Product: Student loan

On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a letter specifying the specific way in which I would like to apply any payments greater than the minimum amount due. The document attached outlines an approach called the " Snowball '' and " Avalanche '' methods. I received a message from Navient stating that I would have to re-submit these instructions each time I made a payment on my student loan in excess of the minimum payments for each loan line item. 

Due to the note stating that I would need to re-submit my letter with any excess payments, I called customer service to see if there was an easier way to accomplish this. XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the XXXX loan line item in its entirety and asked a customer service representative to help me accomplish the following : A. Apply the former minimum payment that I had been paying for XXXX to loan line item XXXX. 
B. Increase my monthly payment from X to Y. 
C. Ensure that the additional monthly payment was applied specifically to loan line item XXXX. 
I was told this would not be a problem after a long conversation explaining precisely how I would like the increases to be applied and referenced the letter attached. 

XX/XX/XXXX, I called again because my monthly payment for XX/XX/XXXX had decreased despite discussing an increase with the Customer Service Representative at the beginning of XXXX. The Representative explained that these changes take time to process and assured me that I would see these changes on my XX/XX/XXXX statement. After this Customer Service Representative also confirmed that everything was fine and would proceed as planned, I saw the correct amount deducted and was re-assured. I was n't aware that Navient was applying my excess payments across all of my loan line items. For the past 6 months, the additional payment that should have been applied to line item XXXX was not and was split across the entirety of my loan. 

XX/XX/XXXX, I realized this was the case and called customer service the next morning. I spent an hour and four minutes on the phone with a representative to be told that I can not apply automated extra payments to a specific line item, in direct contradiction with what I was told by XXXX individuals on the phone in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. They also said that there was no way to " reallocate '' or " redistribute '' the excess payments that had been incorrectly applied across all of my loans to the correct loan ( XXXX ) without marking my account as " Past Due. '' When I asked them why the representatives I had spoken with XX/XX/XXXX had not notified me that what I had requested was something they could not accommodate, they had no answer other than to check permissions on my profile. Finally, when I asked them why I can not be in control of how my money is allocated they were unable to provide an answer other than, " You are paying down the principle and making headway on your loan - you 're in good shape. '' This is not the point at all - there is a better, more proactive, solution to eradicating my debt and I am being barred from it. 

At this point I am frustrated and have spent several hours on the phone with customer service to no avail. I have been proactive in paying off my debt and have prioritized eradicating my high interest debt first. While I understand that Navient is a business, erecting barriers to ensure that students remain in debt longer is predatory. Most students will not make a simple phone call to ensure their debt is paid off logically, but for those who do Navient should be able to accommodate them. Being told that opting into an automated monthly payment means that I can not specify how excess payments are applied is unacceptable. It leaves me wondering if the practices and principles that caused XXXX XXXX to re-brand as Navient are still in practice.