Consumer complaint received 2023-11-10
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Problem with customer service
Company: Nelnet, Inc. (MI)

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Firstmark Services responded to CFPB complaint XXXX regarding a request for an administrative forbearance. In that complaint I cited that statements were not being generated within a twenty-one day period. Firstmark responded by declining my request for an administrative forbearance, claiming there were XXXX ( XXXX ) irregularities for the account that would necessitate any sort of administrative forbearance. Additionally, Firstmark alleged that my payments have been late ten ( XXXX ) times within the past year. They then cited a condition within the XXXX that does not absolve a borrower to pay on the outstanding obligation even when a bill is not received. Rather than address the issues raised Firstmark has resorted to bullying to prevent from taking any action regarding their unfair, unlawful, and abusive acts and practices. Firstmark alleges a request for an administrative forbearance is somehow tied to the timing of my payments, alleging my payments have been late ten ( XXXX ) times within the last XXXX months. That allegation has nothing to do with the request. Nevertheless, Firstmark chose to make such an assertion without acknowledging their own contributory negligence. From XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX Firstmark had been mailing statements to addresses that I do not live at, some of which I have not lived at in over fifteen ( XXXX ) years. While XXXX XXXX claim they do not know about such issues, they have been made aware on at least XXXX ( XXXX ) occasions, as they have been the basis of CFPB complaints XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, directly sent to Firstmark. Moreover, Firstmark has also been notified of it's failure to send statements to the correct address through at least XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX  dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dispute XXXX resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ), and XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX dispute ( resulting from CFPB complaint XXXX ) XXXX all of which were filed on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX along with CFPB complaint XXXX. Those disputes and their CFPB responses all claimed FM had verified the " accuracy '' of the payment history furnished to the CRAs, when Firstmark knows, or has had reasonable cause to believe they were not sending statements to my correct mailing address. In fact, FM acknowledged they resorted to skip-tracing as a result of an alleged returned piece of mail in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX. And, since Firstmark conducted their skip-tracing haphazardly, one piece of mail that is alleged returned caused the system to randomly select another address from some ethereal list of prior addresses. Each subsequent mailing that resulted in returned mail then caused Firstmark 's system to randomly change to a different address where I do not currently reside. Thus, a chain of failures to deliver statements resulted due to a single piece of mail being accidentally returned or lost by XXXX in XXXX. Within the last XXXX ( XXXX ) months I have spoken with a FM customer service representative who stated she'd personally seen FM systems behaving in this manner leading to borrowers not receiving their billing statements. In fact, in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to XXXX, FM alleged they verified the validity of a current mailing address for me in the State of FL, a state I had not lived in since XXXX, claiming no returned mail from that address constituted the address as a valid mailing address for me. Any reasonable individual would conclude verification of an address using FM 's method is a poor method for verifying the current mailing address of an individual because it expects a third-party ( unrelated to the account in question ) to notify the XXXX that XXXX individual does not live at the address to which a statement is mailed. If this were an open-ended account FM 's practice would fail as a reasonable billing error investigation method under 15 U.S.C. 1666. The fact is FM has resorted to skip-tracing WITHOUT verifying the accuracy of the pool of possible addresses and expected that a third-party individual with no interest in the matter would take the time to notify FM and/or XXXX that the borrower no longer resides ( if ever ) at the address. As consequence, a piece of mail sent to an address that is returned causes FM 's system to randomly select another address using skip-tracing, without verifying accuracy, resulting in a cascading effect even after a borrower may have provided and/or corrected information for a current address on one ( 1 ) or more occasions. Now, make no mistake TILA/Regulation Z requires FM to mail periodic statements at steady intervals whose due date is established by that printed on the the first statement generation date when the loan enters repayment ( ). However, that statement must be mailed to the borrower ( at a current mailing address ) in order to establish the first cycle. In my case it is very possible FM mailed a notice that my student loans would be entering repayment, and upon return of that notice, the system resorted to skip-tracing beginning from my first statement. Firstmark may claim the accounts they service are closed-ended accounts and as such those accounts are not subject to the timing of payments requirements specified in 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( b ). Nevertheless the lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX, acknowledges a minimum XXXX ( XXXX ) day interval between the statement generation date and statement due date in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaints { XXXX, XXXX and XXXX }, " you were still provided the required XXXX between our notice date and your first payment due date ''. Firstmark claims the provisions under the original XXXX do not permit a borrower to claim a failure to receive statements as a defense to non-payment on the student loan. And, it is true, as FM points out, there exists language in Section E.2 of the MPN that states " I am not relieved of my responsibility and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements. and any other written payment notices from you. '' While quoting this provision in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX, FM conveniently makes a serious omission in the language of the MPN. The portion of Section E to which FM refers establishes the aforementioned non-receipt of statement provision only after declaring what the lender/servicer must do. In fact, the opening sentence of E.2 reads " During the Repayment Period, you will send me monthly statements, coupons, or other notices that show the amounts of minimum monthly payments and the payment due dates. '' In other words, the opening sentence establishes a borrowers right of notice : to be notified on a monthly basis about the status of their loan account ( s ) such that they may review the payment required for the current billing cycle, and review any payments, charges, and adjustments made to the account since the end of the previous billing cycle. This is all the more important because although the loan in question is a student loan, it has an adjustable interest rate, like an open-ended line of credit such as that attached to a credit card and as such adjusts with the change interest rates set by the Federal Reserve XXXX It then follows that given the XXXX XXXX XXXXcknowledgment of a minimum XXXX ( XXXX ) day interval between statement generation date and statement due-date in response to CFPB complaints { XXXX,, }, and given the MPN Section E.2 obligation of the lender/servicer to send periodic statements on a monthly basis, that although the account in question pertains to a closed-ended account, any reasonable individual would construe the lender would send statements that are compliant with TILA/Regulation Z on a periodic ( monthly ) basis with a minimum duration between statement generation date and statement due date that is not less than twenty ( 20 ) days, which is one ( 1 ) day less than what is required under TILA/Regulation Z for open-ended ( credit card ) accounts. Finally, it is not without mentioning the abusiveness in Firstmark 's response to CFPB complaint XXXX. I am a XXXX individual that manages a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. I am also an individual that was XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX when my loan entered repayment. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX That Firstmark would repeatedly send statements to incorrect addresses and then report missed payments to the CRAs is not only a furnishing of false/misleading/inaccurate information, but is also abusive. I repeatedly notified Firstmark directly through CFPB complaints and through the CRAs of their failure to send statements to my correct address. I also corrected my address on more than one occasion with FM only o have it overwritten due to errant skip-tracing. That after doing such on multiple occasions Firstmark would seek to paint me as " another individual that is habitually unable to pay their bills, '' and then furnish derogatory information to the CRAs, is abusive. The fact is I have done everything I am supposed to do to protect my interests. Yet there is a limit to which I can protect my interests if periodic statements are not mailed to me. Firstmark has engaged in unfair, unlawful, and abusive acts and practices that have harmed me as a consumer, for which the harm is magnified for me as a XXXX  individual. At this point Firstmark knows, or has reasonable cause to believe the information they are furnishing to the CRAs is false/misleading/inaccurate under 15 U.S.C. 1681e as result of their engagement in unlawful acts and practices that are prohibited under 12 U.S.C. 5531.