Product: Student loan

To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a formal complaint against Navient for its refusal to refund all payments made on my private loans, which were taken out to attend a for-profit educational institution, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX that XXXX XXXX misconduct. Despite Navients acknowledgment of this misconduct, I have only been refunded a single month of payments. This response is not only inadequate but also in clear violation of the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Holder Rule, as explicitly stated in my promissory notes.

Relevant Facts : 1. Promissory Note Terms : My promissory notes contain the following notice : I understand that the following notice is only applicable to loans issued to finance educational expenses at for-profit educational institutions or institutions otherwise subject to the FTC Holder Rule under 16 C.F.R. 433.2. 
NOTICE : ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. 


2. Navients Acknowledgment of School Misconduct : My application for a school misconduct discharge was approved by Navient, indicating their acknowledgment that the school engaged in fraudulent activities. 

XXXX. Navients Awareness Since XXXX : Inquiries to Navient about the limited refund led to the revelation that Navient has been documenting complaints related to school misconduct since at least XXXX, demonstrating their long-standing awareness of the issue. 

XXXX. Extensive Payments Made : I have been making payments on these loans since XXXX and have paid double the amounts owed in interest alone, amounting to substantial financial harm. 

XXXX. Repeated Appeals for Fair Treatment : Over numerous phone calls, I have expressed the inherent unfairness of repaying loans tied to a fraudulent institution. Had Navient listened to every phone call I ever made, they would see that I mentioned the misconduct of my school well before receiving the application from them in XX/XX/XXXX. Despite these appeals, and my request for a closed school discharge application ( which Navient no longer offers ), my concerns have been dismissed or inadequately addressed. It is unfair for Navient to put the ownus on the borrower, when they have always made it explicitly clear, no matter what argument we had, that the only way out of a private loan was death or XXXX. 

Complaint : XXXX refusal to refund the full amount of payments made on these loans is a blatant disregard of the protections afforded to me under the FTC Holder Rule, as noted in the terms of my promissory note. By approving my school misconduct discharge application, Navient has implicitly acknowledged the fraudulent nature of the educational institution and, therefore, my entitlement to a full refund of all payments made under the compromised loan agreement. 

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that Navients recent Attorney General settlement included provisions for refunding borrowers under similar circumstances involving school misconduct, particularly for loans that had been in default. This settlement underscores Navients recognition of their responsibility to remedy financial harm caused by fraudulent educational institutions. However, in my case, despite my loans not being in default, Navient has unjustly refused to refund the payments I made. The inconsistency in their actions between the settlement agreement and my situation is both unjust and indefensible, demanding immediate correction. 


Demand for Resolution I demand that Navient : 1. Refund the full amount of all payments made towards these loans, including principal and interest, in accordance with the FTC Holder Rule.

2. Provide a detailed accounting of all payments made and the specific reasons for their refusal to issue a full refund.

Failure to address these issues adequately will leave me no choice but to escalate my complaint to additional regulatory bodies, including the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs and the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, and to seek legal recourse to recover the funds wrongfully retained by Navient. 

Conclusion The ongoing financial and emotional distress caused by Navients actions is unacceptable and must be rectified immediately. Why does Navient have borrowers outline in a 14page application, the financial and emotional harm they have suffered paying these loans, only to refuse refunds.

I expect a prompt and comprehensive response to this complaint, detailing the steps Navient will take to comply with its legal obligations under the FTC Holder Rule.