Consumer complaint received 2019-01-21
Company: AES/PHEAA
State: MS
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Trouble with how payments are being handled

Complaint:
In the summer of XXXX, I applied for Public Servant Loan Forgiveness using form OMB No. XXXX so that my payments could begin being tracked as qualifying payments. I began employment as a XXXX employee on XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, my loan was transferred from XXXX to XXXX XXXX. My first payment due at XXXX was in XX/XX/XXXX. The payment count on that initial monthly statement showed five qualifying payments fro seven of eight loans ( only two qualifying payments for one of my eight loans, Loan G ). 

The correct payment count as of XX/XX/XXXX should have been 29 for seven of the eight loans. Full payment was made in every month from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX except for in XX/XX/XXXX ( applied for IBR a month late and it caused us not to be billed one month ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( PSLF application caused the transfer from XXXX to XXXX and we weren't billed that month ). For Loan G, the correct number of qualifying payments as of XX/XX/XXXX was 23. I was making extra payments on Loan G in XXXX which caused me to not receive a bill. The intent was for those payment to be applied to principal. Instead, they were held as an early payment and simply caused me to not receive a bill on the loan in multiple months. Since I was on Autopay, it's  not something I really noticed. I made large payments on Loan G in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. All other months of XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, no bill was received and no payment was made, so I understand I receive no credit for payment in those months. That puts Loan G six payments behind the rest of the loans ( it would be seven, but no loan was paid in XX/XX/XXXX per above statements ). 

We requested a review of the PSLF payments in XX/XX/XXXX. We were told the review would take around 90 days and that XXXX would contact us after it was complete. We heard nothing by XX/XX/XXXX, so called again. Spoke with rep XXXX ( XXXX ) who indicated she would review the payments manually from XX/XX/XXXX to present. 

By XX/XX/XXXX, we decided to call again. Spoke with XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX saw the review was submitted and indicated it would take 90 days and they would reach out to us when they had more info. 

We submitted another PSLF form ( OMB No XXXX ) in XX/XX/XXXX per federal guidance the a form be submitted annually to maintain the PSLF credit record. 

In late summer XXXX, we called again. Spoke with XXXX ( XXXX ) who noted the review began in XX/XX/XXXX ( which is incorrect - it should have begun in XX/XX/XXXX ). She could not give us any other information so we asked to speak to a supervisor. Transferred to XXXX  ( XXXX ), XXXX  could see that there was activity since XX/XX/XXXX and indicated that certain documentation was missing, but could not tell us what documentation was needed. XXXX  sent a request to management to expedite the review. She also indicated there was one month of non-payment in XX/XX/XXXX, which we agree with. XXXX said there is a third party organization the reviews the PSLF credits and they were working on a new process that may be slowing the review down. 

On XX/XX/XXXX we received notice that the PSLF form was incomplete. After review, we saw that the form was missing the first page. 

On XX/XX/XXXX a new PSLF from ( OMB No XXXX ) was submitted. It was approved on XX/XX/XXXX but the letter from XXXX did not indicate the number of qualifying payments recorded. The next XXXX bill received was XX/XX/XXXX and still indicated the original count of 5 payments. 

The bill received on XX/XX/XXXX showed a new count, but it was still incorrect. It showed 19 qualifying payments ( 16 for Loan G ). This indicated to me that they recorded the payments made in the last year and two months between applications but had not reviewed the original count to apply additional payments made since XX/XX/XXXX. 

Still having not been contact by XXXX, my husband called again on XX/XX/XXXX. It's now been 15 months since the review began. He spoke with XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX could only say that the review was ongoing and they would contact us when it was complete. My husband asked to speak to a supervisor and received Escalate Agent XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX indicated the review would take 12-15 months and that we should call back in the summer, that being 15 months after our XXXX XXXX call. Per an article we read on XXXX, we requested to speak to a XXXX Borrower Servicing Advocate. XXXX told us he was the highest level of employee that we could speak to and that we could write a letter to the Ombudsman Group if we wanted. We asked if we were to contact the CFPB would that change things, and XXXX would not comment on that other than stating there was no way to expedite the review and that we should continue to wait. 

As of the last PSLF form approval of XX/XX/XXXX, the correct number of payments should be 43 on the first seven loans and 37 on Loan G. This excludes the last two payment made since that form was approved. I have documentation of every bill paid dating back to XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has not asked for any additional documentation and can never give an answer regarding when this review will be completed or what is needed to help them correctly count the payments. We are at a complete loss as to the next steps we can take to get them to move on this issue, so we are contacting the CFPB in the hopes that will incentivize XXXX to take action.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation