Consumer complaint received 2018-07-24
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: American Student Assistance (AZ)

Please note that anything I say here, I will say under oath in court. This is 100 % truth and we swear on the lives of our children that we are being honest and sincere. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, our student loan was under forbearance through XX/XX/XXXX. I remember getting the confirmation in the mail in the summer and double-checking that it was for this loan. I remember vividly the relief I felt when getting the forbearance, as we are struggling with unemployment in our family. The approved forbearance communication was confirmed by the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence from XXXX XXXX from XXXX ( formerly XXXX ). 

The servicer acknowledges that ( 1 ) they received our forbearance request and ( 2 ) initially approved our forbearance request - which confirms my point that we did receive the forbearance approval in the mail. We did not receive a follow-up letter about a missing signature and I challenge the servicer to provide proof that this ever got to us in either the mail or the email that is on file. I can also confirm that we did not receive ( 1 ) mail stating our account was past due after XX/XX/XXXX, nor the typical barrage of phone calls that lead to this type of delinquency. No certified mail or notifications reached us - nor did we expect it because we were, to our knowledge, in forbearance. Additionally, circumstantial evidence shows that we were engaged consumers in this, and we wouldn't ignore a notice like this if received. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted another forbearance form for XXXX as our struggles continued. In XXXX, we received a default notice from XXXX, a collector for XXXX. 

Again, please remember that Id say this same thing ( and may have to, if this continues to escalate ) under oath. This is not one of the common excuses that Im sure you may hear routinely. Ill swear my life on it. 

While we can continue to dig through the details, the bottom line is this : - We were eligible for a forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX. 
- We submitted a forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX. 
- Our forbearance was ( initially ) approved in XX/XX/XXXX ) If we are to ignore everything else in this situation, the bottom line is that our lives were essentially ruined because of an unknown missing signature. 
- There is no proof that XXXX sent the subsequent forbearance denial or made any follow-up contact with us. We never received phone calls or mail from them after the forbearance approval. The burden of proof is on the servicer. Mountains of circumstantial evidence shows that we would NOT ignore this if we received this communication. I suspect it had something to do with us being approved for a forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX and then reversed so quickly due to a signature. It may have stopped other communication in their system. 
- XXXX was sued in a XX/XX/XXXX class action suit because of this type of issue, so Im not alone. Upon reviewing others experiences, their experience is almost IDENTICAL to ours. 

This is not an administrative error that we can live with, as it has a devastating effect on the financial future of not only the two of us, but our kids and extended family. If this escalates, we will be forced to seek damages due to the significant damage this administrative error has done to our family.

While the knee-jerk response is that we're only allowed one " rehab '', this is not a " rehab '' situation - this was an administrative error by XXXX. This is not a typical situation, so we need atypical attention and resolutions. We hope that we can resolve this through the CFPB 's process, without having to hire a student loan attorney, which is the last resort for all party 's involved. We don't want this to be an adversarial situation at with American Student Assistance at all! This was a servicer administrative error ( admitted by them ) that ultimately went haywire. We can both acknowledge where the disconnect was, even if we disagree on who is primarily responsible for the administrative error.