Consumer complaint received 2017-03-17
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: PA
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Having problems with customer service

Complaint:
XXXX : consolidated my student loans with Sallie Mae ( SM ), as a private loan. XXXX, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) program was signed into law. I learned more about this program in XXXX. Because I am a XXXX ( XXXX ) in my county, I called SM in XXXX or XXXX XXXX. I told them of my job, and asked the SM customer service representative if I qualified for PSLF on my then-private loans since I am a XXXX. The SM customer service representative told me that I was eligible for this. At no time did she ever tell me that I had to switch to the Federal Direct Loans ( FDL ) in order to be eligible for PSLF. So, I kept on making payments each month. 
XXXX XXXX, I was planning on going on vacation, and wanted to see if I was ahead with payments. If so, I would skip a payment and then use that for vacation. When I called SM to find out, the customer service representative told me that I was NOT eligible for PSLF program, and that was when I was told that I would have to switch to the FDL. I was furious!!! So for over a year, I debated in my mind how to handle this. I contacted SM, telling them what happened, and that they should do something to rectify this matter. I even stopped at the SM offices in XXXX, DE to drop off a letter, explaining all of this. XXXX ended up having one of the employees call me and essentially tell me there was nothing that can be done to help me. 
I did switch to FDL in XXXX, and started making payment in XXXX XXXX, to XXXX, ironically enough. In the meantime, I wrote my two US senators and my US Representative, telling them about how SM told me in XXXX that I was eligible for PSLF with the private loans I had ; only to turn around and tell me about three years later that I was NOT eligible for PSLF and that I had to switch to FDL. Neither senator nor my congressman would help me. In my complaint, all I was asking was that since SM lied to me in XXXX, that for the payments I made from XXXX XXXX until XXXX XXXX XXXX the last payment made on my private loans ), which was 79 payments, that I wanted the Department of Education ( DOE ) and SM to take these 79 payments, and retroactively apply these payments to the 120 payments that I have to make, so that come XXXX XXXX, if I am still employed as a XXXX and make the remaining 41 payments ( XXXX ), I could get the remainder of my loans forgiven. This way, come XXXX XXXX, when I would make my 120th payment, I would have a zero balance. Of course, no one would help me. 
When my claim was being investigated, SM and DOE claimed that there was no record of me ever calling SM in XXXX, inquiring about my eligibility for PSLF with private SM loans. I can not prove this, but what I suspect is, that if there was a note from the customer service representative in their database, reflecting that I called and what was discussed, and if it indicated that the representative told me that I was eligible for PSLF with private loans, then SM would be responsible ; and I suspect that the note was deleted. This way, if SM were to be investigated and that note from XXXX is not in there, then SM can say that I never called, and that I 'm making this whole story up. 
Since none of the three elected officials would help me, this leads me to believe that SM made campaign contributions to them, in exchange that if any constituents complained to them about SM, then these officials would not take action against SM, given the campaign donations. I suspect a " quid pro quo/pay for play ''. 
So, I am asking that CFPB, as part of the lawsuit against SM, try to get SM/XXXX and the DOE to take my 79 payments I mentioned, and retroactively apply them to my current payments, so I get loan forgiveness in XXXX XXXX. 
Obviously, SM XXXX has done things, hence CFPB 's lawsuit against them. This story can be added to the case against SM XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation