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

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  instructed XXXX to place my student loan accounts into a CO status after XXXX failed to timely process a forbearance and notify its servicer and midstream collections agent. As a result, XXXX 's negligence caused disparate streams of information to be sent to both the borrower and co-borrower regarding the status of the loan accounts. XXXX alleges that no harm to a consumer took place as result of their processing error. That is, XXXX provided a response that suggests they processed a deferment and backdated it accordingly, including in their attachments a reproduction of the approval notification with the date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However, XXXX failed to acknowledge they outsource the servicing of this loan product to XXXX and XXXX handles the billing, to include statement generation. They further did not disclose they hired an entirely different company to handle midstream collections. I have suffered harm as a result of XXXX 's negligence in processing the loan forbearance and providing timely notification to their servicer such that the servicer could generate accurate statements and establish a periodic billing cycle as required under TILARegulation Z. It is based upon the haphazard handling of the matter that XXXX instructed XXXX to supply information to the CRAs, and then based upon that same information that XXXX began reporting the account in CO status after the account was returned by XXXX to XXXX XXXX generating a document allegedly around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, notifying a borrower and/or co-borrower of forbearance approval is moot if their servicer, which processes payments, and handles billing and billing generation, is not provided accurate information in a timely manner such that the servicer may generate accurate billing statements and billing notifications in accordance with TILARegulation Z. In this particular instance, XXXX was not made aware of the approval until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, with the first bill being allegedly due on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Any mailed notification would be received near the alleged due date of the first bill and lead a reasonable individual to believe the forbearance was backdated and pushed through the date of the approval notice such that the first bill due-date would be approximately thirty ( 30 ) days after the date of the approval notice. No first bill was provided to establish the periodic statement period as required under TILARegulation Z because XXXX failed to provide reasonable notice regarding the processing of the forbearance, making an alleged first bill due six ( 6 ) days after the update approval notice. In response to CFPB XXXX XXXX acknowledged the errors but dismissed the effect those errors may have upon a consumer. XXXX provided enclosures as if to indicate a periodic billing cycle had been established with past-due payment notices. The notices XXXX provided as enclosures reflect dates XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, exclusive. That is, there are zero past-due reminder notices. This would imply that at some point the accounts were brought current commensurate with fixing the earlier billing errors. This is the epitome of providing contradictory/false/misleading information to a consumer. Whats more egregious is that it is based upon this type of disparate information that XXXX expected XXXX to report accurate information to the CRAs. There are three ( 3 ) aggravating factors in this particular case. First, although XXXX was responsible for producing payment notices, XXXX sent a separate stream of notices that contradicted the information conveyed by XXXX. To complicate matters, a third stream of information was relayed by the firm XXXX hired to handle " midstream collections '', XXXX, who does not send out notices, but contacts individuals by phone. That third firm made statements such as XXXX " willing to work with borrowers and co-borrowers, '' with the borrower contacting XXXX, and subsequently being told by XXXX they needed to contact XXXX. Second, in this particular instance, the co-borrower is an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX year old. Meaning that the stream of misinformation XXXX engaged, that would harm any reasonable consumer, was abusive, as the XXXX ( XXXX ) year old individual was expected to process three ( 3 ) different disparate streams of information for one ( 1 ) set of loan accounts. What makes it particularly predatory is that XXXX, if it so chose, could attempt file a lawsuit in state or Federal court and force the co-borrower to liquidate assets. Alternatively, XXXX, could use the same tactic, but wait until the death of the co-borrower and attempt to make a claim against the co-borrowers estate. Again that is both abusive and predatory. Third, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IN my particular case I was suffering from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' My suggestion for remedy in XXXX was rehabilitation of the loan with the conditions outlined in the XXXX, a correction of the information supplied to the CRAs, and a co-borrower release after six ( 6 ) months of on-time payments. I explained it was in both my interest and XXXX 's interest to do such as my ability to repay the loan was contingent upon my ability to obtain and/or maintain a security clearance as a part of potential employment. XXXX declined and was again dismissive. To be clear, I have received a job offer that requires an ability to obtain and or maintain a security clearance, a job that I am unlikely to ultimately be take because a credit check would flag me as a security risk because of the status and amount of the XXXX XXXX loan. That key would decline to rehabilitate the loan or provide terms for rehabilitation that counters what I suggested, indicates an indifference to the harm they have caused me, an individual considered XXXX under the XXXX. This makes the actions of XXXX XXXX  additionally abusive.