I had contacted Navient today in regards to a private student loan they insist is mine, although the loan they are referring to does not ( and has not historically, over the life of loan ) comply with any original loan terms. In speaking with two representatives ( XXXX (? sp? ) -ecode : XXXX, followed by XXXX e-code : XXXX ) I was told that they have no records indicating the original terms. So I wished to get this specific issue worked out. 

So, I wanted to get clarification on the discrepancy between the loan terms I had agreed to when signing and accepting the loan -- verified by original documents -- and the loan that Navient was insisting is the same loan. Althought XXXX was respectable, when speaking with XXXX, she ignored the purpose of my call and immediately proceeded to divert the conversation off my inquiry and falsely assume that I was refusing to pay the loan. 

As the conversation progressed, I repeatedly told her that refusal to pay on any of my valid loans with the company was not my intent at all and that I never stated that fact, nor did I want her conclude that from our conversation -- there was never a communicated statement indicating an intent to refuse to pay. But XXXX would cut me off and threaten legal action against me and my property. As she went on to speak over me, she then actively refused to let me speak about the loan at all, instead she proclaimed that she would update the status of the loan by documenting a statement that was the exact notion I was refuting : that I " refuse to pay. '' Despite my strong objection, she kept repeating the statement demanding an explanation of how I wanted to proceed with the loan. Because of her attitude and false assumptions she was projecting onto me, I no longer trusted her, and I begun to question her intent. XXXX actions started to reflect a desire to manipulate my position for the worse, and make me feel hopeless and compromised so that she could then adjust our mode of engagement in a way that benefited her and hurt me -- the customer. Her actions were reinforcing my initial worry about the loan in question -- that despite agreed upon conditions, I was being manipulated to benefit the servicer ( & now the servicer 's rep ) without any substantiated reason. XXXX and her actions were an embodiment of Navient/XXXX practices. 

At that point, I recognized that there was no law indicating that I was obligated to disclose my intent or future actions to XXXX. I also realized that any of her actions relating to making an update on any of my account statuses would be solely based on her insistence of making a personal false assumption. This all would be a result of her individual customer service and quality practices as an account manager. I also recognize that Both XXXX and XXXX prefaced the dialog with me by stating that the call would be recorded for customer service purposes. So any misleading and false customer service-related action taken on my behalf due to XXXX false yet persistent assumptions can be clarified with the recording. 

I do not find it appropriate that XXXX ( XXXX ), a service representative, knowing that her conversation would be " recorded for quality assurance purposes, '' would blatantly mislead the company she was hired to represent or any legal representation who would depend on her recollection and official documentation during a conversation with a client. If any action was taken upon me due to her deceptive and false documentation practices, I would have to rely on recordings, such as those that Navient does for quality, to confirm XXXX quality and service malpractice. Just like no loan should be falsely represented by a servicing entity ( Navient/XXXX ), no consumer should be threatened at any point in a lending relationship with being falsely represented by any customer service representative or account manager.