Consumer complaint received 2024-07-17
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Need information about your loan balance or loan terms
Company: Nelnet, Inc. (WA)

I was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX years ago, which is why I have XXXX  loans. Last year I decided to subject matter expert Negotiable Instruments under Uniform Commercial Code Article XXXX, and my local Revised Code of Washington XXXX. After hundreds of hours of reading, writing, listening about and researching negotiable instruments in commerce, I started to recognize the instruments we use every day, and I started to realize we were using them incorrectly. I started using them correctly and I submitted drafts from the unconditional demands to pay. They were ignored, but then I realized my state statutes also allow me to ask questions, and get answers, so I submitted questions to the Department of Education. I asked around XXXX different questions. These questions were posed so I could confirm what Ive read in the statutes and what I suspect the process is from reading the statutes. I asked these questions so I can make informed decisions about my credit. I asked the Department of Education to provide evidence and proof of which pool or funds the credit was withdrawn from. I asked if they had ever used my promissory notes as security collateral. I asked for a true bill, and I asked to be furnished with any indorsements made on the original application, among other questions. I also advised them I was working with instruments and cited where to find the information I was providing. I even created a diagram of what the indorsement was and how the draft was a check. At this point, I have not received a single correspondence and I told them in several different correspondences what laws they were violating, and they still choose to do it. I can understand if no one knows what XXXX talking about, but the answer is to research, investigate, ask me questions, and ask management questions ; not completely ignore me at every turn. Below is a timeline of events. 

XX/XX/XXXX : -I accepted the unconditional order to pay, on behalf of the XXXX XXXX XXXX I then sent the coupon back, with authorization and instruction, to present for payment just as the rules describe. 

-The coupon is a draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank, which means it is also a check, a draft and an order. 



XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX did not see set off and I hadnt gotten a response, so I sent a letter of inquiry on why the unmonetized securities from my instrument hadnt been applied to my account yet. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -XXXX  at Nelnet XXXX me by way of correspondence, that Nelnet only accepts forms of payment provided under the applicable federal laws, regulations and loan agreements but didnt cite any laws, regulations nor parts of the loan agreement I could inquire about. 

-They purport the laws and regulations declare payments must be made in U.S. legal tender in the form of a XXXX XXXX XXXX money order or electronic payment, but again, cited no laws nor regulations for me to inquire about. 

XXXX XXXX an entire set of promissory notes, which are unconditional promises to pay, on a specific date, payable to order, without any additional acts necessary to tender payment ; which means they are instruments. 

-If I were to use a blank indorsement on those promissory notes, the Department of Education can indorse above my indorsement and either use them as security collateral to get loans for FRNs, per 31 CFR Part 202, or exchange them for registered securities, per 31 CFR 357. 



XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at Nelnet corresponded and warned me against engaging in scams alleging loan payment loopholes. Negotiable Instruments regulated under Uniform Commercial Code Article 3 and Revised Code of Washington 62A.3 are neither a scam, nor are they loan payment loopholes. 

XXXX XXXX mentioned laws and regulations that required payment to be in XXXX XXXX tender in the form of a bona fide check, money order, or electronic payment to Nelnet XXXX but cited no regulations I could inquire about. 

XXXX XXXX declined to accept my documents, claiming she was in keeping with the governing laws, regulations and loan agreements, but cited no laws nor regulations, and did not identify a part of the agreement she was keeping in with that I could inquire about. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -I corresponded with XXXX XXXX XXXX and I asked her questions to help me understand how the Department of Education uses instruments with my name on them, where they obtained the funds to loan me and if my promissory notes were used as security collateral, and other questions to promote my informed use of credit. 

XXXX cited state and federal statutes and Acts that they could reference. 

XXXX reminded them of the 15-day requirement to respond and cited the statute. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -Nelnet XXXX an email saying my correspondence was received. There was no mention of the instruments. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -Nelnet postponed payment until XX/XX/XXXX, on a weather forbearance. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -Nelnet XXXX restricted access to my statements, which are my electronic unconditional orders to pay, and I was unable to print off the coupons to tender payment. When I was able to print them, I accepted and returned them, on behalf of the XXXX XXXX. 

-Up to this date, no questions have been answered and no acknowledgement, other than the email, has been given. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -The weather forbearance expires. 

-Up to this date, no questions have been answered and no acknowledgement has been received of the 15-day statutorily imposed deadline. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -Up to this date, no questions have been answered and no acknowledgement has been received of the 15-day statutorily imposed deadline.

-I sent the Department of Education and Nelnet separate correspondences to separate addresses, with the same content. It was a reminder that they lawfully had 15 days to respond, even though I had given them six months. 

-I gave them an additional 15-days to respond. 



XX/XX/XXXX : -Nelnet XXXX an email saying the correspondence was received. 

-Up to this date, there have been no questions answered, nor any acknowledgement of the 15-day statutorily imposed deadline.

-There has been no correspondence whatsoever from Nelnet nor the Department of Education XXXX XX/XX/XXXX.