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

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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX days after the statement date. 

So let 's walk through this so that XXXX XXXX understands. Per her response to the aforementioned complaints, a statement generated on XXXX XXXX would have a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and be reported to the CRAs for the month of XX/XX/XXXX at the end of the month per XXXX  batch reporting through e-OSCAR. A statement generated on XXXX XXXX would have a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and be reported to the CRAs for the month of XX/XX/XXXX at the end of the month per XXXX  batch reporting through e-OSCAR. A statement generated on XXXX XXXX would have a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and be reported to the CRAs for the month of XX/XX/XXXX at the end of the month per XXXX  batch reporting through e-OSCAR. 

If I discount the fact that the initial billing statement was generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and the next statement was generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a due date of XXXX XXXX, and the pattern thereafter is allegedly consistent, then Ms. XXXX XXXX needs to find yet another semantic dance to explain WHY the CRAs are reporting payment history thru XX/XX/XXXX using the information XXXX has supplied, when the alleged due date for the statement XX/XX/XXXX would not be until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, Ms. XXXX XXXX needs to explain why it is being reported as past-due by at least thirty ( 30 ) or more days, considering that not even the XX/XX/XXXX payment due would be a minimum of thirty ( 30 ) or more days late by the end of XX/XX/XXXX -- it would be three ( 3 ) days late. 

If we now zoom out and look the statement generation in its entirety, it is clear that Ms. XXXX XXXX is attempting to cover up the mistakes of her firm. The first statement date establishes the date at which a statement must be generated for each subsequent statement thereafter. A statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX establishes that the correct pattern would be a statement generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX has a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Yet, what XXXX XXXX did was send the next statement on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. There is no statement covering the XX/XX/XXXX period -- at all. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX reports payment history for both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX as on-time. 

Finally, Ms. XXXX XXXX 's desperation to explain the actions of her institution are quite clear in that she exclaims to me directly " you are not required to receive a billing statement to make a payment. '' That notion is patently false as 12  CFR Part 1026 - Truth in Lending ( Regulation Z ) requires lenders to provide periodic statements, and in particular " 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction '' and establishes the rules under which a statement must be generated and delivered to a consumer. Furthermore, as someone that has worked for the United States Government in some capacity, I can assure Ms. XXXX XXXX that the contracts I entered into with the United States Government most certainly require that I receive timely, factually accurate statements generated by XXXX  within what is permitted under Federal Law. For me to do otherwise would constitute potential national security issue and revocation of any security clearances I may have. Ultimately, it would do Ms. XXXX XXXX some good to understand that my finances are monitored by various portions of the Federal Government at any given time and that matters such as what Ms. XXXX XXXX is purporting, in addition to the way in which XXXX has reported to the CRAs could trigger an investigation for one of those agencies or bureaus, for example the FBI, NCIS, in which Ms. XXXX XXXX, and whomever she reports to would have to explain to the Federal Government why they thought their course of action or statements to the CFPB were valid. In such an instance, all I am required to do is to demonstrate my attempts to correct the behavior and inaccurate information, such as what I'm doing here. 

The notion that payment on an alleged financial obligation is independent of timely and consistent right of notice under due process is demonstrably false per 12 CFR Part 1026. Ms. XXXX XXXX 's assertion that the very essence under which a contract is agreed into regarding disclosures and statements may be violated per the agreement, and pursuant to federal law is false. As a loan entering repayment AFTER the establishment of the CFPB, XXXX statement obligations as interpreted by the CFPB are in effect. 

The fact is I entered into a good-faith agreement with the originator of my loan. That entity is most certainly NOT XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX has demonstrated a consistent pattern of illegal and unethical behavior. I for one will not tolerate being a party to such. 
So, if Ms. XXXX XXXX continues to insist that I should pay on an alleged financial obligation every month without receiving a timely statement in compliance with the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026, I will be notifying the FBI and/or my security assurance officer and she and her institution can deal with whatever consequences should arise out of that. 

Ultimately, Ms. XXXX XXXX needs to review the 12 CFR Part 1026 - Truth in Lending and the consent order issued by the CFPB around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to understand how her behavior and her statements to the CFPB with regards to " investigations '' to my account brings extra scrutiny to her institution and could result in findings of further violations of Federal Law and violations of the consent decree issued against XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX needs to get its act together if it wants to clean up its image -- it could start by cleaning house within the very executive office Ms. XXXX XXXX is a part of. 
A copy of CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 is attached as is a copy of the consent decree.