I am complaining regarding conduct my client was subjected to. XXXX Windham provided problematically incorrect information to her and to me during their collection calls and my subsequent call to them regarding XXXX students ' eligibility for discharges and for stopped collections. It appears that either the Dep't of Education has not provided sufficient guidance to its XXXX regarding borrower defenses and stopped collections, or that its XXXX have not provided any guidance to their callers and supervisors, and as a result XXXX are providing misinformation to the detriment of borrowers entitled to relief. 
XXXX is former XXXX student eligible for " fast-track '' borrower defense discharge of her Direct loans. We filed her borrower defense application with XXXXXXXXXXXX on XX/XX/XXXX with a request for forbearance/stopped collections. We received a quick response confirming receipt. However, since then, XXXX was called at least twice by Windham. On XX/XX/XXXX, she received a call from Windham saying that she needed to make payments on her student loan and trying to set up a payment plan. XXXX was confused because she was eligible for discharge and stopped collections and declined. On XX/XX/XXXX, a full month after submitting her application electronically, XXXX received another call from Windham urging her to make payments on her loan. XXXX told the Windham representative that she had applied for forgiveness and forbearance and understood she did n't have to make payments while her application was processed. The Windham representative told XXXX that she could n't receive foregiveness while her loans were in default, and so she had better enter a payment plan. 
This is plainly contrary to the law and is harmful misinformation to provide to borrowers. XXXX said that she needed to consult with her lawyer, and at that point the Windham representative hung up on her. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I conducted a 3-way call with XXXX and Windham at the number they last contacted her from ( XXXX ). The first person with whom we were connected was a rep named XXXX. I explained what had happened and that XXXX loans were supposed to be placed in stopped collections while her application for discharge under the XXXX borrower defense was processed. XXXX told us that since XXXX 's loans were in default, they were ineligible for forbearance and so collections would continue. I responded that XXXX had provided guidance stating that XXXX Direct loan borrowers who submitted applications for borrower defenses and requested stopped collections would be placed in stopped collections if their loans were in default and that all collection activity would stop while their application was processed. He said that he " was not aware '' of any such borrower defense process or XXXX discharge process. After that, I was transferred to a Windham supervisor named XXXX ( sp? ) XXXX. XXXX told that he understood the situation and that he would put XXXX loans into dispute status and that XXXX should then file a " closed school discharge '' application with the Department of Education. I explained that XXXX was not eligible for a closed school discharge, but was eligible for a borrower defense discharge and that she had already applied for it with the Department a month ago. I further explained that under her application and the borrower defense process, her Direct loans were supposed to be placed in stopped collections while her application was processed. XXXX was also not aware of the borrower defense process or that applicants defaulted loans were supposed to be placed in stopped collections. This shows a serious failure to ensure that XXXX 's XXXX are trained to implement the BD process.