I am having a very hard time with getting some negative credit entries corrected on old, closed accounts with Navient. I had loans, originally serviced by XXXX XXXX, that were transferred to Navient in XX/XX/XXXXwhen the split occurred. Shortly after, I went ahead and consolidated over to a new lender in Mid XX/XX/XXXXand closed out these lines ; these loans have been paid off, in full, and " closed '' with Navient. Since this time, I've had to constantly battle for Navient to correct balances, correct deferments, and i'm at a point now where I am just not getting the proper responses, requested materials, or investigations done for my disputes in a timely fashion or to the full capacity of which im requesting. As of now, I find that the delinquent remarks are fraudulent since I am being denied proof of the validity. I have tried by phone, email, and through Credit Bureau Dispute to challenge the incorrect late payment history that Navient continues to report these derogatory payments without providing me with my requested validation and verification. In addition, the balances, delinquencies, and information reported among all 3 bureaus is NOT consistent on these trade lines and I've asked this to be fixed multiple times.

Currently, my Credit reports have 19 individual student loan trade-lines, representing all loans disbursed by XXXX XXXX & later Navient. On each of these 19 trade-lines, Navient is reporting 5 - 120-day Delinquencies and 3 - 90-day delinquencies. I feel that hypothetically, my credit report really should be " penalized '' only for 8 delinquencies, while FICO is translating each tradeline separately as its own debt. So in reality, my credit report is showing instead a total of 8 delinquencies/missed payments on 19 trade lines translating to a total of 152 delinquencies/missed payments against my credit. The entire length of my relationship with XXXX XXXX lasted for about 5 years, yet I have enough delinquency on my credit from them to equate to me not paying accounts for a total of almost 12 years. <br><br> I am at a point now where I am applying for a mortgage but am being met with the obstacle of redundant, late payments that were reported from Navient - and there is nothing further I can do it seems in terms of getting assistance from them. In addition, most of the delinquencies in question are from the originating loan servicer that is no longer involved, XXXX XXXX ; Navient refuses to change anything I've disputed from XXXX XXXX while at the same time also refusing to provide me with the supporting documents they have from them showing these reports to be in fact valid. I contacted XXXX XXXX and they disclosed they no longer hold records of my loans. I am continually being denied my disputes while the company continues to speak for XXXX XXXX and not provide me with the supporting information to back any of it. Navient took over XXXX XXXX as of XX/XX/XXXX - and most if not all of the discrepancies i have precede this date and fall on the responsibility of XXXX XXXX  to verify, not Navient. Based on the dates of delinquency, I am in firm belief that the 6 month stretch of delinquencies was a result of the transition to Navient from Sallie mae. Ironically, these " delinquencies '' appear for the 6 months preceding Navient 's takeover in XX/XX/XXXX and stop once Navient is servicing the loans in Fall of XXXX. 

The number of derogatory payments being reported are causing denials in any application for loans, mortgages, and low interest credit lines. I would like to express that I honestly, do not feel that my credit history reported by is truly reflecting the billing/accounting relationship I had with them. The method in which delinquency remarks are applied on my credit report do not represent how the loan payments were ever billed, paid, or collected. While yes, all of these loans were disbursed at different times at various semesters, they nonetheless were arranged to all bill, and post payments to one combined bill from Navient under account # XXXX. If Navient is billing me for all loans and ask that I pay one payment directly to one account number, then it should in no way justifiable to penalize me as if I failed to pay a large number of separate, isolated items when it really was just 1 account, all billed through Navient under one account number. And nonetheless, navient 's report of 1 delinquency continues to multiply by 19 trade lines every time they make negative changes, dropping my score sometimes pretty significantly. 

I contacted Navient customer care and asked for a full copy of any all account history, deferments, forbearance notices, delinquency notices, and statements, mail-outs, etc. This was a few months back, and at that time was told that since this was between 4-5 years ago, and the loans were originated from XXXX XXXX and now closed/consolidated and they no longer have access or the ability to pull any statements/records to fulfill my request. I was however, able to retrieve very old emails I saved from XXXX XXXX, and Navient from this time frame, showing that I in fact was in Forbearance for most if not all the dates listed. 

The dates reported negative which I request full validation and verification of and its statements are as follows : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX -- XXXX - I am in possession of email from XXXX, sent XX/XX/XXXX which explains that my loans were at that time CURRENTLY in forbearance and was set to end on XX/XX/XXXX and repayment will begin. Since this email supports with high probability that I was in forbearance on the month they report as 90-days delinquent, which is less than 2 months prior, XX/XX/XXXX, I ask that it be removed/adjusted, or if chosen to be kept on the reports, to have the debt validated and I be provided with the paperwork for any and all the forbearance requests and their dates of execution, and the statement for these months in question to compare for accuracy. It now reports 90-days late and does not seem accurate to documents and correspondence I have provided of that time. This email I have clearly indicates I would have been in some type of deferment during this time frame as they are only months apart, and before repayment. NSLDS.gov also reports that XXXX XXXX placed me in a forbearance ( which I do not recall even asking for or have record of ) on XX/XX/XXXX. Using this information, even then this would not allow for a 90-day late remark, as XX/XX/XXXXwas less than 90-days from the confirmed START of the forbearance listed in NSLDS. Please remove the delinquency reported on XX/XX/XXXX as documentation supports I was already in forbearance at that time. 

XXXX-In possession of email with conversation with rep XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) that was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. The email is a request for confirmation on if I would like to CONTINUE my forbearance for an additional 3 months. I also have my reply confirmation, on XX/XX/XXXX, permitting the forbearance sent to XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX however, is reported as 90-days delinquent. Being that I confirmed and executed forbearance in XXXX, this month should have been reported as current as well. The email also indicates to " continue '' forbearance for another 3 months, which leaves evidence that I was currently in a forbearance at the time. ( leaving the 90 day delinquency inaccurate for XXXX ) XXXX - I submitted a request for a goodwill adjustment on this date with Navient, as I was going through a hard time with some personal issues during this period and believed they may have overlooked my email or are still investigating this stretch of time. I did however, upon looking in my email history, find some evidence that forces me to also have these months validated and verified. For the date range in question, I have emails supporting the possibility that I was in forbearance for all, or a portion of this 6-month stretch. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a forbearance extension confirmation from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) to confirm if I wished to continue and add 3 months to my forbearance. In seeing this, I question the validity of the 120 day delinquencies reported for prior 90 days of XXXX. Additionally, going backward in my inbox, I found an email from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX asking me to log in to view my new documents ( presumably a forbearance document ). Unfortunately due to the loss of XXXX XXXX as the servicer, I can not log in nor get any information when calling them on this matter to do my own validation and verification. And going back 90 days before, in XXXX, I received another email on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX asking me to log in and look at my new documents. Again, I can not access and retrieve so can not verify its contents.. 

Based on the information above, and my extreme exhaustion with trying to resolve this myself with no luck, please advise on what I can do to get this resolved. It seems as of now, I am the only party of the two involved who can furnish the most hard-copied proof of the fact I was in forbearance during these times. 

I filed disuputes approx. 3 months ago via XXXX with bureaus, as well as emailed the navient Customer Advocate, and tried by phone. I get no answers to my questions and not one person has been able to provide me with legitimate, hard copy proof of the delinquincies they are reporting. 

At this point, I have an amazing payment history and credit reputation with my creditors and should be reaching a high credit score.  However, no matter how hard I continue to work to rebuild and increase the score, I've hit a wall with the incorrect, redundant entries by Navient significantly pulling my score down. I would understand if these were active loans that I was continuting to pay on, but I don't understand why Navient is giving me such the run-around on changing information that dates to before their time servicing my loans, especially being in a closed/paid off status. I'm merely asking for an adjustment of old information to reflect the correct status of delinquencies, if any. I am confident that ideally these trade lines should actually reflect paid on time as I have proof via email of being in a consistent forbearance through to consolidation for most of the account life, leaving no valid delinquencies.