There is a culmination of factors playing a part in the submission of this complaint for Navients handling of my private loans. Several months ago, after learning of the closure of the institution for which I attended a few years back ( XXXX XXXX ) and the practices for which it was closed, I elected to look into my loans being maintained by Navient ( formally XXXX XXXX ). While working with the US department of Education, I mistakenly thought all loans were being reviewed by the same company. At the beginning stages of my dealing with the US Department of Education, I was still receiving emails and mail correspondence for the loans being delinquent. Once, I realized my error, I reached out to Navient to postpone the payment or work with the payment as mentioned in several correspondences from Navient ( documents labeled # 1 will show the at least 7 documents offering assistance ). However, when I reached out to Navient on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with a customer representative who then placed her supervisor on the phone. I mentioned the emails and letters only to be told that the private loans were not eligible. I again mentioned the correspondence and how the company falsified was what being offered if they were not willing to work with us. The supervisor for Navient stated that the account could only be postponed for a month. I requested to review the terms and conditions prior to agreeing and was told no. I would only be allowed to review the terms upon agreeing to enter into the agreement. After reiterating that no I would not agree to terms I could not read, the supervisor then threatened that if I did not catch it up by the end of XXXX that it would go to further collections. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter explaining what a voluntary forbearance was ( labeled # 2 ) not what the exact terms would be for my loan as requested. 
After receiving additional documents, I felt it would be in my best interest to request additional information on the debt being collected. Navient sent four additional documents via email and mail stating that I had until the end of XXXX to communicate with them. However, there are two different dates with no consistency to follow ( these documents are labeled # 3 ). The letter drafted by me ( labeled # 4 ) was sent certified mail and was received XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. Then letter clearly requests information from Navient, which was never received. The only documentation sent to me in response the dispute letter was in reference to my credit ( these documents are labeled # 5 ). Following correspondence was received in XX/XX/XXXX for notice of Default and again with another offer for a repayment plan ( these documents are labeled # 6 ) all of which do not address the information that was requested. Finally, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a Notice of Intent to Litigate in the mail ( this document is labeled # 7 ). This supposed intent letter was sent in a XXXX style envelope that resembles a piece of junk mail. If I had not opened the envelope regardless of the look, I would not have received this letter. This type of correspondence is in violation of the FDCPA laws, at no time is ok to be deceptive in collecting a debt. I reached out to the CFPB to gather information on filing a complaint. I also reached out to Navient to let them know of the letter received and its violation of the FDCPA. 
I called and left a message with a girl on XX/XX/XXXX. I received a called from XXXX at XXXX phone number XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, in reference to our communication with the office on XX/XX/XXXX. I advised XXXX of our intent to file a CFPB complaint in regards to the handling of our account on behalf of Navient. I informed XXXX during our call that the Intent to Litigate was mailed in a XXXX style envelope and had the appearance of junk mail. The envelope was considered deceptive in appearance and breaks UDAPP and FDCPA law and regulations. 
During the conversation, I also advised XXXX of other practices for which the company has violate our rights as a consumer. Upon, XXXX inquiry as to what was violated, I informed him of the Dispute of Validity of Debt Letter that was sent via certified mail and signed for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. XXXX confirmed the retrieval of the letter mentioned in the conversation. The letter was signed for XX/XX/XXXX and yet as of XX/XX/XXXX the requests on the letter have not been acknowledge or worked on until this call was made. XXXX stated that he will place a request for a copy of the promissory notes to be sent out to us. I informed XXXX that I wanted the contract not the promissory note. He stated that it was the same thing, again I informed him I wanted a copy of the fully executed contract so that I could review the validity of the debt. 
At no time has Navient been able to provide evidence that this debt it valid or provided the information requested. Navient continues to report to my credit and not as disputed so that I can investigate these loans. The main complaint is on the deceptive practice in both mailings and offerings to me as the consumer. The threats that were not followed through as it is unclear their exact intent with the varying letters and emails stating different steps for which the account sits.