Complaint sub-issue: Account status incorrect

On XXXX XXXX my account was placed int oa forbearance status due to COVID-19. As of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lists one sub-account as being paid on-time for XX/XX/XXXX. The second sub account lists a XXXX payment as late by thirty ( 30 ) days and Both sub accounts are due on the same day of each month. I have received zero bills since forbearance was initiated. I have confirmation of being placed in forbearance as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The notion that I may somehow be able to retrieve an electronic bill even if I do not receive a bill in the mail presupposes that I have access to the internet at all times. It takes no note that I may not have internet access due to service interruptions caused by late payments due to loss or delay of financial deposits on account of the pandemic. Furthermore, CFPB statutes and enforcement require that a bill be mailed to me each month as a part of right of notice under due process. No notice can be received if the bill never reaches me. Further, a bill that is " generated '' but never mailed by XXXX XXXX. does not suffice as notice. Finally a bill that is generated outside of the established billing period, per the first bill, is not allowed under CFPB statutes and enforcement. Now, this mismanagement of account information by XXXX XXXX is not new. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. To date XXXX XXXX has offered me no relief for improper billing practices, nor relief for improper credit reporting. In fact, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX is provided accurate information both to myself and the CRAs. XXXX XXXX concurs with my assertion regarding the timing of my first bill, " Your first payment for loan account XXXX XXXX and XXXX was XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a monthly billing statement was mailed to your attention, which stated your payment due date would be XX/XX/XXXX. '' However, he switches tactics when addressing all subsequent statement generation dates and instead refers to the date a payment is due, " On XX/XX/XXXX, your monthly billing statement was mailed showing your payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, you billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, your billing statement was mailed showing the payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed copies for your review. '' He then excoriates me stating, " our statement was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing you more than a 20-day notice before your first payment due date, as we provide our customers coming out of a loan forbearance additional time to make payment arrangements for their loan accounts. '' To further his point he writes regarding my MPN signed with a now defunct banking institution, " 'I am not relieved of my responsibly and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements, and any other written payment notices from you. ' XXXX XXXX is tacitly attempting to provide an explanation as to why it is acceptable for XXXX XXXX to be non-compliant with Consent Order 2016-CFPB-0013 and violate the CFPB interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, effectively claiming that while XXXX XXXX did not generate and provide me statements per Federal Law, their failure has no bearing on my payment history, status of my account, etc, because I am supposed to blindly make payments without consistent generation of statements. Effectively asserting, flaunting of federal law has caused no harm to me as a consumer even if their billing practices are illegal under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Now, under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts that I have not been harmed. XXXX XXXX then goes on to assert that my payment history is accurate and provides dates from his computing system sowing when payments were made. In fact he is so confident with the screen XXXX from the system which he uses for such data that he closed out complaint XXXX. Contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim of reported payment history only furnished to the CRAs for XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX is currently reporting history thru XX/XX/XXXX, which as stated in XXXX is causally impossible given XXXX XXXX 's acknowledgment of the due date of the XXXX ( XXXX ) of each month. That is XXXX XXXX is reporting history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, when the date of this complaint is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's claim regarding no harm to me as a consumer for their illegal billing practices, I have been harmed. The inconsistency in their statement generation as established by the first ( 1st ) billing statement generation on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and their second statement generation date on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX falls outside of the established date of XXXX day of each month and the harm caused by such is reflected in their system reporting causally impossible payment history to the CRAs. For example, XXXX XXXX is supplying information to at least one ( 1 ) of the major three ( 3 ) CRAs in which my payment history goes from being reported to on-time for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to suddenly being reported sixty ( 60 ) days past-due. Mr. XXXX XXXX 's statement to the CRA on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are clear in that my first payment was not due until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So it is logically impossible that my payments would be suddenly past-due sixty ( 60 ) days for the period of XX/XX/XXXX. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX is reporting the inaccurate history to XXXX and Equifax. This is in obvious contradiction to what Ms. XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is reporting to the CRAs. Moreover, XXXX is supplying payment history claiming that I am thirty ( 30 ) or more days late for the month of XXXX when the date for neither the payment due XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, nor the payment due XXXX XXXX would be thirty ( 30 ) days past-due -- today is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. If this was a simple reporting error caused by the system of a single CRA, it would be one thing. Clearly this is inaccurate and unverifiable information that is being reported to at least all three ( 3 ) major CRAs. The somewhat seriousness, but hilarity in all of this is that there is a specific portion of XXXX XXXX 's response that acknowledges consent order violations, " We appreciate your concern about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) announcement ; we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. We hope to have a future opportunity to meet and exceed your service expectations.We are deeply committed to serving you and your financial needs. It is important for you to know that making things right and restoring the faith you have in us is the very top priority for our entire XXXX XXXX leadership team. Nothing is more important than for you to experience the very best from us moving forward. '' So XXXX XXXX acknowledges that XXXX XXXX is in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013 and that XXXX XXXX is taking steps to remedy the non-compliance I pointed out. However, despite the illegal billing practices in violation of 2016-CFPB-0013, and outside what is permissible under statute, XXXX XXXX will do nothing to ameliorate the harm they have already caused me due to inaccurate reporting of payment history. These practices are not new, as the CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from XXXX XXXX, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. Per CFPB consent order 2016-CFPB-0013, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. At the end of the day, XXXX XXXX is doing a dance. On one hand they admit they are outside of what is statutorily permissible. However, they insist that no harm has been done because " I still have to make payments on my student loans. '' They fail to understand that the mysterious change in statement generation date between the first two ( 2 ) consecutive statements of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, presents itself causally impossible payment history thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX that is supplied thru eOSCAR to the CRAs. Each time I attempt to dispute this fact with XXXX, Exquifax, and XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's computing system supplies the same erroneous information. The bottom line is that errors in XXXX XXXX 's own systems has caused consistent damage to my credit files since XX/XX/XXXX. Any reasonable company would take efforts to correct the situation to make me whole. XXXX XXXX appears not to want to do such. To date XXXX has not stated they will fix the problem regarding the supply of causally impossible payment history to the CRAs for my student loans. So it would seem that XXXX will continue to cause harm to me as a consumer, and perhaps other consumers, with full knowledge that they are doing such, while providing no relief to me. On one hand, XXXX XXXX is will to partially acknowledge the errors, but then on the other hand claim that they are reporting factually accurate payment history, and seeking to deflect away from their own behavior by quoting a clause within my loan origination documents that they acquired from a now defunct banking institution. While the clause in the loan origination document is amorphous at best in that I may still owe the alleged amount on a loan, Mr. XXXX XXXX 's claim that the clause excuses XXXX compliance with federal statute is absurd. The CFPB 's interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026 is clear. XXXX XXXX is not absolved of compliance to consent orders/ consent decrees, nor shields XXXX XXXX XXXX the CFPB 's enforcement of applicable statute. XXXX XXXX is exhibiting behavior that is non-compliant with 2016-CFPB-013 and is admitting they are in violation of 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026. XXXX XXXX appears content not to correct the problems with the information they are supplying to the CRAs and thus are indifferent to the harm they have caused and will continue to cause to me as a consumer.