Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

Navient Re  : Late Payment Removal/ Ref #  XXXX  This correspondence is in response to the  XX/XX/XXXX  letter I received regarding my goodwill request to have late payments removed from my   credit score report. In the letter I was told that such reports could not be removed due to regulations promulgated by the DOE and the FCRA. Contrary to these assertions, by failing to update previously reported information, Navient is in violation of Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA.
I have attached an FTC advisory opinion which interprets Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA. The issue posed in the advisory opinion is how a lender is to handle a situation when subsequent information updates a report that was allegedly accurate when it was made but no longer is accurate in the present time ( i.e., the identical situation I am currently in ).
The advisory opinion states that the Section 623 ( a ) (   2 ) of the FCRA addresses the duty to
correct and update information by furnishers, or persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRA ) such as credit bureaus. In particular, this section requires a person that has furnished to consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate to promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide any information needed to make it complete and accurate. Thus, on its face, this provision requires a furnisher to provide corrected or updated information to the consumer reporting agency that it had reported to originally. This duty extends to all student loan accounts reported to CRAs, regardless of whether they were accurate at one point, because the section requires the furnisher both to update accounts as well as to correct.
Previous representatives told me that because the delinquent payments were accurately reported in  XX/XX/XXXX  and  XX/XX/XXXX  and  XX/XX/XXXX  that any subsequently initiated deferments would not allow updating reports to CRAs to show that the payments were not late and actually in deferment. However, Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) clearly shows that the reports must be updated/corrected regardless of whether they were accurate at one point. * I have requested previous documentation of such late fees from your company and have yet to receive documentation from those dates which includes a total of  XXXX  loans being reported late and in a negative status.     All of those student accounts that were part of the  XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX  and  XX/XX/XXXX  late payments show deferment status because the company put it in deferment. I never received notice of loans going into payment status whatsoever. Also, I was enrolled full time before any payment became due. Therefore, my credit reports do not currently accurately reflect previous payment statuses with never late as they actually existed and as Navient have recorded them. Also around  XX/XX/XXXX  is when Navient officially became my service provider from transitioning over from  XXXX   XXXX  which reflects some discrepancies as if the items were not reported correctly due to changing over. I am thus requesting that in compliance with Se ction 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA th at the  XXXX  accounts showing  a 90 and  120 day late payment in  XX/XX/XXXX  and  XX/XX/XXXX , as well as a 150 day late payment in  XX/XX/XXXX  be updated and/or corrected and removed.   In the event that these reports are not immediately updated to accurately reflect my payment status durin g  XX/XX/XXXX  and  XX/XX/XXXX  I inten d on filing disputes again with each credit bureau in addition to official complaints with the FTC, BBB, and pursue other legal routes if necessary.   Please respond within 14 days of the date of this letter with an update to this matter.   Very Truly Yours,  XXXX   XXXX   *Footnote :  For the record, I do not agree that Navient ever accurately reported the status of my loans. Since my  XX/XX/XXXX  email, I have discovered that all other loans during that time were processed the deferment leaving me to suspect a processing error on beha lf of Navient. In addition to the possible Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) claim, I int end on disputing the processing of my deferment if need be.