Consumer complaint received 2021-09-21
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: AES/PHEAA (KS)

My complaint, as such, is this : 1. AES received my two student loan consolidations in the amounts of {$51000.00} and {$80000.00} from a prior federal loan servicer around XXXX. There was a 60-day late payment noted on the account that occurred in XX/XX/XXXX due to forbearance request sent to wrong servicer. In XXXX, these accounts were in deferment and/or forbearance due to my inability to work as an XXXX or any other full-time position caused by an aggressive  XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

2. In XX/XX/XXXX, AES transferred/sold my loans to XXXX XXXX , XXXX out my balance, and closed the account. 

3. In XX/XX/XXXX, I filed for XXXX loan discharge under the XXXX and XXXX XXXX program. Upon receiving my application, XXXX XXXX, transferred my {$130000.00} in loans to the Department of Education/XXXX XXXX program . 

4. In XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of Education granted my XXXX discharge for my two consolidation loans totaling {$130000.00}. I completed my three-year income monitoring period in XXXX and the Department of Education listed my loans as permanently XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 

5. My AES accounts, XXXX XXXX account, and the Department of Education/XXXX XXXX have continuously listed the two loans of {$51000.00} and {$80000.00} as transferred/sold ( AES & XXXX XXXX ) and closed with a XXXX balance since XX/XX/XXXX. 

6. In XX/XX/XXXX, I checked my credit reports since my husband and I sold our XXXX home and moved to XXXX, where we are building our dream home. I was shocked to find XXXX noted there was derogatory, negative information with XXXX AES student loan, particularly since the maximum statutory period of 7 years negative reporting expired in XX/XX/XXXX ( because, once again, these AES loans were transferred and closed in XX/XX/XXXX with a XXXX balance ). Upon further review, XXXX is reporting AES claims that my loan payments were 60 days or 90 days ( two different reporting errors on XXXX system ) past due in XX/XX/XXXX! 

7. Knowing mistakes happen, I filed a dispute with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, specifically mentioning that these accounts were closed with AES in XX/XX/XXXX, the loans were transferred to another servicer, and were subsequently XXXX in XXXX by the US Department of Education via a Federally-regulated program with very stringent requirements. 

8. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX informed me that AES looked at my dispute and verified the account. AES officially verified to XXXX : I ) THAT THE CURRENT STATUS IS BEING REPORTED CORRECTLY, a ) the current status of Pays As Agreed, Closed and Transfer/Sold is CORRECT b ) the AES verification listing Date Closed, XX/XX/XXXX is CORRECT c ) Balance Amount, {$0.00} is CORRECT II ) THAT THE DATE OF LAST ACTIVITY IS BEING REPORTED CORRECTLY, a ) the date of last activity listed as XX/XX/XXXX is CORRECT III ) THAT THE PRIOR PAYING HISTORY IS BEING REPORTED CORRECTLY a ) the account history with status codes of XX/XX/XXXX 2 [ 60-89 days past due ] is INCORRECT A reasonable person would obviously doubt the accuracy of being 60-89 days past due FOUR YEARS AFTER an account was transferred and closed with a XXXX balance. AES reporting that I was 60 days past due on an account four years after closure does not accurately reflect my account performance. AES reporting I was 60 days past due after an account was closed can not be substantiated by AESs records. 

9. AES employee named XXXX XXXX ID # XXXX, chatted with me on XX/XX/XXXX. As detailed in screen shots I will upload, XXXX informed me that AES was aware that I was disputing a 60-day late payment status in XX/XX/XXXX for loans that were closed four years earlier in XXXX. 

XXXX : " Yes I see we received and completed that dispute as of today 's date with the information showing as valid since we haven't serviced your loans with AES since XXXX. '' Me : "... you are saying AES confirmed late payment in XXXX, 4 years after closed? '' XXXX : " Yes, that is what we received and closed as that being the reason as well since we didn't even have the loans at that time. That is why I suggested reaching out to XXXX to have them verify the reporting. '' This AES employee admits that AES confirmed the late pay status on AES loan to XXXX -- there are no late payments listed by either XXXX XXXX ( the servicer after AES ) or by the Department of Education -- but it is XXXX XXXX  fault for reporting what AES verified. I have will also attached the official dispute result document from XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

10. AES could be trying to re-age a XX/XX/XXXX 60-day late payment to XX/XX/XXXX, but that would obviously be a violation of FCRA 's Furnisher Rules. 

11. XXXX should also have noticed the inaccuracy of a closed account confirming late payment status, when the alleged late payment occurs four years after the account is closed and has a {$0.00} balance for the last four years since it was closed. Since XXXX report also lists the closed XXXX XXXX and Department of Education loans that were originally with AES. These accounts clearly document the loans were paid & closed in XX/XX/XXXX and have no derogatory payment information.