continue to harm millions of individuals whose loans they service -- I appear to repeatedly be one of them within the past few months and WF continues to ignore the CFPB consent order. 

Ms. XXXX XXXX seems far more content to hide the inconsistencies that violate federal statute as interpreted by the CFPB, inconsistencies that impact my credit history, as opposed to acknowledge that someone within WF made a mistake. Ms. XXXX XXXX fails to understand that every time she returns information to cover the behind of WF that runs counter to federal statute, the information she returns is aggregated and passed back to her and whomever evaluates CFPB complaints at WF. Furthermore, she fails to understand that this information is also being supplied to the Attorney General for my state of residence. Someone other than Ms. XXXX XXXX and perhaps with far more nuance with law might need to take a look at my complaints for WF because Ms. XXXX XXXX is doing a dance and embarrassing not only herself, but the student loan servicing unit within Wells Fargo. 

Overall, the dance XXXX XXXX is doing in her response to XXXX and XXXX falls right in-line with the deceptive practices that the CFPB found in their consent order decree against WF. It might behoove Ms. XXXX XXXX to read through the consent order against her employer with file number XXXX, rather than attempting to cover her own behind for the false statements she submitted to the CFPB in response to my prior complaints. Maybe then Ms. XXXX XXXX might understand how is perpetuating practices the CFPB already determined were illegal. Right now Ms. XXXX XXXX is exemplifying the very behavior outlined in the CFPB consent order and her behavior exemplifies the cultural resistance within WF to comply with the CFPB consent order with file number number XXXX. One thing is for sure, Ms.XXXX is clearly NOT a " specialist. '' At the end of the day, Wells Fargo need to be held accountable for the violations, violations that are impacting my credit files as I write this complaint.