Consumer complaint received 2017-03-25
Company: AES/PHEAA
State: NY
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Trouble with how payments are handled

Complaint:
I received an email notification on XX/XX/XXXX reminding me to pay a bill due XX/XX/XXXX which I have n't received. Upon investigating the matter online, I 've discovered that they had generated a statement for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX different amounts due ; giving me only XXXX business day to pay the XX/XX/XXXX amount. I 've already received a statement dated XX/XX/XXXX that is also due on XX/XX/XXXX. Therefore, receiving XXXX bill statements with XXXX different amounts for the same billing period. It appears that someone from the government approved servicing company is mismanaging my account, with the attempt to cause me to make late payments against my account. 
I called XXXX and spoke to a representative regarding this matter. In our discussion we spoke about the following. 1. The new statement XX/XX/XXXX was generated due to changes made by the department of education data sent to them on XX/XX/XXXX, as per the representative. 
2. She stated that my normal monthly amount was over {$300.00} and that I was supposed to pay that amount instead. I told her that it was not what I was paying after my recertification and it has been less than a year since the recertification and that no changes should be made prior to the year is up. The representative claims that she will have someone look into it, but it did not excuse the amount I had to pay which was over the monthly bill amount prior to the XX/XX/XXXX statement. I paid the amount at the last minute under extreme duress from the threats made by fedloan. 3. She could n't adequately explain why they sent me three bill statements with different amounts for the same period. She did not offer to adjust or correct anything due to their discrepancy. Instead the blame was redirected on me where I was told that I know my due date is on the XXXX. 4. The representative said in order to reduce the monthly amount from what they believe should be over {$300.00} I would have to do the recertification all over again. This will be the XXXX time I am doing a recertification within the scope a year 's period ; XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX servicing ) XX/XX/XXXX ( fedloan servicing ), XX/XX/XXXX ( fedloan servicing ). I received a letter from fedloan in XX/XX/XXXX threatening me to respond with the recertification within 10 days or else they will increase my monthly payment ; which forced me to act within 10 days. 5. I am unclear why I had to do over the recertification indicating " forbearance '' and a {$5.00} in section 6 of the form. I did not have to do that last time to get my reduced monthly bill amount. Yet, I did as instructed and uploaded the documents while the representative was still on the phone. As per the representative, the " forbearance '' will not affect my standing with the loan forgiveness program. Then she suggested to do the employment verification form again, because she believed that my on time payments did n't apply towards the loan forgiveness program. I told her I do n't understand why it would n't. I paid the bill amount on time. She said she would have someone look into that for me and that the employment verification would help have my payments applied towards the loan forgiveness program. This is my second employment verification application within a year. 
I have n't received a response to my questions for the following online email fedloan contact form : 1. XX/XX/XXXX : " ... I was then forced to do another recertification ... '' XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : " ... Why am I getting a notification that I owe XXXX by XX/XX/XXXX? ... " Are there any government officials or employees reviewing and manipulating my account without my knowledge or authority resulting in mismanagement on my account? Or is this conduct solely based on Fedloan organization practices? Is the department of education involved in this type of selective abusive practices, with the malicious intent to destroy borrowers credit?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation