Consumer complaint received 2023-12-30
Company: MOHELA
State: NJ
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report
Sub-issue: Reporting company used your report improperly

Complaint:
*** Attached is a PDF version of this complaint should formatting be an issue *** Concerned Parties : Missouri Higher Educ Loan Auth ( MOHELA/XXXX ) Re : Request for Correction Account # : XXXX Complaint Details : I, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, am contacting you regarding the below items on the above account. The reporting of these items evidence violations of federal law. I have enumerated these violations in further detail in sections ( A ) through ( C ) below. Each item is numbered in the attached marked copy of my recent credit report for reference. 


Payment History/Rating : ** ( see attachment 1 ) ** ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Background : In XX/XX/XXXX, facing the culmination of a prolonged two-year period of unemployment exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and having exhausted my unemployment benefits, I engaged in a conversation with Mohela in efforts to explore viable options under the prevailing circumstances. This dialogue resulted in my enrollment in Mohela 's Unemployment Reduced Repayment Option, a program tailored to provide temporary relief through reduced monthly payments.

The accommodation, a direct response to my financial hardship enabled me to adhere to a modified payment schedule during this challenging phase. By XX/XX/XXXX, I had successfully navigated back to my regular payment schedule. 

However, in XX/XX/XXXX, upon meticulous review of my credit report, I encountered an unexpected revelation - the report reflected delinquencies for the months of XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This discovery was particularly disconcerting as it contradicted my understanding of the provisions under the XXXXARES Act, which, to my knowledge, should have precluded the reporting of such adverse information. Compounding this issue was the absence of any form of written notice from Mohela regarding the reporting of this negative information, a lapse that raises significant concerns about compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements and the overall integrity of the credit reporting process.

( A ) : Violation of FCRA Provisions During COVID-19 Pandemic Accommodation Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ), the law is unequivocal : if a furnisher, like Mohela in my case, extends an accommodation to a consumer, and the consumer adheres to the terms of this accommodation, the obligations or account must be reported as current. The failure of Mohela to adhere to this mandate, in my situation, is not only a glaring oversight but a direct contravention of the FCRA.

The agreement between Mohela and I enacting their Unemployment Reduced Repayment Option ( **See Attachment 2** ) constituted an accommodation*** given that, per the CARES Act definition, the coverage period extended through XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX. Despite adhering to the new payment terms, Mohela 's subsequent reporting of my monthly credit obligation failed to reflect the mandated " current '' or PAANL status. This misreporting occurred despite my account being brought to a current status during the accommodation period*****, which should have triggered a reporting adjustment reported as stipulated under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) ( ii ) ( bb ).

In light of these violations, I demand that you take immediate corrective action by 1. Modifying items ( 1-3 ) to PAANL or Paid on Time ( B ) : Failure to Provide Required Notice of Negative Information Contrary to the obligations outlined in 15 USC 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ), Mohela neglected its duty to provide written notice to me prior to, or within 30 days after, reporting negative information to credit bureaus. Upon discovering adverse entries on my credit report, I conducted a meticulous review of all my billing statements, separate correspondences, and electronic records. This thorough examination revealed a complete absence of the legally required notification from Mohela concerning the reporting of this negative information.

This omission not only represents a significant lapse in compliance with the FCRA but also deprived me of the opportunity to address or rectify the issues preemptively. Such an oversight is particularly consequential, given the substantial impact of negative credit reporting on a consumer 's financial health. This breach necessitates immediate attention and corrective action to rectify the resulting inaccuracies in my credit report and to ensure compliance with the FCRAs stringent consumer protection standards.

NOTE : Distinctiveness and Independence of Legal Arguments and Requests It is important to note that arguments and codes presented in both section ( A ) and section ( B ) are distinct and separate from each other. While each section advocates for the removal of certain items from my credit report, the reasons and legal bases provided in each section are independent and should be considered on their own merits.

Therefore, the requests for the removal of items and their supporting codes within each section should in no way be construed as diminishing or negating the validity of the requests made from other codes in other sections. Each code within each section provides separate and equally compelling legal grounds for the removal of different items from my credit report. I trust that these requests will be evaluated individually.

***15 USC 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) ( i ) ( I ) ****15 USC 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) ( i ) ( II ) defines the end of the covered period as 120 days after the termination of the National Emergencies Act declared on XX/XX/XXXX. The act was terminated on XX/XX/XXXX ( see Termination of National Emergency Concerning COVID19, Pub. L. 1183, Apr. 10, 2023, 137 Stat. 6 ), thus the coverage period extends to XX/XX/XXXX *****See Attachment XXXX ( Billing statement for XX/XX/XXXX ) - The accommodation period ended XX/XX/XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation