Consumer complaint received 2020-05-01
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: VA
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account status incorrect

Complaint:
Nelnet there are several violations. I will bring 2 to your attention and demand you do the right thing and correct your records by removing the 2 { two } 90 day late payments. As my loan should have been in deferment. See Section 809 { b } 15 U.S.C & 1692g { b } states if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the 30 days period disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or verification of the debt or any copy of a judgement.

You have failed to provide proper validation in accords to the law. You have NOT provided me a copy of ANY original documentation ( a consumer contract with my signature on it ) as required under Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).

Nelnet both accounts should be showing 0 late payments as my student loan should of been reflecting 0 late payments and you should immediately remove the 90 days late payment from both accounts as my loans should of reflected my student loan payments were in deferment. I have requested you to update your records as my student loan was in deferment. I notified the associate at Nelnet back in early XXXX and was told the error was to be corrected. Nelnet you then sent me a letter long after the 30 day period allow by law stating you decided not to change the status due to regulations promulgat-ed by the DOE and FCRA.. but did without proper reason, Contrary to these assertions, by failing to update previously reported information, Nelnet is now in violation of Sec-tion 623 { a } { 2 } of the FCRA I have attached an FTC advisory opinion which interprets Sec-tion 623 { a } { 2 } of the FCRA. The issue posed in the advisory opinion is how a lender is to handle a situation when subsequent information updates a report that was allegedly ac-curate when it was made but no longer is accurate in the present time. The advisory opinion states that the section 623 { a } { 2 } of the FCRA addresses the duty to correct and update information by " furnishers '' or persons furnish information to consumer report-ing agencies { CRA } such as credit bureaus. In particular, this section requires a person that has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person deter-mines is not complete or accurate to promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide any information needed to make it complete and accu-rate. Thus, on its face, this provision requires a furnisher to provide corrected or updat-ed information to the consumer reporting agency that it had reported to originally. This duty extends to all student loan accounts reported to CRA 's regardless of whether they were accurate at one point, because the section requires the furnisher both to " update '' accounts as well as to " correct '' Nelnet Representative later told me that because the delinquent payments were accu-rately reported in XXXX XX/XX/2019 that any subsequently initiated deferments would not allow for Nelnet to update reports to CRA 'S to show that the payments were NOT late and actually in deferment { even though they originally acknowledge it should of been reflecting deferment status }. However Section 623 { a } { 2 } clearly shows that the reports must be updated/ corrected regardless of whether they were supposedly accu-rate at one point** { FOR THE RECORD, I do not agree at all that You NELNET EVER ac-curately reported the status of my student loans. Given the fact you failed to provide proper documentation and validation of my requests within section 809b and 609 ( a } or even can find the original signature pages of paper work and my original requests leaves me to suspect a processing error on behalf of NELNET. In addition to the possible section 623 { a } { 2 } Claim, I Intend on filing a suit against Nelnet and any Credit Bureau who does not correct the accounts to show 0 late pays as there was an error with pro-cessing of my deferment.. I requested full validation and ask proof that my student loan was to come out of deferment and proof NelNet contacted to me to let me know they wanted to change my status and the legal right that they can do that without my consent or notification. I ask for my original paperwork with my signature, proof of my original deferment paper work and you are unable to provide my signature pages showing it to come out of deferment and provide proof I never requested for it to stay in deferment during that time when I sent in the original paper work within the proper timeframe. I received no answer with proper validation and now more than 30 days has pass. I ask you to follow the law section section 809 { b }, 15 USC & 1692g { b }. Section 623 { a } { 2 } My credit reports do not currently accurately reflect previous payment statues with Nelnet, both as they actually existed and as Nelnet has recorded them. I am thus re-questing in compliance with section 623 { a } { 2 } of the FCRA that the both student loan accounts reflecting 90-120 late payment in XXXX be updated and or corrected and or removed. In the event that these reports are not immediately updated to accurately reflect my payment status during XX/XX/2019, I intend on filing a Law Suit in addi-tion to filing complaints with FTC, XXXX and any other means necessary. I Will be seeking the absolute MAX the law allows along with punitive damages and defamation of char-acter. I strongly suggest you consult your Legal Department today. You have 15 days to respond to this letter in writing from the day you receive this letter. If I do not hear back from you with your decision to Remove the two 90-120 late pay accounts I will not hesi-tate to seek Legal Action. 
I look forward to a peaceful solution I look forward to an unpeaceful solution XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation