Consumer complaint received 2015-05-28
Company: AES/PHEAA
State: NJ
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Non-federal student loan
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Don't agree with fees charged

Complaint:
School : XXXX, XXXX, SC. XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX have submitted many complaints regarding my student loans, the most recent being case # XXXX, from which the following excerpt comes : '' Sale Agreement indicates that on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Bank was among the lenders who sold loans to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NCT ) for purchase ... Please be advised that whatever further documentation AES is able to obtain, the transfer in ownership of your loans has no connection to your allegations of " predatory lending '', the basis of which was unsubstantiated in your inquiry. " To begin, per XXXX, originator of my loan ( pg. XXXX of form XXXX attached ) : " We also sell mortgage and other loans through XXXX market securitizations. In certain cases, we may retain a portion or all of the securities issued, interest-only strips, XXXX or more subordinated tranches, servicing rights and, in some cases, cash reserve accounts, all of which are considered retained interests in the transferred assets. Our loan sales and securitizations are generally structured without recourse to us and with no restrictions on the retained interests. " This suggests that no real " sale '' occurred here at all, given that XXXX states that they may retain ALL all securities achieved in the " sale '' of their loans via XXXX market securitizations. For example, both my XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX loans were securitized via the National Collegiate Funding into the National Collegiate Trusts XXXX and XXXX respectively, and both loans were included in a group of loans known as the TRUST STUDENT LOANS. Such loan securities are intentionally retained by the originator ( XXXX XXXX because they are the most prevalent source of excessive interest charges that create the most handsome returns. This is all explained in extensive detail in the prospectus I have attached for National Collegiate Trust XXXX. Regarding the suggestion of predatory lending that was previously described as " unsubstantiated '' in the response to my previous complaint to the CFPB : " If the loans were marketed or serviced in a manner that is unfair or deceptive or if marketing, origination or servicing violated any applicable federal or state law, then unfair and deceptive acts may impose liability on the loan holder, as well as creating defenses to enforcement. Recent investigations of the student loan industry, including relationships between lenders and college financial aid officers, may increase the likelihood that marketing methods relating to student loans, including trust student loans, are challenged as unfair or deceptive ... .state and federal regulatory authorities, including the Attorney General of of the state of New York XXXX have sought information regarding some of our clients ... it is possible that some marketing or underwriting practices associated with these programs will be challenged.. '' These loans were my very XXXX source of credit, and per the aforementioned prospectus, " Many of the TRUST STUDENT LOANS have been priced by lenders using a so called " risk based pricing '' methodology in which borrowers with lower credit worthiness are charged higher prices. '' i.e. my rights under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act were compromised and I was/continue to be charged handsomely for it. Though NCT did n't directly originate my loans, they still profit from them and those of everyone else like me. To deny responsibility for this because the loans were transferred to them from elsewhere is asinine. Especially considering their XXXX trust SEC filing ( attached ), which includes the following " for the initial interest period the LIBOR rate will be determined by the following formula : + ( ( XXXX ) * ( y-x ) ) .. '' The innocent do n't collaborate on LIBOR index manipulation, THEY ONLY SUFFER FROM IT. Right the wrongs incurred upon me, or your wrongs will be written far worse than they are here.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation