Consumer complaint received 2021-06-10
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: CA
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Don't agree with the fees charged

Complaint:
Firstmark Services XXXX, the servicer of my XXXX student loans, erroneously charged me {$210.00} more than it was supposed to, did not refund that amount, and did not apply it to my student loans interest or principal. The overcharge was a result of several system and human errors accumulated over the period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX - see evidence below. Firstmark never disputed the evidence I submitted in my multiple requests to correct the errors. In fact, all four different customer representatives I spoke to in XX/XX/XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ), admitted the error after going through all the details and promised to correct it. However, Firstmark never corrected it and never followed up. Instead, they kept adding new erroneous charges over and over again each time I complained, the last time writing off {$120.00} of my payments in an openly malicious manner, apparently, in retaliation to my complaints. Firstmark phone customer service takes on average an hour of waiting time per call to reach and oftentimes requires several such calls. Firstmark stopped responding to my complaints by email, the last one sent to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and also did not respond to my request sent over certified mail. 

Below is the detailed step-by-step description of what happened with references to the attached evidence : 1. In XX/XX/XXXX, upon my request, Firstmark switched me to six months of interest-only payments ( forbearance ), subject to auto-debit from my XXXX checking account. On the second of these six billing periods, on XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark charged me {$190.00} instead of {$99.00} - roughly double my regular amount of interest as compared to the previous and subsequent billing periods. The attached " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX '' incorrectly shows {$190.00} in interest charges for the billing cycle XXXX. The previous billing cycle " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX '' shows the correct amount of {$99.00} that should have remained relatively the same through my six months of interest-only payments, as does the next " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX '' that shows {$99.00}. The fact that the XXXX amount of {$190.00} is wrong can also be manually verified by applying my effective interest rate of 2.76 % to my total principal outstanding of {$43000.00} shown on the same " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX XXXX - ( {$43000.00} XXXX 2.76 % / XXXX ) * XXXX = {$96.00}. Note that since I complained about it, Firstmark generated a new ( alternative ) " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX '' for the same billing period of XXXX showing a correct {$96.00} amount that should have been charged instead of {$190.00}, but never refunded the difference. Thus, on XX/XX/XXXX Firstmark owed me approximately {$190.00} - {$96.00} = {$100.00} 2. On XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark made a new billing error, possibly in a failed attempt to correct the previous one. For an unknown reason, they charged me {$62.00} for the billing cycle XXXX instead of roughly {$99.00} that they were supposed to, as shown by the attached " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX XXXX '' Thus, on XX/XX/XXXX Firstmark owed me {$100.00} - ( $ XXXX {$62.00} ) = {$66.00}. 

3. For the billing cycle XXXX, even though the corresponding " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX XXXX shows an incorrect amount of {$62.00}, Firstmark actually charged me the correct amount of {$89.00}, which can be verified through " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Payment History - exported on XXXX XXXX and my XXXX statement " Evidence # XXXX - XXXX statement XX/XX/XXXX XXXX '' Thus, on XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark owed me the same {$66.00} as at the end of the previous billing cycle. 

4. On XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark made the next billing error : added an unexplained " Past Due Amount '' of {$27.00} and an unexplained " Fees '' of {$2.00} which, combined with my regular scheduled payment of {$94.00} resulted in a total of {$120.00} - see " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Account Home Screenshot XXXX ''. This is despite the fact that the corresponding " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark statement XXXX '' incorrectly shows the amount due of {$65.00}. Later on, Firstmark sent me TWO notifications of amount past due : " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark past due notification - XX/XX/XXXX XXXX '' and " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark past due notification - XX/XX/XXXX '' explicitly warning that these " late payments '' " may be reflected on your credit report. '' To minimize further damage, I chose to manually pay the erroneous {$30.00} difference ( in addition to my regular {$94.00} auto-debit ) as can be verified through " Evidence # XXXX - XXXX  statement XX/XX/XXXX XXXX '', " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Account Home Screenshot XXXX '' and " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Payment History - exported on XXXX '' The correct amount for that XXXX billing cycle actually was {$97.00}, which can be manually checked as ( {$43000.00} * 2.71 % / XXXX ) * XXXX = {$97.00}. Thus, on XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark owed me {$66.00} + ( $ XXXX {$97.00} ) = {$93.00}. 

5. On XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark made the next error, this time, I suspect, maliciously in retaliation to the detailed email complaint that I sent on XX/XX/XXXX. They discarded my last two {$30.00} and {$94.00} payments for the total of {$120.00}, i.e., " unapplied '' {$120.00} from the previous partially erroneous interest and fees but did not return {$120.00} back to my XXXX checking account. That caused Firstmark web site to erroneously display {$120.00} as " past due '' - see " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Account Home Screenshot XXXX, '' which prompted me to repeat the {$120.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX to avoid negative credit reporting - see " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Account Home Screenshot XXXX ''. On XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark mailed me a " Notification of Returned Payment '' ( see " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark 'Notification of Returned Payment'.png '' ), erroneously ( or maliciously ) claiming that the payment was " returned '' " because your financial institution was unable to process it. '' That statement is false. Firstmark DID receive this payment, as proven by the attached " Evidence # XXXX - XXXX statement XX/XX/XXXX XXXX '' showing these payments as processed on XX/XX/XXXX, as well as by " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Payment History - screenshot on XXXX '', " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Account Home Screenshot XXXX '', " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark Payment History - exported on XXXX XXXX XXXX and even by that same " Evidence # XXXX - Firstmark 'Notification of Returned Payment'.png '' stating earlier that the payment was received on XX/XX/XXXX. Firstmark never returned that {$120.00} payment. Thus, on XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark owed me {$93.00} + {$120.00} = {$210.00}. 

I want Firstmark to refund me approximately {$210.00} accumulated as a result of erroneous interest charges, fees and discarded payments.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation