Product: Student loan

In late XX/XX/XXXX I requested a forbearance for my private student loan with Key Bank. The forbearance was approved on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I was notified over the phone on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A letter was allegedly sent shortly thereafter. Key does not handle the servicing of any of their private student loans still in existence and contracts the servicing to XXXX. Moreover, XXXX does not handle any midstream collection activity. That function of the operation is contracted to XXXX. 

Although the forbearance was approved on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Key did not notify XXXX he forbearance was approved. Thus, XXXX marked payments as past-due. on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I contacted XXXX regarding the forbearance approval, and spoke with XXXX. XXXX escalated the issue notifying the appropriate individuals that the forbearance request had been approved. XXXX wrote " Please send request to servicer to process four-month extension that was approved XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, '' and attached a screenshot of the approval. My understanding was the email was being sent to XXXX  for escalation. 

I am not sure how the setup between Key, XXXX, XXXX works. XXXX did not receive approval for the forbearance from Key until on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a forbearance end date of XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX. My understanding is that my co-borrower began receiving conflicting information from Key and XXXX because of the miscommunication. Key sends notices corresponding to ever loan term that a student borrowed from as a separate notice. This implies that every semester in school has a different loan sub-account. My co-borrower, my XXXX ( XXXX ) year old grandfather thus received at least eight ( 8 ) different notifications regarding late payments BEFORE the forbearance approval. Moreover, my understanding is that XXXX began contacting my co-borrower in the interim informing my grandfather the payment was past-due and that all that was needed to place the account into forbearance was for me to contact XXXX. Clearly I'd been in communication with XXXX. And, per the instructions of Key, any request for a forbearance outside of an in-school forbearance would have to be approved by Key. Key would not grant an additional forbearance because my situation was alleged not to be " temporary, '' in that I was not laid off with a return to work date/notice. Key told me that I needed to contact XXXX for any other forbearance programs that were available, WHILE telling my co-borrower " they were willing to work with me. '' When I disclosed I'd been finishing graduate school with long-COVID, I was told XXXX would have forbearance programs for that and that such programs related to COVID would need to go through XXXX. 

The miscommunication with the original forbearance approval, and the subsequent communications from the multiple parties caused my grandfather not to know a payment was past-due. It is my understanding that he believed the student loans were in forbearance based upon the notices sent XXXX. Moreover, it is my understanding that having received communications from Key and/or XXXX stating " they'd work with me, '' any confusion or misunderstanding about the outstanding payments was simply because I had not called XXXX. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX as required by Key, XXXX placed the loan in a default status and returned it to Key. 

Shortly thereafter I noticed the an annotation on my credit report. When I logged into the XXXX web-portal I found that the accounts had a XXXX  ( XXXX ) dollars balance. Concerned that my grandfather had paid of a balance around XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dollars, I contacted XXXX. They informed me the loans had been returned to Key. I explained the miscommunication involving the original forbearance request and the XXXX representative, XXXX, filed a complaint on my behalf, notifying Key Bank of the issues. XXXX then contacted Key with me on the line. I provided the necessary information and consent for the Key representative to discuss my account information with XXXX. That representative stated " clearly this does not sound like an unwillingness to pay but serious miscommunication. '' If I remember correctly, we were then transferred to a different department. I again provided the necessary information and consent. XXXX was willing to take the loan back for servicing. However, the response from the Key representative. She either read the notes the notes in the system that were filed as a part of the complaint XXXX sent to Key on my behalf, and/or the notes conveyed by the first Key representative. She then stated " well we just make arrangements to pay ... '' I explained that I had just finished graduate school and that I was interviewing with potential employers. However, those employers require me to have the ability obtain and maintain a security clearance. I explained the total outstanding amount of the debt was under one ( 1 ) year 's worth of pay with at least one ( 1 ) employer. I offered to provide documentation prior-to graduate school showing my annual salary was just under the amount of the total outstanding balance. However, I explained the charged-off status had created a situation that was less likely for me to be able to obtain the clearance and that I needed to have the loan ( s ) rehabilitated. The individual XXXX and I were speaking with understood what I was saying and needed to transfer me to what I believe was " loss mitigation. '' After around an hour on the phone with Key, with XXXX also on the line from XXXX, the call was dropped by Key in the transfer process. XXXX informed me that she was annotating the notes in XXXX 's system and expressed concern over the process with Key. She apologized, confirmed again that she'd made the notes in XXXX 's system and hoped Key would call me back to address the situation. XXXX and I disconnected amicably and I thanked her for her assistance. Despite the complaint lodged against key by XXXX on my behalf, and despite the notes in the system, I have received no further communication from Key. Additionally Key has begun reporting the account as charged-off to the CRAs. Clearly the entirety of the situation constitutes unfair practices. However, the practices by Key are equally abusive for my cosigner because they wrongfully take advantage of a XXXX XXXX XXXX man that has received different instructions and streams of information from the Loan originator, loan servicer, and mid-stream collections agent, which could no place his financial assets at risk depending on the decisions of Key. There has never been unwillingness to pay on my co-borrower 's part during the period over which I have been ill or in the process of transitioning from graduate school back into industry. Unfortunately, there has been serious miscommunication that has caused serious confusion.