Product: Debt collection

Navient continues to violate Federal laws located in Truth in Lending, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as well as Telephone Consumer Protection Act against consumer. 

A second packet was mailed out to Navient XX/XX/XXXX detailing every violation and including the Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure, Affidavit of Truth signed and notarized, exhibits to support the Affidavit of Truth, Final debt validation letter and debt validation form, Cease and Desist letter, CFPB first response and feedback, Invoice, and Written Instructions. Keep in mind, this is the SECOND packet to the original packet mailed to Navient on XX/XX/XXXX and proof provided that Navient received original packet on XX/XX/XXXX. Navient only half-responded to the first CFPB complaint and never responded at all to the 1st packet that also included an Affidavit of Truth AND Debt Validation form that they had 30 days to complete and return their own Affidavit of Truth. Navient never formally responded as requested and required yet continue to violate. These violations are as follows : Consumer sent a letter to Navient on XX/XX/XXXX demanding infallible proof that the alleged consumer does indeed owe this alleged debt. Also, in the 2nd to last paragraph on this letter, consumer stated that the only form of communication allowed is via USPS postal mail. Any other from of communication at the time was stated to cease and desist. I have proof this letter was received on XX/XX/XXXX. As shown in Exhibit A, Navient has called 87 times and pursuant to 15 US Code 1692c ( c ), this is the first violation that Navient did not cease and desist phone calls as requested.

Additionally, Navient has relentlessly been abusing consumer by continually causing telephone to ring, annoying consumer, and using profane language in attempts to collect a debt that Navient can't even prove the consumer owes since XX/XX/XXXX. These calls totaled 121. This is direct violation to 15 US Code 1692d ( 5 ).

Additionally, IF consumer owed Navient anything, Navient has not justifiably given a correct amount. All the amounts owed are shown with a positive ( + ) sign or positive sign implied indicating that Navient owes the consumer, not that the consumer owes Navient. In the last letter received from Navient ( without a date but is provided in exhibits, shown on page 49 in the packet as Exhibit C ), Navient said " consumer owed a balance of $ to bring the account current. '' If consumer doesn't owe a balance or if it is positive then that is considered a misrepresentation and pursuant to 15 US Code 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), this is yet another violation. 

Additionally, I have demanded since XX/XX/XXXX, that Navient needs to validate this debt that the consumer allegedly owes. In the packet received XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a debt validation form that I demanded to be returned within 30 days completed 100 % showing that you have any right to collect this alleged debt. As of right now, Navient is improperly trying to collect on an invalidated debt pursuant to 15 US Code 1692g ( a ) ( 4 ). 

Additionally, pursuant to 15 US Code 1692g ( c ), consumer has never admitted liability to any debt that Navient is alleging that the consumer owes.

Additionally, Navient is in violation pursuant to 15 US Code 1692g ( a ) ( 5 ) because Navient is not the original creditor. Navient is showing in forms that Sallie Mae or Sallie Mae Bank is the original creditor. Navient responded to CFPB complaint # XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. In this response, Navient stated that Navient and Sallie Mae are TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES. How can the consumer owe Navient anything if Sallie Mae and Navient are two different companies and " the loan was not sold ''? How did the DIFFERENT company acquire this alleged loan? Consumer requests an audit trail whereas Navient should show a negative amount going out and that same amount going into an account owned by the consumer. Otherwise, Navient is acting as a 3rd party debt collector and falls under Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as there is no formal agreement between Navient and consumer. 

Additionally, Navient has either mailed, emailed, or left attachments of forms in the Navient inbox causing the consumer to believe that they owe Navient a debt. This is direct violation pursuant to 15 US Code 1692j.

Additionally, Navient has not only threatened but actually damaged the reputation of consumer by reporting invalidated alleged debt to all credit reporting agencies. This is a huge violation pursuant to 15 US Code 1692d ( 1 ).

Additionally, Navient sent me a promissory note that does not have Navient 's name on it but alleges the consumer to be the borrower? How is the consumer the borrower? What solid proof does Navient have? Pursuant to 15 US Code 1611 ( 1 ), Navient must have solid proof that the consumer is the actual " borrower ''. Not sure how that can happen with a promissory note showing a " DIFFERENT '' company that has nothing to do with Navient. This is a huge violation in which Navient is CRIMINALLY liable for willfully and knowingly violating. Let it be known, this law is NOT under Fair Debt Collections Practices Act that Navient says " generally '' does not apply to them but Truth in Lending which definitely applies to Navient.

Additionally, finance charge is notated on Exhibit J ( approximately page 47 ). By definition, finance charge is sum of all charges. How is there late fees, interest, or any other miscellaneous fees when there is a finance charge?? Please provide a Certified Final Forensic Internal Audit of said account as requested above under penalty of perjury to validate this alleged debt. Additionally, provide a copy of Navient 's tax registration certificate. With a finance charge included, Navient is in violation of 15 US Code 1605.

Additionally, pursuant to 15 US Code 1640 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ), Navient is civilly liable for twice the amount of the finance charge in connection with damages.

Lastly, pursuant to 47 US Code 227 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ), Navient has blatantly refused to cease calling even after the CFPB complaint # XXXX, in fact Navient continued to call in complete disregard. Navient stated that they generally don't have to abide by FDCPA. ( Since Navient is acting as a 3rd party debt collector, this does not appear to be accurate. ) How and ever, this was added because this is not a FDCPA violation, but a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ) violation as Navient has willfully and knowingly continued to call and violate 19 more times since the original CFPB complaint dated XX/XX/XXXX.