Navient is the culprit, primarily as follows : " 4 ) Any agreement with XXXX XXXX? Per XXXX staff, the XXXX currently uses XXXX XXXX as an outside collection agency and did use this agency for your account from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX. This is contracted through their servicer, Navient. The loan was still owned by the XXXX at the time of outside collection activities. XXXX does not have a contract directly with XXXX XXXX and therefore is not able to provide any agreement pertaining to XXXX XXXX. '' Apparently, Navient, from behind the scenes intrudes by using unlicensed third-party debt collectors, such as XXXX XXXX, in which they are unlicensed. Worse still, it directly contracts with these third-party debt collectors, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX before that, to have them state they were " retained '' by agencies of Michigan 's treasury directly. This is blatant fraud. 

First, of all, Navient has no standing in these matters that expired over a decade ago and are beyond the Michigan statute of limitations. Naturally, when asked for documentation consistent with what is reported on the credit report, they scurry away or stall. Navient 's so-called contract, had better be attached to the response to this complaint as a first step toward getting to the truth. 

Secondly, by Navient 's own rules and per the federal rules of reporting to national credit reporting agencies, they must not restate the date on it to make current what is a " zombie debt '' a decade after it was allegedly in default. For example, in a Michigan Treasury FOIA request, the prepayment of tuition by the student before the tuition was even billed and before the alleged loan funds were disbursed demonstrates the trickery. If any alleged funds were distributed and not " immediately '' paid back to the lender, then a breach/default occurred on day # XXXX. Therefore, it is false for Navient to interject itself in a debt when no action was taken in a timely manner in XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, a full decade later, they pretend to have standing when Michigan stated in court filings that the student had no debt to the state whatsoever. 

Thirdly, Navient, has no origination records. Navient is no stranger to proofs being AWOL and getting in trouble in court for not having documentation. Now they hire thugs who are unlicensed in my state to collect debt and their lawyers are unlicensed to represent them in Michigan as well. 

Fourthly, I want an accounting from this Navient servicer on any debits and credits that were made to the college in this CFPB complaint from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. If Navient can't provide any notarized records from " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' then why is XXXX - hired by Navient - furnishing that on my credit report? 

Fifthly, is this servicer 's hire not following the complete federal requirements? They pick and choose what they want to do and what they don't want to do. They are in violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX servicing regulations. This company needs to for every XXXX of this loan in a verifiable way. 

InXX/XX/XXXX, Michigan pre-approved my XX/XX/XXXX tuition, books, gas mileage reimbursement and even a car repair near the end of the year. They really micromanaged that year. I even had to submit attendance records and so forth. no stone unturned. I prepaid through a grant - not a loan - the tuition for XXXX  XX/XX/XXXXand  paid with same credit card again for XXXX XX/XX/XXXX.

Having nothing to to with any " qualified educational expenses '' XXXX overstated the amount they were allowed to lend me as did its previous third-party debt collector, XXXX XXXX, did so as well. They appear to be trying to turn a grant into a loan. Problem : last time I checked, XXXX XXXX issued in my name are not how federal student loans are used. Therefore, having been issued a pre-approved credit card by the Michigan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX program, there was no need for a loan in XX/XX/XXXXor even three months later. 
I want Navient to produce the contracts with the unlicensed-in-Michigan XXXX XXXX 's " XXXX XXXX '' in Nebraska ( of all places! ) and the subsequent conflicting XXXX 's " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Those federal student loans I got later were all voluntarily included in my Chapter XXXX discharge as of XX/XX/XXXX after a hearing with the U.S. Attorney General at XXXX. All of them. The one from XXXX is the only one stubborn enoough to not follow suit, when Michigan stated I owed them nothing and that was echoed by the bankruptcy judge in an order he filed with the court. By Michigan not participating in the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy, as a stated policy, and by formally abandoning the debt, it is fraud to hire a third-party collection agency subsequently to collect a debt that is over a decade old and had a zero-day repayment period. 

Navient needs to call off their dogs. If the federal government is paying the legal fees for this fraud it is complicit.