Consumer complaint received 2016-12-01
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: CT
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Non-federal student loan
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt resulted from identity theft

Complaint:
My daughter had a serious XXXX dependency problem, and in order to finance it, she used the XXXX XXXX Tracker on my computer to learn my pass word, and obtain all of my financial information. She then applied for XXXX separate student loans, XXXX through XXXX XXXX, with XXXX XXXX as the lender and another a week later, through XXXX XXXX. showing herself as a borrower, as well as myself as a co-maker without my knowledge or consent. At the time, she was the recipient of a full scholarship at the University XXXX XXXX XXXX, which covered everything but miniminal expenses. Between the XXXX loans, they totaled over {$24000.00} in principal. I learned about them in XXXX, 2009, when they went into default, and a demand was made upon me to begin making payments, plus catch up on the arrears. Before learning for these identity theft student loans, we had previously discovered her XXXX problem, and her many thefts around our home, including thefts of jewelry, cash, antiques, as well as using my credit cards and accounts to send her friends money, and forced her to leave the house. 
Originally, we did not understand how she accomplished getting these XXXX large loans in my name, as I had previously agreed to help her get a small loan to cover books and gas, even though she was also working part time and living at home, so our intitial information of how these loans were obtained, or if XXXX was in fact my obligation, was incorrect. the dollar about, and mistakenly thought perhaps XXXX was for small {$2000.00} loan application I had completed, but I was obviously incorrect. 
When XXXX XXXX was informed of this identity theft, and provided copies of the Criminal Complaint filed with the XXXX XXXX Police, it chose to ignore it, and continued making collection efforts against me since XXXX, 2009. yet have never filed any collection suit against me, despite being what attorneys considered as " collectable ''. I have always stated this was not my obligation, returning each collection letter to XXXX XXXX 's collection agencies, with an explaination of why it was not my obligation. the claim woud be returned by them to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX would then send it out to another agency, and the process would be started over again. Despite XXXX XXXX, now Navient claiming over {$20000.00} against me, I have never receive a collection letter from an attorney, as it is obvious that this loan was not my act or deed. 

In my opinion, Navient, who now holds this loan, and XXXX XXXX have no mechanism to cancel Identity Theft loans. Their attitude is very simple, refuse to cancel the loan, and inflict maximim credit damage upon the person they are attempting to coerce money from, with the result being the debt will be paid in whole or part. 

I recentely called Navient 's Fraud department, and despite providing the complete package attached to this complaint to both XXXX XXXX, and Navient, all the Fraud Department Agents could say over and over again was " You have no proof '', an inane mantra each is aptaught to repeat to all seeking relief from identity theft by their own child, or third parties. I spoke to a " Supervisor '' at Navient 's Fraud department, who refused to give me his name, other than " XXXX '', no last name, and refused to provide me with his supervisors name, or phone number. This means Navient 's " Fraud Department '' is nothing but a means to provide pretend solutions, ending up with the inane statement : " You have no Proof ''! 

I would sincerely ask this Agency to investigate Navient 's alleged " Fraud Department '' and determine exactly how many parents and relatives who were victims of identity theft actually received any relief or assistance from Navient. It is all about coercing payment from defrauded individuals by Navient, nothing more. 

Please see attached doumentation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation