Product: Student loan

The following statement cites and corresponds with a previous report filed against Navient Solutions , Inc. as of XXXX XXXX, 2016. The issues that will be addressed are in regards to the inaccuracies of Navient 's online account information and mishandling of clientele monetary withdrawals. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, I was transferred through Navient 's telephone representatives to speak with their Collections department, where I further exchanged information with a representative by the name XXXX ( Note : last name involuntarily provided ). This representative stated the company was unable to provide renewed Forbearance as per Navient 's specifications of privatized lending. Alternate options were subsequently offered to be reviewed, with XXXX parties in agreement. After a series of questions regarding my financial assessments, XXXX then offered enrollment into Navient 's Rate Reduction Program, which would alter my current interest rate to a new rate of 7 %, and lower my current payments to {$350.00}, as of XXXX 2016. This information was verifiably recorded as immediately effective. The recorded conditions of the Rate Reduction Program are as follows : The Navient client in question will need to provide a verifiable bank account and sign up for Auto-Pay in order for the company to withdraw XXXX consecutive payments under the new amount. I have received corresponding electronic documentation which indicates the specifications of the Rate Reduction Program. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, the online account information listed as unchanged according to the new parameters Navient Solutions XXXX Inc. provided via phone and electronic documentation. The only changes that were noted as immediately effective were the inclusion of Auto-Pay setup, and previous contact information now updated. Evidence of conflict was also noted by way of the Auto-Pay being indicated that it would become effective as of XXXX XXXX, 2016, as opposed to what was stated over the phone. The payment amount required in the online account was also left unchanged, as it reflected the statement of {$430.00}. A charge was personally made in this amount due to the website 's absence of indication of any payment adjustment to the recorded {$350.00}. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, Navient failed to provide proof of contact ( Note : as cited in their disclosure of the Rate Reduction Program document ) before proceeding to withdraw an additional {$350.00} via a check created by Navient, as documented in banking activity via the bank account which was provided for the establishment of Navient 's Auto-Pay system. The bank in question was contacted the same business day. My personal payment of {$430.00} was reimbursed, negating the overcharge and coinciding with the new financial parameters verified by both the Auto-Pay amount, and all previous consensual communication between the XXXX parties. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, the specified conflict of the account in question is reinforced by both a new Past Due amount of {$89.00}, and a Late Fee of {$21.00}, which was filed under this account. Navient was contacted promptly the following business day. When spoken to, a representative reviewed the account in question. It was verified that the account in question was listed as Current according to the Rate Reduction Program 's required amount of {$350.00}, and a Fee Reversal was signified to post in XXXX four business days, and stated contact to her supervisor in regards to the current activity. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, accessing the online account confirmed that no Fee Reversal was established, and the account in question still specified a Past Due amount of {$89.00}. This amount is reflected in XXXX 's required payment of {$520.00}, with the Past Due amount having been included in the obsolete amount of {$430.00}. The alleged inaccuracies have been documented for legal accountability, as the online account poorly reflects the business.