My loan has been grossly and intentionally mishandled by agents of both XXXX and XXXX, which I aggregate for purposes of this report. The two institutions have colluded with each other to coerce me into making payments on my loan which should be in deferment. I have to date spent countless hours speaking with agents at both institutions as well as administrative and executive officers at my university in an attempt to solve a problem that XXXX has created regarding the status of my loan. I have been very polite and cooperative for several months. However, it has become clear to me that XXXX has intentionally established and implemented policies in order to abuse its power as a lender, harass me, inflict emotional distress on me, and coerce me into making payments which I am not obligated to make pursuant to my loan agreement. XXXX has fraudulently recorded my loan as delinquent internally when it is in fact in good standing since I am a XXXX student and I have furnished XXXX with countless documents to that effect in a timely manner and when requested. In addition, XXXX has fraudulently reported my account as delinquent to Experian for the current balance of {$14000.00}, and I continue to be subjected to harassment by XXXX representatives for payments I am not legally obligated to make. I have set forth the details of XXXX fraudulent, abusive and harassing conduct below. 

Before this problem, my account with XXXX was at all times in good standing and I have always made payments on time. In XX/XX/XXXX, I returned to school to begin a XXXX   program. I therefore contacted XXXX well in advance of this date to arrange for an in-school deferment. XXXX had required that its deferment requests be signed and stamped by the university registrar. The first form I submitted on XX/XX/XXXXwas denied on the basis that my program would not begin until XX/XX/XXXX of that year. On XX/XX/XXXX, therefore, I submitted a new form for in-school deferment, which was accepted. The loan was properly put into deferment. XXXX, as I was informed, has a policy that deferments are to be processed in three-month intervals, with a new form being submitted each time. Although this policy is not in my loan agreement, I understand that policies are usually established in order to foster efficient administration. So I complied with the policy politely, despite the fact that the process is terribly inconvenient because it requires quite a bit of processing time on both ends resulting from XXXX unreasonably demanding requirements. The next form, which I submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, was also accepted.

However, the form I submitted on XX/XX/XXXX was denied. It is at this point that the pattern of abuse and coercion by XXXX begins. The reason given for this first denial was that the form did not indicate that I was enrolled in a XXXX program. This is an entirely unreasonable grounds for a rejection of this form. To begin with, XXXX has information in my file indicating that I have already obtained an XXXX degree, an XXXX degree, and a XXXX degree. Moreover, the first two forms for the Fall semester, which indicated I was enrolled in a XXXX program, were accepted and on file. A student can not be downgraded from a XXXX candidate to an XXXX candidate at the same university. And in any case, even if this were possible, it would make no sense for me to switch to an XXXX program since I already held an XXXX and several advanced degrees, which was well known to XXXX and XXXX. In any case, as the registrar of my university explained to me, it filled out the form correctly. The form asks for the program of study, which is essentially the discipline in which the candidate is studying. It does not ask for the degree program, which is why the registrar did not include this information. Nonetheless, I returned to the registrar, had them indicate XXXX on the form, and resubmitted it. The registrar sent it in directly, and it seems that XXXX ignored this form. I then submitted it myself on XX/XX/XXXX. This second form was then rejected on the ground that it was the same form whereas a new form must be submitted. Again, this was simply a delay tactic by XXXX. There is absolutely no difference in the forms and no reason why a brand new one should be submitted other than to delay the process. Such abusive delay tactics became clear when XXXX then shifted my account into repayment even though it was clear to all parties that I was still a full-time student and the forms I was submitting were being rejected on purely administrative and unreasonable grounds. Since I had been on an automatic payment program in order to keep the interest rate down, XXXX deducted my bank account for the amount they fraudulently recorded as due for the month of XX/XX/XXXX. I was told by a XXXX representative that XXXX would not refund such payment even if the deferment were appropriately reinstated for that period. This constitutes theft, and I have therefore been forced by XXXX to take my account off automatic repayment to protect myself from similar theft by them in the future, which increases the interest rate to their benefit. I then diligently submitted a third form for the same period. XXXX did not find any administrative insufficiencies in this form, but rejected it anyway for timeliness : they delayed so long reviewing and unreasonably rejecting the previous forms and the most recent one that when they finally made a decision on the most recent one, the academic semester had ended. XXXX claimed that the form verified me as a student only though XX/XX/XXXX ( the end of the academic semester ), and even though that period obviously covered the month of XX/XX/XXXX, they rejected it outright. In the first place, as will be further explained below, the form does not verify me as a student only though the end of the semester. What it does is verify that I am enrolled in courses that end in the Spring. In order to verify my continued enrollment, I submitted another form on XX/XX/XXXX indicating my course enrollment for the Fall semester. This form was rejected on the basis that its period was too far in the future. After explaining all of this to another representative at XXXX, I was told that the two forms were reviewed together by XXXX ( finally ) and rejected yet again, this time on the different yet similarly unreasonable basis that the form covering the Spring semester ( ending XX/XX/XXXX ) would, according to XXXX arbitrary three-month period policy, only cover the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and because it covered only two months and not three or more, it was invalid. 

After countless hours speaking with representatives from both institutions, I learned that XXXX ( whose agents had claimed XXXX had been responsible for all the decisions ) had forwarded only the first form to XXXX. XXXX representatives claimed XXXX had decision-making power over these forms, while XXXX claimed XXXX had decision-making power over the standing and reporting of my account. Over the course of these months, I had several long conversations with representatives, each promising me that the issue would be addressed and that I would be contacted once it had been resolved. Meanwhile, XXXX representatives continued to threaten me with reporting my account as delinquent to credit bureaus and continued to harass me every day on the telephone. It is clear that both institutions were colluding to coerce me into making payments that I am clearly not required to make under the loan agreement governing my loan. 

The essential facts here are that I have been at all relevant times, and continue to be, a full-time student at a degree-granting program for a XXXX degree, and I have submitted several times documents attesting to this status, all in a timely and cooperative manner despite the unreasonable demands imposed upon me by XXXX. XXXX has rejected all these documents, each on distinct and unreasonable grounds and after unreasonable delays, citing so-called policies that are nowhere to be found in my loan agreement. As I have explained to several agents at XXXX, XXXX accepts forms only when signed by the university registrar. As I have explained to XXXX several times, the university registrar can verify only that I am registered for classes for any given semester. My XXXX   program operates on the semester system. Thus, there is a Fall semester and a Spring semester. There is no Summer semester. However, one does not cease being a student during the periods in which classes are not held. There is no summer term in my XXXX program and I am therefore not enrolled in classes over the summer, but I am nonetheless a XXXX   student. By the same token, one does not cease being a student on weekends or national holidays when classes are not held. I have submitted evidence of continued enrollment for the Fall XX/XX/XXXX term as further proof of my status and have also offered several times to have the dean of the college send in a letter attesting to my status if need be, evidence which would cover the summer months during classes are not held. However, XXXX has declined to accept such evidence and has indicated that it accepts only documents signed by the university registrar. XXXX has thus established and implemented a so-called policy that creates requirements that can not possibly be met. This is bad faith conduct, unreasonable, and not valid grounds for denying an in-school deferment under the loan agreement. 

Pursuant to the terms of my loan agreement, which governs the rights and obligations of me and XXXX, I have the right to defer my loan if I am a full-time student. No specific policies are incorporated into that agreement, and at any rate, any policies not disclosed to me at the time I signed the loan agreement which are established and implemented by XXXX in such a way as to vitiate my rights under that agreement are simply unenforceable. XXXX might require submission of forms for deferment every three months, but they can not deny deferment simply because those arbitrary three-month periods do not coincide with the academic calendar of any given university. Likewise, XXXX may require that the student status verifications be prepared by the university registrar, but they can not deny deferment on the ground that the universitys semesters do not coincide with the arbitrary three-mon period established by XXXX or XXXX when the registrar can only attest to course enrollment by semester. 

Section I.2 ( a ) of the loan agreement gives me the right to defer the loan if I return to school as a XXXX student pursuing a XXXX degree and submit evidence to that effect. They say nothing about being enrolled for courses, and the reason they dont is that being a student is not dependent on being enrolled in courses. The more general provision in Section I.1 stating that the decision to grant a request for forbearance is at the sole discretion of the lender arguably does not apply even by its terms because we are dealing with a deferment, not a forbearance. But in any case, even if it were intended to apply to deferment, it would not be applicable because the much more detailed Section 2 delineates specific requirements for in-school deferment, and specific provisions take precedence over general ones in the event of discrepancy. In addition, Section I.2 ( a ) would serve absolutely no purpose if all decisions on deferment were at the sole discretion of the lender regardless of whether any specific requirements were met. In such a case, deferment would not be available to me even if I submitted reasonable evidence of student status, which Section I.2 ( a ) clearly contemplates. Provisions in contracts are not interpreted in such a way as to render other provisions meaningless. 

I have satisfied the requirements set forth in Section I.2 ( a ) of the loan agreement several times for the period in question and in a timely manner. The essential fact is that, in a degree-granting doctoral program, active course enrollment is not required to be considered a full-time student. This is why the loan agreement refers to being a student, not necessarily being enrolled in courses. If XXXX contends I have not satisfied those requirements, then those requirements are unreasonable and XXXX is violating the loan agreement. This is an act of bad faith, and good faith in executing contracts is implied no matter what the contracts terms. 

I have made interest payments as I had been since I became a full-time student for the periods in question as required of me by my loan agreement, as my loan is rightly in deferral. My loan is therefore in good standing, and any statement or conduct to any other effect by XXXX is fraudulent.