Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

From XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  until XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  XXXX mailed billing statements to addresses that I do not live at, some of which I have not lived at in over fifteen ( 15 ) years. While XXXX may claim they do not know about such issues, they have been made aware on at least three ( 3 ) occasions, as they have been the basis of CFPB complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, directly sent to XXXX. Moreover, XXXX has also been notified of it's failure to send statements to the correct address through at least one ( 1 ) XXXX  dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ), one ( 1 ) XXXX dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ), and one ( 1 ) TransUnion dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ) , all of which were filed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  along with CFPB complaint XXXX. Those disputes and their CFPB responses all claimed XXXX  had verified the " accuracy '' of the payment history furnished to the CRAs, when XXXX knows, or has had reasonable cause to believe they were not sending statements to my correct mailing address. In fact, XXXX  acknowledged they resorted to skip-tracing as a result of an alleged returned piece of mail in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX. And, since XXXX conducted their skip-tracing haphazardly, one piece of mail that is alleged returned caused the system to randomly select another address from some ethereal list of prior addresses. Each subsequent mailing that resulted in returned mail then caused XXXX 's system to randomly change to a different address where I do not currently reside. Thus, a chain of failures to deliver statements resulted due to a single piece of mail being accidentally returned or lost by USPS in XXXX. Within the last two ( 2 ) months I have spoken with a XXXX  customer service representative who stated she'd personally seen XXXX  systems behaving in this manner leading to borrowers not receiving their billing statements. In fact, in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  response to XXXX, XXXX  alleged they verified the validity of a current mailing address for me in the State of FL, a state I had not lived in since XXXX, claiming no returned mail from that address constituted the address as a valid mailing address for me. Any reasonable individual would conclude verification of an address using XXXX  's method is a poor method for verifying the current mailing address of an individual because it expects a third-party ( unrelated to the account in question ) to notify the USPS that an individual does not live at the address to which a statement is mailed. If this were an open-ended account XXXX  's practice would fail as a reasonable billing error investigation method under 15 U.S.C. 1666. The fact is XXXX  has resorted to skip-tracing WITHOUT verifying the accuracy of the pool of possible addresses and expected that a third-party individual with no interest in the matter would take the time to notify XXXX  and/or USPS that the borrower no longer resides ( if ever ) at the address. As consequence, a piece of mail sent to an address that is returned causes XXXX  's system to randomly select another address using skip-tracing, without verifying accuracy, resulting in a cascading effect even after a borrower may have provided and/or corrected information for a current address on one ( 1 ) or more occasions. Now, make no mistake TILA/Regulation Z requires XXXX  to mail periodic statements at steady intervals whose due date is established by that printed on the the first statement generation date when the loan enters repayment ( ). However, that statement must be mailed to the borrower ( at a current mailing address ) in order to establish the first cycle. In my case it is very possible XXXX  mailed a notice that my student loans would be entering repayment, and upon return of that notice, the system resorted to skip-tracing beginning from my first statement. XXXX may claim the accounts they service are closed-ended accounts and as such those accounts are not subject to the timing of payments requirements specified in 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( b ). Nevertheless the lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX, acknowledges a minimum twenty ( 20 ) day interval between the statement generation date and statement due date in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaints { XXXX, XXXX and XXXX }, " you were still provided the required 20-days between our notice date and your first payment due date ''. XXXX claims the provisions under the original MPN do not permit a borrower to claim a failure to receive statements as a defense to non-payment on the student loan. And, it is true, as XXXX  points out, there exists language in Section E.2 of the MPN that states " I am not relieved of my responsibility and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements. and any other written payment notices from you. '' While quoting this provision in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  response to CFPB complaint XXXX, XXXX  conveniently makes a serious omission in the language of the MPN. The portion of Section E to which XXXX  refers establishes the aforementioned non-receipt of statement provision only after declaring what the lender/servicer must do. In fact, the opening sentence of E.2 reads " During the Repayment Period, you will send me monthly statements, coupons, or other notices that show the amounts of minimum monthly payments and the payment due dates. '' In other words, the opening sentence establishes a borrowers right of notice : to be notified on a monthly basis about the status of their loan account ( s ) such that they may review the payment required for the current billing cycle, and review any payments, charges, and adjustments made to the account since the end of the previous billing cycle. This is all the more important because although the loan in question is a student loan, it has an adjustable interest rate, like an open-ended line of credit such as that attached to a credit card and as such adjusts with the change interest rates set by the Federal Reserve . It then follows that given the XXXX XXXX acknowledgment of a minimum twenty ( 20 ) day interval between statement generation date and statement due-date in response to CFPB complaints { XXXX,, }, and given the MPN Section E.2 obligation of the lender/servicer to send periodic statements on a monthly basis, that although the account in question pertains to a closed-ended account, any reasonable individual would construe the lender would send statements that are compliant with TILA/Regulation Z on a periodic ( monthly ) basis with a minimum duration between statement generation date and statement due date that is not less than twenty ( 20 ) days, which is one ( 1 ) day less than what is required under TILA/Regulation Z for open-ended ( credit card ) accounts. Finally, it is not without mentioning the abusiveness in XXXX 's response to CFPB complaint XXXX. I am a XXXX individual that manages a XXXX with medication that has been in short supply since XX/XX/XXXX. I am also an individual that was recovering from XXXX when my loan entered repayment. I have experienced XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) as a part of XXXX, which on its own and in conjunction with long delays in renewing medication, has rendered me unable to communicate over certain periods due to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. That XXXX would repeatedly send statements to incorrect addresses and then report missed payments to the CRAs is not only a furnishing of false/misleading/inaccurate information, but is also abusive. I repeatedly notified XXXX directly through CFPB complaints and through the CRAs of their failure to send statements to my correct address. I also corrected my address on more than one occasion with XXXX  only o have it overwritten due to errant skip-tracing. That after doing such on multiple occasions XXXX would seek to paint me as " another individual that is habitually unable to pay their bills, '' and then furnish derogatory information to the CRAs, is abusive. The fact is I have done everything I am supposed to do to protect my interests. Yet there is a limit to which I can protect my interests if periodic statements are not mailed to me. XXXX has engaged in unfair, unlawful, and abusive acts and practices that have harmed me as a consumer, for which the harm is magnified for me as a XXXX individual. At this point XXXX knows, or has reasonable cause to believe the information they are furnishing to the CRAs is false/misleading/inaccurate under 15 U.S.C. 1681e as result of their engagement in unlawful acts and practices that are prohibited under 12 U.S.C. 5531.