Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/339345423/Consumer-Financial-Protection-Bureau-v-Navient-Pioneer-Credit-Recovery-Complaint-2017
Timestamp: 2017-02-22 23:53:37
Document Index: 521407511

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5531', '§ 1681', 'art 1022', '§ 1692', '§\n5565', '§ 1331', '§ 1345', '§ 1391', '§ 5564', '§ 5481', '§ 5564', '§\n1681', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 5481', '§\n5481', '§ 5481', 'art.\n53', '§ 5531', '§\n5481', '§ 5531', '§ 5531', '§ 5531', '§\n5531', '§ 5531', '§ 1692', '§\n1692', '§ 1681', '§ 1022', '§\n1022', '§ 1022', '§ 1022', '§ 5565', '§\n5481']

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Navient Pioneer Credit Recovery Complaint 2017
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 66IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Navient Corporation; Navient (Electronically Filed)
Solutions, Inc.; and Pioneer Credit
Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) brings this
action against Navient Corporation, Navient Solutions, Inc. (Navient), and
Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (Pioneer) (collectively, Defendants) and
1. The Bureau brings this action under the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a), 5564, 5565; the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and its
implementing regulation, Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. part 1022; and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., based on
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 66
unlawful acts and practices in connection with Defendants’ servicing and
collection of student loans. The Bureau seeks to obtain permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, refunds, damages, civil money penalties, and
other relief for Defendants’ violations of Federal consumer financial laws.
2. Navient, formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc., is the largest
student loan servicer in the United States. Navient services the loans of
more than 12 million borrowers, including over 6 million customer
accounts under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education, and
more than $300 billion in federal and private student loans.
3. Navient’s principal responsibilities as a servicer include
managing borrowers’ accounts; processing monthly payments; assisting
borrowers to learn about, enroll in, and remain in alternative repayment
plans; and communicating directly with borrowers about the repayment of
4. Navient has failed to perform its core duties in the servicing of
student loans, violating Federal consumer financial laws as well as the trust
that borrowers placed in the company. Most federal student borrowers have
a right under federal law to set their monthly student loan payment as a
share of their income, an arrangement that can offer borrowers extended
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 3 of 66
payment relief and other significant benefits. Navient systematically
deterred numerous borrowers from obtaining access to some or all of the
benefits and protections associated with these plans. Despite assuring
borrowers that it would help them find the right repayment option for their
circumstances, Navient steered these borrowers experiencing financial
hardship that was not short-term or temporary into costly payment relief
designed for borrowers experiencing short-term financial problems, before
or instead of affordable long-term repayment options that were more
beneficial to them in light of their financial situation.
5. For borrowers who did enroll in long-term repayment plans,
Navient failed to disclose the annual deadline to renew those plans,
misrepresented the consequences of non-renewal, and obscured its renewal
notice to borrowers who were due for renewal. As a result, the affordable
payment amount expired for hundreds of thousands of borrowers, resulting
in an immediate increase in their monthly payment and other financial
6. Taken together, these practices prevented some of the most
financially vulnerable borrowers from securing some or all of the benefits of
plans that were intended to ease the burden of unaffordable student debt.
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 4 of 66
7. Navient’s servicing failures, however, were not just limited to
enrolling and renewing borrowers in affordable repayment plans. Navient
also misreported information to consumer reporting agencies about
thousands of borrowers who were totally and permanently disabled,
including veterans whose total and permanent disability was connected to
their military service, by making it appear as if those borrowers had
defaulted on their student loans when they had not, damaging their credit;
misrepresented one of its requirements for borrowers to release their
cosigner from their private student loan, thereby denying or delaying access
to an important feature on many cosigned private loans that relieves a
cosigner of responsibility for the loan once the borrower meets certain
eligibility criteria; and repeated the same errors in processing federal and
private student loan borrowers’ payments month after month, even after
borrowers complained to Navient about those errors.
8. Since at least July 2011, tens of thousands of borrowers and
cosigners have filed complaints with Navient, the Bureau, other
governmental and regulatory agencies, and other entities about the
difficulties and obstacles they have faced in the repayment of their federal
and private student loans serviced by Navient.
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 5 of 66
9. Pioneer is a large debt collector that primarily collects or has
collected defaulted federal student loan debt on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Education and several state-based loan guaranty agencies.
10. The U.S. Department of Education and state-based guaranty
agencies have collectively referred billions in defaulted student loan
balances to Pioneer for collection.
11. Much of Pioneer’s work relates to the federal loan rehabilitation
program, which is a program that allows federal student loan borrowers
who are in default to effectively “cure” one or more defaulted federal loans.
12. In seeking to enroll consumers in the rehabilitation program,
Pioneer systematically misled consumers about the effect of rehabilitation
on the consumer’s credit report and overpromised the amount of collection
fees that would be forgiven by enrolling in the program.
13. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action
because it is “brought under Federal consumer financial law,” 12 U.S.C. §
5565(a)(1), presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and is brought by
an agency of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
14. Venue is proper in this district because Defendants are located,
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 6 of 66
reside, and/or do business in this district, and/or a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district. 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c); 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f).
15. The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States
charged with regulating the offering and provision of consumer financial
products and services under Federal consumer financial laws, including the
CFPA, the FCRA, and the FDCPA. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5481(12), (14); 5491(a);
5531(a). The Bureau has independent litigating authority to enforce Federal
consumer financial laws. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5564(a), (b); 15 U.S.C. §
1681s(b)(1)(H); 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(b)(6).
16. Formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc., defendant Navient
Solutions, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Navient Corporation, is a
Delaware corporation. Navient Solutions, Inc. principally engages in
servicing of federal and private student loans for more than 12 million
borrowers. At all times material to this complaint, Navient Solutions, Inc.
has offered or provided a “consumer financial product or service,” and
therefore is and was a “covered person” under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 7 of 66
5481(6), (15)(A)(i). At all times material to this complaint, Navient
Solutions, Inc. has been located and transacted business in this district.
17. Defendant Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Navient Corporation, is a Delaware corporation. Pioneer
principally engages in debt collection activities related to outstanding and
delinquent student loans on behalf of several owners of federal student
loans. Pioneer is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
At all times material to this complaint, Pioneer has offered or provided a
“consumer financial product or service,” and therefore is and was a
“covered person” under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6), (15)(A)(x). At all
times material to this complaint, Pioneer has transacted business in this
18. Defendant Navient Corporation is a loan management,
servicing, and asset recovery company and is a Delaware corporation.
Navient Corporation is the direct or indirect owner of all of the stock of
Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer. At all times material to this complaint,
Navient Corporation has been located and transacted business in this
district, whether directly or through its subsidiaries.
19. At all times material to this complaint, Navient Corporation is
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 8 of 66
and was a “related person” because it has been a “shareholder … or other
person … who materially participates in the conduct of the affairs” of
Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer, which are covered persons. 12 U.S.C. §
5481(25)(C)(ii). Accordingly, at all times material to this complaint,
Navient Corporation is “deemed to [be] a covered person for all purposes of
Federal consumer financial law.” 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B).
20. There has been significant overlap between the corporate
governance and management of Navient Corporation and Navient
Solutions, Inc., as well as between Navient Corporation and Pioneer.
Specifically, many of the directors and officers of Navient Solutions, Inc.
have also been directors or officers of Navient Corporation, and many of the
directors and officers of Pioneer are also directors or officers of Navient
Corporation. For example, as of 2014, John Remondi served as President
and Chief Executive Officer for both Navient Corporation and Navient
Solutions, Inc.; John Kane served as Chief Operating Officer for both
Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, Inc.; Somsak Chivavibul
served as Chief Financial Officer for both Navient Corporation and Navient
Solutions, Inc.; Timothy Hynes served as Chief Risk Officer for both
Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, Inc.; and Stephen O’Connell
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 9 of 66
served as Senior Vice President and Treasurer for both Navient Corporation
and Navient Solutions, Inc. Similarly, Jack Frazier, the current Director and
former President of Pioneer, also serves as Senior Vice President for
Navient Corporation, and Jeff Mersmann, the current President of Pioneer,
also serves as Vice President of Operations for Navient Corporation.
21. Following a corporate reorganization in 2014, Navient
Corporation was the successor to SLM Corporation and Navient, LLC. As
part of this reorganization, Navient Corporation assumed certain liabilities
related to the servicing and collection activities of SLM Corporation,
Navient, LLC, and their subsidiaries, including Pioneer. Among the
liabilities assumed by Navient Corporation are all of the pre-reorganization
servicing and collection conduct described in this Complaint.
22. SLM Corporation was awarded the servicing contract with the
U.S. Department of Education in 2009, and that contract continues to be in
force to the present (subject to various modifications that the parties to that
contract have executed). All documents related to that contract were signed
in the name of SLM Corporation or, subsequently, Navient, LLC.
Accordingly, as a result of the 2014 corporate reorganization, Navient
Corporation is currently the entity that contracts with the U.S. Department
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 10 of 66
of Education for the servicing of federal student loans.
23. In public statements, including annual 10-K filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Navient Corporation (including
its predecessor SLM Corporation) has boasted about its capabilities with
respect to student loan servicing and collection, including helping
consumers navigate the path to financial success and select the appropriate
payment plan for their circumstances. Navient Corporation has also
indicated that it is responsible for overseeing the strategic direction and
business goals of its subsidiaries. For instance, Navient Corporation’s 2015
10-K filing includes the following statements:
• “Navient [Corporation] is the nation’s leading loan
management, servicing and asset recovery company, committed
to helping customers navigate the path to financial success.
Servicing more than $300 billion in education loans, Navient
[Corporation] supports the educational and economic
achievements of more than 12 million customers.”
• “Navient [Corporation] services loans for more than 12 million
… customers, including 6.3 million customers whose accounts
are serviced under Navient [Corporation]’s contract with ED.
We help our customers navigate the path to financial success
through proactive outreach and emphasis on identifying the
payment plan that best fits their individual budgets and
• “The Navient [Corporation] board of directors and its standing
committees oversee our strategic direction, including setting
our risk management philosophy, tolerance and parameters;
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 11 of 66
and establishing procedures for assessing the risks our
businesses face as well as the risk management practices our
management team develops and implements.”
• “Each business area within our organization is primarily
responsible for managing its specific risks following processes
and procedures developed in collaboration with our executive
management team and internal risk management partners.”
24. Navient Corporation also owns or leases the offices used by
Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer; has responsibility for the hiring of
employees for Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer; and manages all
compliance auditing for Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer.
25. Navient Corporation consented to, has knowledge of, has
materially participated in, and/or has controlled the activities of Navient
Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer with respect to the conduct alleged in this
Navient’s Steering of Borrowers Experiencing Long-Term
Financial Hardship into Forbearance
26. Upon first entering repayment, a federal student loan borrower
is assigned to or selects a specific repayment plan. However, that borrower
has the right to change his/her repayment plan assignment or selection at
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 12 of 66
any time, including if the borrower is experiencing financial hardship or
27. The U.S. Department of Education offers numerous repayment
plans to eligible borrowers with federal student loans, which are designed
to help borrowers manage their student loan debt and make monthly
repayment of these loans more affordable. These repayment plans include
several income-driven repayment plans, such as Income-Based Repayment
(IBR) and Pay As You Earn Repayment (PAYE).
28. Most federal student loans are eligible for at least one income-
driven repayment plan.
29. The monthly amount that the borrower will pay under the
income-driven repayment plans is set at an amount that is intended to be
more affordable based on the borrower’s income and family size.
30. Depending on the borrower’s income and family size, a
borrower’s monthly payment may be as low as $0 per month when enrolled
in an income-driven repayment plan.
31. In addition to providing a more affordable monthly payment,
most income-driven repayment plans offer several other benefits for federal
student loan borrowers, especially borrowers experiencing long-term
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 13 of 66
financial hardship. For example, for borrowers with subsidized loans whose
monthly payment amount does not fully cover accrued interest, the federal
government will pay any remaining unpaid interest that accrues on those
loans during the first three consecutive years of enrollment in the plan. This
interest subsidy can be a significant benefit to such borrowers because they
generally have no obligation to ever pay the remaining unpaid interest that
accrues during those three years. Furthermore, because that unpaid
interest is paid in full by the federal government, it is not added to the
principal balance of the loan. When interest is not paid, it can be added to
the principal balance of the loan; additional interest is then charged on the
increased principal balance of the loan, which could significantly increase
the total amount repaid over the life of the loan. Thus, the interest subsidy
available to many borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment plans
can reduce these additional harmful effects, mitigating the financial strain
on those borrowers.
32. Another benefit available to borrowers who are enrolled in an
income-driven repayment plan is forgiveness of the remaining balance of
their federal loan, either after making 20-25 years of qualifying payments
for most income-driven repayment plans or 10 years of qualifying payments
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 14 of 66
while working full time for certain public service employers.
33. Federal student loans are generally also eligible for forbearance,
which is a short-term, temporary postponement of payment. With
forbearance, a borrower experiencing financial hardship or illness may be
able to stop making payments or reduce his or her monthly payment for a
34. Navient’s website states that forbearance is appropriate for
borrowers who “have a problem making on-time payments due to a
temporary financial difficulty.” The website also states: “Forbearance is
intended to help you out in times of temporary need.” 1
35. Forbearance is typically not suitable for borrowers experiencing
financial hardship or distress that is not temporary or short-term.
Borrowers who enroll in forbearance face significant costs, which generally
increase the longer the borrower is in forbearance. These include the
accumulation of unpaid interest and the addition of that unpaid interest to
the principal balance of the loan. In addition, in some cases, following a
forbearance, a loan may be reamortized, where the monthly payments may
1Navient, Deferment and Forbearance, https://www.navient.com/loan-
customers/postponing-payments/deferment-and-forbearance/ (last visited Jan. 18,
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 15 of 66
be recalculated, which can lead to an increase in the borrower’s monthly
payment amount. As a result of these costs, long-term enrollment in
forbearance can dramatically increase the total amount due each month
after the forbearance period ends and over the repayment term for a
borrower’s federal loans.
36. Because income-driven repayment plans enable borrowers to
avoid or reduce these costs associated with forbearance, for borrowers
whose financial hardship is not temporary and short-term, enrolling in an
income-driven repayment plan is usually a significantly better option than
37. The U.S. Department of Education has publicly encouraged
borrowers to consult their federal student loan servicer to determine the
best repayment option or alternative for that individual borrower. In
several places on its website, the U.S. Department of Education has advised
borrowers to contact their student loan servicer before applying for any
alternative repayment plan or forbearance, with statements such as the
following: “Work with your loan servicer to choose a federal student loan
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 16 of 66
repayment plan that’s best for you”; 2 “Before you apply for an income-
driven repayment plan, contact your loan servicer if you have any
questions. Your loan servicer will help you decide whether one of these
plans is right for you”; 3 and “Always contact your loan servicer immediately
if you are having trouble making your student loan payment.” 4
38. Likewise, Navient, as a servicer of federal loans, has repeatedly
encouraged borrowers experiencing financial hardship to contact Navient
for assistance in evaluating the various alternative repayment options. For
example, Navient’s website has included the following statements inviting
borrowers to contact Navient for guidance in finding long-term repayment
• “[I]f you’re having trouble, there are options for assistance,
including income-driven repayment plans, deferment,
forbearance, and solutions to help you avoid delinquency
and prevent default …. We can work with you to help you get
back on track, and are sometimes able to offer new or
temporarily reduced payment schedules. Contact us at 800-
2 Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Repayment Plans,
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans (last visited Jan. 18, 2017).
3 Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Income-Driven Repayment
Plans, https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans/income-driven (last
visited Jan. 18, 2017).
4 Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Deferment and Forbearance,
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/deferment-forbearance (last visited Jan. 18,
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 17 of 66
722-1300 and let us help you make the right decision for
your situation.” 5
• “If you’re experiencing problems making your loans
payments, please contact us. Our representatives can help
you by identifying options and solutions, so you can make
the right decision for your situation.”6
• “Navient is here to help. We’ve found that, 9 times out of 10,
when we can talk to a struggling federal loan customer we
can help him or her get on an affordable payment plan and
avoid default.”7
39. For many years, Navient’s website has included other, similar
statements. For example, its website previously stated that it was
“committed to giving you the information and tools you need to understand
and evaluate your student loan payment options. We can help you find an
option that fits your budget, simplifies payment, and minimizes your total
interest cost.” (emphasis added).
40. Nevertheless, since at least July 2011, despite publicly assuring
borrowers that it will help them identify and enroll in an appropriate,
5 Navient, If You’re Having Trouble, https://www.navient.com/loan-
customers/postponing-payments/if-you-are-having-trouble/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2017)
6 Navient, Avoiding Delinquency and Default, https://www.navient.com/loan-
customers/postponing-payments/avoiding-default/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2017)
7 Navient, 5 Habits of Successful Borrowers, https://www.navient.com/loan-
customers/getting-started/successful-student-loan-borrowers/ (last visited Jan. 18,
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 18 of 66
affordable repayment plan, Navient has routinely disregarded that
commitment and instead steered borrowers experiencing long-term
distress or hardship into forbearance.
41. Navient’s compensation policies for its customer service
representatives have incentivized them to push numerous borrowers to
forbearance without adequately exploring income-driven repayment plans
with those borrowers, and in some cases, without even mentioning income-
driven repayment plans at all.
42. Because of the number and complexity of repayment options
available for federal loans, a conversation about alternative repayment
plans and the borrower’s financial situation is usually time-consuming.
43. Navient, however, has compensated its customer service
personnel, in part, based on average call time. As a result, engaging in
lengthy and detailed conversations with borrowers about their particular
financial situation and trying to determine the income-driven repayment
plan that is most appropriate for each borrower would have been financially
detrimental for those employees.
44. Moreover, since a borrower is required to submit a paper or
online application, and include certain income tax documentation with that
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 19 of 66
application, to enroll in an income-driven repayment plan, the process of
enrolling a borrower in such plans sometimes requires multiple, lengthy
conversations with the borrower. This is especially true considering that
more than half of Navient borrowers who enroll in income-driven
repayment plans for the first time report that they could not navigate the
application process on their own.
45. In addition to the paperwork required to enroll a borrower in an
income-driven repayment plan, a borrower in such a plan must also
complete an annual recertification form each year to document his/her
current income and family size, which is then used to adjust the borrower’s
payment amount. Processing this renewal paperwork further increases the
employee time that Navient must devote to borrowers who enroll in an
46. As the volume of income-driven repayment plan applications
and renewals received by Navient increases, Navient also has to increase
the size of its staff to review and process those forms, thereby increasing
47. In sum, counseling borrowers about and enrolling those
borrowers in income-driven repayment plans is costly for Navient and its
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 20 of 66
48. In contrast, enrollment in forbearance can often be completed
over the phone, in a matter of minutes, and generally without the
submission of any paperwork.
49. As compared to the staff resources and time expenditure
required to enroll and renew borrowers in income-driven repayment plans,
enrolling borrowers in forbearance is substantially less expensive for
Navient and is or was financially beneficial for its employees. Navient
employees have routinely failed to invest the time and effort necessary to
help financially distressed borrowers identify and enroll in affordable
repayment plans most appropriate for their financial situation.
50. Between January 2010 and March 2015, the number of
borrowers that Navient enrolled in forbearance has generally exceeded the
number of borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment plans. For
example, in December 2010, around 9% of borrowers with Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) loans held and serviced by Navient were enrolled in
voluntary forbearance, while less than 1% of borrowers with the same loan
type were enrolled in IBR. Similarly, in December 2012, approximately 7%
of Navient borrowers with FFEL loans held and serviced by Navient were
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 21 of 66
enrolled in voluntary forbearance, while just 2% of borrowers with the same
loan type were enrolled in IBR.
51. Navient representatives sometimes initially responded to
borrowers’ inability to make a payment by placing them in voluntary
forbearance without adequately advising them about available income-
driven repayment plans. This occurred even though it is likely that a large
number of those borrowers would have qualified instead for a $0 payment
in an income-driven repayment plan at that time. Indeed, over 50% of
Navient borrowers who need payment relief, and meet the eligibility criteria
for income-driven repayment plans, qualify for a $0 monthly payment.
52. For example, between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015,
nearly 25% of borrowers who ultimately enrolled in IBR with a $0 payment
were enrolled in voluntary forbearance within the twelve-month period
immediately preceding their enrollment in IBR. Similarly, during that same
time period, nearly 16% of borrowers who ultimately enrolled in PAYE with
a $0 payment were enrolled in voluntary forbearance within the twelve-
month period immediately preceding their enrollment in PAYE. The
majority of these borrowers were enrolled in voluntary forbearance more
than three months prior to their enrollment in the income-driven
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 22 of 66
repayment plan, which suggests that forbearance was not merely offered to
these borrowers while their application in an income-driven repayment
plan was pending. Because they were placed into forbearance before
ultimately enrolling in an income-driven repayment plan with a $0
payment, these borrowers had delayed access to the benefits of the income-
driven repayment plan. They were also subject to the negative
consequences of forbearance, including the addition of interest to the
principal balance of the loan, which they potentially could have avoided had
they been enrolled in the income-driven repayment plan from the start.
53. Navient also enrolled an immense number of borrowers in
multiple consecutive forbearances, even though they had clearly
demonstrated a long-term inability to repay their loans. For example,
between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015, Navient enrolled over 1.5
million borrowers in two or more consecutive forbearances totaling twelve
months or longer. More than 470,000 of these borrowers were enrolled in
three consecutive forbearances, and more than 520,000 of them were
enrolled in four or more consecutive forbearances. For borrowers enrolled
in three or more consecutive forbearances, each forbearance period lasted,
on average, six months. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of consumers
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 23 of 66
were continuously enrolled in forbearance for a period of two or three
years, or more. Regardless of why these borrowers did not enroll in an
income-driven repayment plan from the start, their long-term inability to
repay was increasingly clear as each forbearance period expired. Yet
Navient representatives continued to enroll them in forbearance again and
again, rather than an income-driven repayment plan that would have been
beneficial for many of them.
54. Enrollment in multiple consecutive forbearances imposed a
staggering financial cost on this group of borrowers. At the conclusion of
those forbearances, Navient had added nearly four billion dollars of unpaid
interest to the principal balance of their loans. For many of these
borrowers, had they been enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan,
they would have avoided much or all of their additional charges because the
government would have paid the unpaid interest on their subsidized loans
in full during the first three years of consecutive enrollment.
Navient’s Servicing Failures Relating to Renewal of Borrowers’
55. A federal student loan borrower who is enrolled in an income-
driven repayment plan must certify his/her income and family size to
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 24 of 66
qualify for an affordable payment amount that is based on that income and
family size. This affordable payment amount applies for a period of twelve
months. At the end of this twelve-month period, the affordable payment
amount will expire unless the borrower renews his/her enrollment in the
plan before the expiration date. To do so, the borrower must “recertify”
his/her income and family size by submitting updated information,
including documentation of income. The borrower must recertify income
and family size information before the expiration of the twelve-month
period each year in order to maintain the affordable payment amount each
56. If the twelve-month period expires because the borrower has
not timely recertified income and family size, several negative
consequences are likely to occur. First, the borrower’s monthly payment
amount may immediately increase from a low affordable amount to one
that is typically in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
57. Other significant consequences that will occur when the twelve-
month period expires without a timely recertification include (1) the
addition of any unpaid, accrued interest to the principal balance of the
loan; (2) for subsidized loans in the first three years of enrollment in an
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 25 of 66
income-driven repayment plan, the loss of an interest subsidy from the
federal government for each month until the borrower renews his/her
enrollment; and (3) for some borrowers who enroll in forbearance when the
twelve-month period expires, delayed progress towards loan forgiveness
because the borrower is no longer making qualifying payments that count
towards loan forgiveness. These consequences are all irreversible.
58. At the time of enrollment in the income-driven repayment plan,
Navient has sent borrowers an “initial disclosure notice” which identified
the beginning and end dates of the initial enrollment in the repayment
plan. That notice has also advised consumers: “You’ll be notified in advance
when your loan(s) is up for renewal for the [income-driven repayment]
plan. At that time, you’ll be provided with a date to submit a new
application.” However, the notice has not indicated any specific renewal
59. The “initial disclosure notice” has also outlined certain
consequences that might result if the borrower “chooses not to renew” or
“requests to leave the plan,” including the recalculation of the borrower’s
monthly payment amount and the addition of unpaid interest to the
principal balance of the loan. This indicates that these consequences will
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 26 of 66
result only if the borrower either “chooses not to renew” or “requests to
leave the plan.” The notice does not identify any consequences that might
result if the borrower chooses to renew by submitting a renewal
application, but the application is incorrect or incomplete in some respect
or is not submitted in a timely manner.
60. Since at least January 1, 2010, federal student loan servicers,
including Navient, have been required to send at least one written notice
concerning the annual renewal requirements to borrowers in advance of
their renewal deadline.
61. From at least January 1, 2010 until December 2012, Navient’s
annual renewal notices for income-driven repayment plans sent through
U.S. mail did not inform borrowers of the actual date by which they had to
submit the renewal application, including documentation of income, to
avoid expiration of the twelve-month period during which payment was set
at an affordable amount based on the borrower’s income and family size.
62. Instead, Navient’s pre-December 2012 notices stated vaguely
that the borrower’s income-based repayment period would “expire in
approximately 90 days” and that the “renewal process may take at least 30
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 27 of 66
63. It is impossible to determine from these two statements the
deadline by which a borrower must submit the required documentation and
information in order to timely renew enrollment in the plan. First, the
statement that the “renewal process may take at least 30 days” says nothing
about how long the renewal process will actually take, or even the
maximum number of days the renewal process could take. Second, by
saying that the plan would expire in “approximately 90 days,” Navient
provided no date by which the borrower could count backwards to calculate
the deadline – even if Navient had told the borrower how many days to
count (which it did not). The notice also failed to advise borrowers of the
likely consequences if they failed to timely submit their renewal
64. The pre-December 2012 notices also failed to advise borrowers
of the likely consequences of submitting incorrect or incomplete
information. The notices encouraged borrowers to fill out the forms
completely and warned borrowers that “by providing incorrect or
incomplete information the [renewal] process will be delayed.” This falsely
implied that the only consequence of providing incorrect or incomplete
information was a “delay” in the renewal “process” – that while the renewal
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 28 of 66
process would be delayed by the submission of an incomplete and incorrect
application for renewal, as long as the deficiencies were rectified, no other
65. Borrowers who have submitted a renewal application have
clearly chosen to renew their enrollment; their choice to renew was
evidenced by their submission of the application, even if that application
was incomplete or inaccurate in some respect. But the pre-December 2012
notice said nothing to warn these borrowers that failing to submit complete
and accurate information before the end of the twelve-month period would
have essentially the same consequences as if the borrower chose not to
renew their enrollment in the income-driven repayment plan at all, because
the consequences of a decision not to renew that were outlined in the initial
disclosure letter would still result. Those consequences included at least a
temporary increase in the borrower’s monthly payment amount, the
addition of any unpaid interest to the principal balance of the loan, and
other financial consequences described above. Borrowers could not
reasonably have been expected to interpret Navient’s reference to a mere
processing delay to actually mean irreversible financial harm.
66. For borrowers who have consented to receiving electronic
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 29 of 66
communications, Navient has sent electronic renewal notices instead of
hard copy notices by mail. More than 75% of Navient’s federal student loan
borrowers have consented to receiving electronic communications.
67. Between at least mid-2010 and March 2015, these borrowers
had to log in to Navient’s secure website with their user ID and password to
view an electronic version of the renewal notice sent via U.S. mail to other
borrowers. Navient, however, failed to adequately advise these borrowers of
the availability of the electronic notice on its website.
68. The only step that Navient took to advise these borrowers of the
availability of the electronic notice on its website was to send them an email
with a hyperlink to its website, where the renewal notice could be viewed
after the borrower logged into his/her secure account. But neither the
subject line of this email nor its contents provided any indication of the
purpose of the notice.
69. From at least January 1, 2010 through November 15, 2012, the
subject line of the email simply read: “Your Sallie Mae Account
Information.” Likewise, from at least November 16, 2012 through March
18, 2015, the subject line of the email was: “New Document Ready to View.”
70. The body of the email did not provide any greater detail. Until
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 30 of 66
mid-2015, the body of the email stated only that “a new education loan
document is available. Please log in to your account to view it.”
71. In stark contrast, during the same time period, other emails
sent by Navient described the content or purpose of the referenced
document. For example, the subject line of one such email was “Your Sallie
Mae – Department of Education Statement is Available,” and the body of
the email stated “Your monthly statement is now available. Please log in to
your account at SallieMae.com to view and pay your bill.” Another email
regarding loan terms had a subject line that read “Change in Loan Terms,”
and the text of this email stated, “The payment term for your loan(s) has
changed. Please log in to your account to view the document with your
updated payment schedule.”
72. Navient has tracked the number of borrowers who click on the
hyperlink in the emails that Navient sends to them. Thus, Navient has
known or should have known that many borrowers did not view the
electronic renewal notices.
73. Between at least July 2011 and March 2015, the percentage of
borrowers who did not timely renew their enrollment in income-driven
repayment plans regularly exceeded 60%. Those borrowers who did not
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 31 of 66
timely renew experienced the significant consequences of nonrenewal,
including a payment jump and the addition of any accrued, unpaid interest
to the principal balance of the loan.
74. Navient has been aware that the majority of borrowers were
failing to renew their enrollment in income-driven repayment plans.
75. Beginning in or around March 2015, Navient made several
enhancements to its email that provides access to the electronic renewal
notice. It changed the subject line of the email to read “Your Payment Will
Increase Soon!” and the text of the email now states: “[I]n order to keep
your lower payment amount, it’s important that you apply soon to renew
your repayment plan.”
76. Since Navient made these enhancements to its electronic
notices, the renewal rate has more than doubled.
Navient’s Misreporting of Information to Consumer Reporting
Agencies Regarding Loans Held by Disabled Borrowers
77. As a servicer of student loans, Navient routinely furnishes
information about its student loan accounts to consumer reporting
78. The U.S. Department of Education allows borrowers who have a
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 32 of 66
total and permanent disability to have their federal loans discharged,
relieving them of any obligation to pay the loans. These include loans held
by veterans whom the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has determined
are unemployable because of disabilities connected to their military service.
79. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education provided guidance
regarding appropriate credit reporting when a loan is discharged. That
guidance instructs that, when a non-defaulted loan is discharged due to the
total and permanent disability of the borrower, servicers should use only
reporting code “05” and a payment rating code applicable to the status of
the loan. Those instructions also indicate that the reporting code “AL”
(signaling that the loan is being “assigned to the government”) is to be used
only: (1) by schools holding Perkins loans, not by servicers, and (2) only
when the loan is in a default status prior to being discharged due to the
disability of the borrower.
80. Consistent with the instructions from the U.S. Department of
Education, the operative credit reporting guide, issued by the Consumer
Data Industry Association in 2012, contains a section on “Total and
Permanent Disability Discharge Procedures” for student loans. That section
indicates that the reporting code “AL” is to be used only: (1) by schools
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 33 of 66
holding Perkins loans, not by servicers, and (2) only when the loan is in a
default status prior to being discharged due to the disability of the
81. From at least October 2012 until approximately June 2014,
Navient used the “AL” reporting code to report a loan that had been
discharged due to the borrower’s total and permanent disability, despite the
fact that Navient is not an educational institution that holds Perkins loans,
and that some of the borrowers who received a loan discharge due to a total
and permanent disability had not defaulted.
82. Navient’s furnishing of information regarding loans that had
been discharged due to the borrower’s total and permanent disability was
not accurate because there was a correct reporting code available to be used
by servicers responsible for non-defaulted loans that were being discharged
due to a borrower’s total and permanent disability. Navient’s misreporting
made it appear as if borrowers who had not defaulted on their loans and
whose loans were being discharged due to a total and permanent disability
had actually defaulted on their loans.
83. Navient used a reporting code for defaulted loans even though it
knew that doing so was likely to cause a significant negative impact on the
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 34 of 66
credit report and associated credit score of totally and permanently
disabled borrowers, and other serious harm. For example, Navient’s
website warns: “Defaulting on your federal or private loans may result in
serious consequences that might lead to a long lasting and harmful impact
to you as the borrower or cosigner.”8 And Navient’s own debt collectors tell
borrowers at risk of default that a default will severely impact their credit
Navient’s Misrepresentations Relating to Cosigner Release
84. A cosigner is generally necessary for a borrower to obtain a
private student loan, or to obtain that loan with more favorable terms.
85. Once a borrower enters repayment on his/her private student
loan, he or she generally can apply to release the cosigner from the loan
after meeting certain eligibility criteria. This option is generally available to
most Navient borrowers with cosigned private student loans.
86. Since at least January 2010, one of the eligibility criteria that
Navient has required private student loan borrowers to meet before they
can apply to release a cosigner is that the borrower must make a minimum
8Navient, Avoiding Delinquency and Default, https://www.navient.com/loan-
customers/postponing-payments/avoiding-default/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2017).
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 35 of 66
number of consecutive, on-time payments consisting of both principal and
interest. Since January 21, 2014, Navient has required the borrower to
“make 12 consecutive, on-time principal and interest payments” before
applying for cosigner release. Prior to January 21, 2014, and depending on
the applicable terms of the borrower’s loan, Navient required borrowers to
make between 12 and 48 “consecutive, on-time principal and interest
payments” before applying for cosigner release. Navient did not, however,
specifically define for borrowers what it meant by “consecutive” or “on-
time” payments.
87. A borrower in repayment will sometimes make a payment that
is a multiple of the monthly payment amount due. For example, a borrower
whose monthly payment amount due is $100 may choose to pay $200 or
$300 instead of $100.
88. When a borrower makes such a “multiplier overpayment,”
Navient generally applies the payment to satisfy the borrower’s current
monthly payment due, and then places the borrower in a “paid ahead”
status for the subsequent months that have been satisfied by the excess
89. For each month that the borrower is in a “paid ahead” status on
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 36 of 66
his/her private student loan, Navient sends the borrower a bill indicating
that the payment due for that month is $0 because the borrower is not
required to make any payment that month in order to remain current on
his/her loan. Thus, there is no “on-time principal and interest payment”
that is even due that month.
90. Until at least mid-2015, in determining whether a borrower
made the minimum number of “consecutive, on-time principal and interest
payments” for purposes of cosigner release, Navient treated the lack of
payment by a borrower in response to a $0 bill as a failure to make a
“consecutive, on-time principal and interest payment” that month. Navient
reset the borrower’s progress towards the “consecutive, on-time principal
and interest payments” requirement to zero months.
91. For example, suppose a borrower’s monthly amount due is
$100. If she paid exactly $100 each month from January through
September 2014, Navient would have considered her to have made nine
consecutive, on-time payments. Suppose she then submitted a $200
payment in October 2014. Because that $200 payment would have been
enough to cover the monthly amount due for both October and November
2014, she would have received a $0 bill for November. Because no payment
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 37 of 66
was required by the $0 bill, she submitted no payment in November. Then,
in December 2014, upon receiving the next bill that actually required a
payment, she made an on-time monthly payment of $100. Because she did
not submit a payment in November 2014, Navient would have reset her
progress toward the consecutive, on-time principal and interest payment
requirement for cosigner release. Navient would have treated this borrower
as having made zero consecutive payments as of November.
92. This is contrary to Navient’s statement to borrowers that they
can apply for cosigner release if they make a certain number of
“consecutive, on-time principal and interest payments.” The requirement is
only that the “on-time principal and interest payments” must be
consecutive – not that the “months” or “billing cycles” in which on-time
principal and interest payments are made must be consecutive. The
requirement does not even refer to months or billing cycles.
93. When a borrower does not submit a payment in a particular
month because he/she has received a $0 bill as a result of a previous
multiplier overpayment, and then makes an on-time principal and interest
payment the next time he/she receives a bill for more than $0, there is no
break in eligible payments that he/she has made towards the on-time
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 38 of 66
principal and interest payment requirement. The borrower in the example
above made eleven eligible payments in 2014, and they were consecutive
because there was no “on-time principal and interest payment” she failed to
make that year. Yet Navient would have reset her count to zero months in
November 2014 because her payments were not made in consecutive
94. Navient has thus misled borrowers by stating that they must
make twelve “consecutive, on-time principal and interest payments” before
applying for cosigner release. The actual requirement that Navient applied
is that the borrower must submit a separate on-time payment in each of
twelve consecutive months amounting to at least the regular principal and
interest amount, even where the billing statement indicates that no
95. Navient failed to disclose this actual requirement. And nothing
on Navient’s billing statement, its website, or any other consumer-facing
document advised borrowers that making no payment in response to a $0
bill could impact their eligibility for cosigner release.
96. By resetting borrowers’ progress toward the “consecutive, on-
time principal and interest payments” requirement to zero months when
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 39 of 66
they submitted no payment in response to a $0 bill as a result of a previous
multiplier overpayment, Navient denied or delayed cosigner release for
borrowers who had already satisfied the requirement that Navient had
disclosed or had made progress towards doing so, and who had met or
would have been able to meet Navient’s other requirements for release.
Navient’s Payment Processing Errors
97. One of Navient’s primary responsibilities as a student loan
servicer is to process payments made by borrowers and cosigners on their
student loan accounts.
98. Navient, however, does not have adequate processes and
procedures in place to sufficiently address certain errors it makes in the
processing of payments received from borrowers and cosigners or to
prevent errors from recurring.
99. A significant number of borrowers and cosigners do not submit
payments through Navient’s online portal, but instead submit their
payments by mailing a check or through an external bill payment system
(such as a bill payment service operated by the bank where the borrower
has a checking account).
100. Since at least July 2011, many borrowers and cosigners,
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 40 of 66
primarily those who pay by mailing a check or through an external bill
payment system, have complained that Navient misallocated or misapplied
submitted payments. (Errors in the allocation of payments relate to how a
payment is distributed across multiple loans. Errors in the application of
payments relate to how a payment is applied to a specific loan or loans
based on the terms of each loan’s promissory note; for example, the
payment might be applied first to unpaid fees, then to unpaid interest, and
then to unpaid principal.)
101. By way of example, in some instances, Navient has misallocated
payments intended and/or designated for a specific loan(s) among some or
all of a borrower’s other loans. Sometimes, the payment was a lump sum
payment intended to pay off a specific loan, but Navient allocated the
payment to all of the loans in the borrower’s account, thereby not paying off
the loan that the borrower intended to pay off. In other cases, Navient has
disregarded borrower or cosigner instructions about how to divide a
payment among loans, or incorrectly allocated payments made by cosigners
to all of the loans in the borrower’s account instead of only the loans which
they cosigned.
102. Each year Navient receives thousands of complaints and
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 41 of 66
inquiries relating to payment misapplication or misallocation that are
escalated beyond a first-level customer service representative.
103. One source for payment processing errors appears to be the
undisclosed payment allocation methodology used by Navient. Specifically,
when a borrower has more than one loan serviced by Navient, Navient
generally places that borrower’s loans in one or more billing groups. For
borrowers who made a payment that varied from the exact amount owed on
the loans in a billing group, Navient has used a default allocation
methodology that was not disclosed on any billing statement, promissory
note, or printed or online resource available to borrowers.
104. In addition, the default allocation methodology varied based on
whether the loan was federal or private, as well as whether the borrowed
submitted an underpayment, overpayment, or an overpayment that was a
multiple of the borrower’s monthly payment amount due.
105. Because Navient did not make its default allocation
methodologies clear or publicly available until at least late 2013, prior to
that time borrowers and cosigners had no way of knowing in advance how
Navient might allocate payments (unless they specifically requested the
information and a representative provided accurate information).
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 42 of 66
106. While a borrower or cosigner could submit written instructions
with a paper check as to how a payment should be processed, Navient’s
mail reading equipment did not always properly detect the presence of such
instructions. And even where the instructions were detected and acted
upon by a Navient representative, the Navient representative did not always
implement the instructions properly.
107. Thus, borrowers who did not use Navient’s online portal to
submit payments had to call if they discovered, as was sometimes the case,
that their payment processing instructions had not been honored or had
not been implemented properly.
108. Errors made by Navient in the processing of payments received
from borrowers and cosigners have resulted in borrowers and cosigners
incurring improper late fees, increased interest charges, the furnishing of
inaccurate negative information to consumer reporting agencies, and the
loss of certain benefits.
109. Many borrowers and cosigners have complained that a payment
processing error was not an isolated event, but rather that the same
payment processing error recurred time and again, even after they
contacted Navient to correct the error.
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 43 of 66
110. While Navient might correct a specific error if a consumer
contacts Navient to report it, if the error is not escalated beyond a first-level
customer service representative, Navient does not necessarily identify and
fix the underlying issue causing the error to prevent it from recurring. As a
result, some consumers have suffered the same payment processing error
in multiple months.
111. Moreover, Navient does not categorize most non-escalated
consumer inquiries about payment processing errors. When borrowers and
cosigners with non-escalated consumer inquiries contact Navient about
payment processing errors, Navient personnel generally record details
about the error in a freeform, narrative style in notes in the consumer’s
account, but those personnel are unable to use any codes or tags to
categorize the inquiry or concern.
112. Navient, thus, is unable to systematically search and/or
aggregate these non-escalated inquiries. As a result, Navient has been
unable to effectively understand many of the problems that consumers are
experiencing with respect to payment processing and take action to prevent
these problems from recurring or from impacting the same consumer again
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 44 of 66
The Federal Rehabilitation Program
113. The federal loan rehabilitation program allows federal student
loan borrowers to restore the student loans on which they have defaulted to
active repayment and remove the default notation from their credit
114. Once a borrower enters the program, he/she is required to
make nine on-time payments over the course of ten months. If the
borrower successfully makes the nine payments and submits an
application, the outstanding loan balance is transferred to a new servicer
and the borrower is taken out of default status.
115. The U.S. Department of Education has relied on Pioneer and
other private collection agencies to accurately explain the terms and
conditions of the rehabilitation program to borrowers and enroll them in
the program where appropriate.
116. Once Pioneer enrolls a borrower in the rehabilitation program,
the company receives a percentage-based fee for every monthly
rehabilitation payment made by that borrower.
117. Once a borrower completes the nine payments and the
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 45 of 66
rehabilitation application, Pioneer receives a percentage fee based on the
total amount of the defaulted loan balance “cured” through rehabilitation.
Pioneer’s False Promises that Rehabilitation Would Remove All
Adverse Information Regarding the Borrowers’ Loans from
118. When a borrower is in a normal repayment status on her
student loan, he/she has a related trade line on his/her credit report.
119. If that borrower ceases making payments, eventually he/she
will enter default status, at which point a new and separate default trade
line will be added to his/her credit report. Hence, a borrower in default has
two trade lines related to the student loan: one reflecting the late payments
and delinquencies leading up to default, and another reflecting the default
120. Once a borrower completes the rehabilitation program and has
the default cured, the owner of the loan removes the default trade line from
the borrower’s credit report. However, the original trade line reflecting late
payments and delinquencies prior to the default is not removed.
121. The U.S. Department of Education instructs its debt collectors
not to state or imply to borrowers that the adverse information reported by
the original lender guaranty agency will be removed from the borrower’s
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 46 of 66
credit report as a result of rehabilitation: “Adverse information reported by
the original lender will not be expunged or excluded from credit reports
before the 7-year period that runs from the lender’s report of that default,
even if the loan is rehabilitated.”
122. On information and belief, despite this instruction, in calls with
borrowers, Pioneer collectors routinely misrepresented the change that
occurs on a borrower’s credit report after rehabilitation, by stating or
suggesting that all adverse information relating to the defaulted loan,
including any record of late payments and delinquencies, would be
removed from the borrower’s credit report. Borrowers typically do not
know that there are two trade lines for the defaulted loans, so unless that
fact is clearly explained to the borrower, they would not reasonably
understand that not all adverse information would be removed.
123. The U.S. Department of Education, in 2015, announced its
intention to end its contract with Pioneer in part because an audit, which
included review of a sample of calls, indicated that Pioneer collectors
misled consumers concerning the change that occurs on a borrower’s credit
report after rehabilitation.
124. On information and belief, the misrepresentations made in calls
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 47 of 66
with borrowers were also consistent with the training guides used by
Pioneer which included the following talking points: “You have qualified for
a rehabilitation program. What you will need to do is make a minimum of 9
qualifying monthly payments. After all payments are made, a new lender
will pay off the Department of Education for you. You will then in turn owe
the new lender, which means you will no longer be in Federal Default. All of
the collection fees will be removed at the time of the sale. Also it will be
completely deleted from your credit report as though it never happened.”
125. In fact, after rehabilitation, these borrowers’ trade lines were
not erased of all adverse information related to the student loan. The
original trade line, reflecting a delinquency, remained on their credit
Pioneer’s False Promises Regarding Collection Fee Forgiveness
126. When a federal student loan enters default, the U.S.
Department of Education begins calculating collection fees at 24.34% of the
principal amount due.
127. The amount calculated becomes part of the overall balance
owed to the federal government by the borrower.
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 48 of 66
128. Once a borrower completes the rehabilitation program, and the
default is cured, any remaining collection fees are forgiven by the U.S.
129. On information and belief, in calls with some borrowers,
Pioneer collectors represented that all collection fees would be forgiven.
130. On information and belief, other times, Pioneer represented to
some borrowers that the amount of collection fees currently assessed to the
account would be forgiven.
131. In reality, since 20% of each rehabilitation payment made by a
borrower goes towards collection fees, many borrowers have paid down a
significant portion of their collection fees by the time they have completed
132. As a result, by the time the borrower has finished the
rehabilitation program, the amount of collection fees remaining to be
forgiven was less than initially promised.
133. The U.S. Department of Education, in 2015, announced its
misled consumers concerning the amount of collection fees that would be
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 49 of 66
forgiven for borrowers who completed the rehabilitation program.
134. Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA prohibit a “covered person”
from committing or engaging in any “unfair, deceptive or abusive act or
practice” in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a
consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer
financial product or service. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(B). Defendants
are “covered person[s]” within the meaning of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §
5481(6).
135. An act or practice is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause
substantial injury to consumers, which is not reasonably avoidable by
consumers, and such substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing
benefits to consumers or to competition. 12 U.S.C. § 5531(c).
136. An act or practice is deceptive if it misleads or is likely to
mislead the consumer; the consumer’s interpretation of the act or practice
is reasonable under the circumstances; and the misleading act or practice is
137. An act or practice is abusive if it, among other things, takes
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 50 of 66
unreasonable advantage of the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a
covered person to act in the interests of the consumer. 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d).
Abusive Acts or Practices Related to Steering
(Against Navient and Navient Corporation)
138. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
139. Federal student loan borrowers relied on Navient to act in their
interests in advising about options to address their financial situation,
including helping borrowers experiencing financial hardship or distress
select a suitable alternative repayment plan. That reliance was reasonable
in part because both Navient and the U.S. Department of Education
repeatedly encouraged borrowers to rely on their servicer to help them in
140. As described above, in numerous instances, Navient took
unreasonable advantage of consumers’ reasonable reliance on Navient to
act in their interests. Navient did not act in consumers’ interest because it
steered borrowers experiencing long-term financial hardship to
forbearance rather than adequately advising them about income-driven
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 51 of 66
repayment plans that would have been financially beneficial to those
141. This advantage obtained by Navient was unreasonable because
Navient benefited from this conduct at the expense of the consumer.
Enrolling borrowers into forbearance is quicker and less expensive to
administer than other repayment plans, thus decreasing Navient’s
operating costs. The advantage obtained by Navient was also unreasonable
because Navient fostered the reliance that it then exploited at the expense
of those consumers.
142. Therefore, Navient’s acts and practices as set forth herein,
together with or on behalf of Navient Corporation, constitute abusive acts
or practices in violations of sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C.
§§ 5531, 5536(a)(1).
Unfair Acts or Practices Related to Steering
143. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
144. Navient’s acts and practice relating to steering of borrowers into
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 52 of 66
forbearance caused or was likely to cause substantial consumer injury.
Navient steered hundreds of thousands of federal student loan borrowers
experiencing long-term financial hardship into multiple consecutive
forbearances that spanned years. Navient then added any interest that was
unpaid during the forbearance period to the principal balance of these
borrowers’ loans, thereby drastically increasing the total costs of these
145. This consumer injury was not reasonably avoidable because
Navient steered borrowers into forbearance while providing no or
inadequate information about alternative repayment plans so that
borrowers could make an informed decision to select the repayment option
that was most appropriate for their financial circumstances.
146. The substantial consumer injury caused or likely caused by
Navient’s steering of borrowers into forbearance was not outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
147. Therefore, Navient’s acts and practices as set forth herein,
together with or on behalf of Navient Corporation, constitute unfair acts or
practices in violations of sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §§
5531, 5536(a)(1).
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 53 of 66
Unfair Acts or Practices Related to Recertification
148. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
149. As described above, Navient failed to adequately notify
borrowers who consented to receive electronic communications of the
existence of the renewal notice because the email it sent to them that
purportedly provided such notice included no information about the
purpose or contents of the notice in the subject line or body of the email.
150. These acts and practices caused or were likely to cause
substantial injury to consumers because numerous federal student loan
borrowers’ affordable income-based payment in the income-driven
repayment plan expired as a result of those acts or practices, causing them
to suffer significant negative financial consequences, including an increased
monthly payment, the addition of interest to the principal balance of the
loan, and the partial loss of the interest subsidy provided by the federal
government for eligible loans. Navient was aware that the majority of its
federal student borrowers were failing to timely renew their enrollment in
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 54 of 66
151. These injuries were not reasonably avoidable. Among other
things, Navient’s acts and practices relating to renewal of income-driven
repayment plans created an unreasonable obstacle to the exercise of
consumers’ decision-making with respect to renewal of income-driven
recertification plans, including by obscuring access to the information
necessary for consumers to take the actions necessary to avoid these
152. The substantial consumer injury caused or likely caused by
Navient’s acts and practices relating to renewal of income-driven
repayment plans was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to
consumers or to competition.
153. Therefore, Navient’s acts and practices as set forth herein,
practices in violations of sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§
Deceptive Acts or Practices Related to Recertification
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 55 of 66
154. The allegations in Paragraph 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
155. From at least July 2011 to December 2012, in numerous
instances, Navient sent federal student loan borrowers a notice regarding
renewal of income-driven repayment plans that stated that providing
incomplete or inaccurate information in the renewal application would
result in a “delay” in the renewal “process,” but Navient did not separately
identify any consequences other than the processing delay. This statement
made an implied representation, and created the false impression, that the
only consequence of submitting a renewal application with incomplete or
inaccurate information would be a processing delay and nothing more.
156. In truth and in fact, submitting a renewal application with
incomplete or inaccurate information was likely to result in several other
consequences, which were more severe than a mere delay in processing the
renewal. These include a significant increase in the borrower’s monthly
payment amount, the addition of any unpaid interest to the principal
balance of the loan, and the partial loss of the federal government’s interest
subsidy for eligible loans.
157. It was reasonable under the circumstances for consumers to
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 56 of 66
interpret Navient’s statement to mean that a processing delay was the only
consequence of submitting incomplete or incorrect information.
158. Navient’s representation was material and likely to mislead a
reasonable federal student loan borrower.
159. Therefore, Navient’s misrepresentations as set forth herein,
together with or on behalf of Navient Corporation, constitute deceptive acts
or practices in violation of sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1) of the CFPA, 12
U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a)(1).
Deceptive Acts or Practices Related to
160. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
161. As described above, in numerous instances, Navient
represented to borrowers with cosigned loans that they could apply for
cosigner release if the borrower made a certain minimum number of
“consecutive, on-time principal and interest payments” and also met other
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 57 of 66
162. In truth and in fact, Navient did not allow certain borrowers
who met this requirement to apply for cosigner release – those who
submitted no additional payment in a month in which they received a $0
bill because they had made a payment in a previous month that was a
multiple of the monthly payment amount due.
163. It was reasonable for consumers to interpret Navient’s express
representation about the “consecutive, on-time principal and interest
payments” requirement to mean that a borrower was only required to
submit consecutive “on-time principal and interest payments,” and not that
such payments must be made in consecutive months and even in months
when no such payment was due.
164. Navient’s misrepresentations were material and likely to
mislead a reasonable consumer.
165. Therefore, Navient’s misrepresentations as set forth herein,
Unfair Acts or Practices Related to Payment Processing Errors
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 58 of 66
166. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
167. As described above, in numerous instances, Navient made
errors, sometimes month after month, in misallocating and misapplying
payments made by consumers. Moreover, Navient failed to implement
adequate processes and procedures to prevent the same errors from
recurring, or to prevent the same errors from impacting other consumers.
168. These acts and practices caused or were likely to cause
substantial injury to consumers in the form of late fees, interest accrual,
and negative credit reporting.
169. These injuries were not reasonably avoidable because
consumers had no control over errors, including repeat errors, that Navient
made in the processing of their payment(s).
170. The substantial consumer injury caused or likely caused by
Navient’s payment processing errors was not outweighed by countervailing
benefits to consumers or to competition.
171. Therefore, Navient’s acts and practices as set forth herein,
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 59 of 66
Rehabilitation Credit Reporting
(Against Pioneer and Navient Corporation)
172. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
173. As described above, on information and belief, Pioneer
represented to borrowers that completing a rehabilitation program would
remove all adverse information regarding the student loan from their credit
174. In truth and in fact, completing a rehabilitation program would
not remove all adverse information regarding the student loan from the
borrower’s credit report because the original trade line reflecting late
payments and delinquencies prior to the default would remain.
175. It was reasonable for consumers to interpret Pioneer’s express
representations to mean what they say.
176. Those misrepresentations were material to consumers in
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 60 of 66
choosing whether to participate in the rehabilitation program.
177. Therefore, Pioneer’s misrepresentations as set forth herein,
178. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 137 are incorporated here by
179. As described above, on information and belief, Pioneer
represented to borrowers that all collection fees would be forgiven by the
U.S. Department of Education upon completion of the rehabilitation
program. On information and belief, Pioneer also represented to some
borrowers that the amount of collection fees currently assessed to the
180. In truth and in fact, the U.S. Department of Education would
not forgive all collection fees or the amount of collection fees currently
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 61 of 66
assessed, upon completion of the rehabilitation program, because
approximately 20% of each rehabilitation payment made by a borrower
goes towards collection fees. The U.S. Department of Education would
forgive only the amount of collection fees remaining after rehabilitation
payments were applied.
181. It was reasonable for consumers to interpret Pioneer’s express
182. Those misrepresentations were material to consumers in
183. Therefore, Pioneer’s misrepresentations as set forth herein,
VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 62 of 66
184. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 133 and 173 to 176 are
185. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors
from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
186. As described above, on information and belief, Pioneer made
false, deceptive, and misleading representations to borrowers that
completing the federal loan rehabilitation program would remove all
adverse information regarding their loan from their credit report.
187. Therefore, Pioneer, acting together with or on behalf of Navient
Corporation, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. §
1692e, 1692e(10).
188. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 133 and 179 to 182 are
189. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 63 of 66
190. As described above, on information and belief, Pioneer made
false, deceptive, and misleading representations to borrowers that all of
their collection fees related to the federal loan rehabilitation program
would be forgiven by the U.S. Department of Education or that the exact
amount of collection fees currently assessed to the account would be
191. Therefore, Pioneer, acting together with or on behalf of Navient
VIOLATIONS OF REGULATION V
Violations of Regulation V Related to Disabled Borrowers
192. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 133 are incorporated here by
193. Regulation V, the implementing regulation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.SC. §§ 1681, et seq., imposes certain requirements on
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 64 of 66
persons or entities that furnish consumer information to consumer
reporting agencies for inclusion in consumer reports. 12 C.F.R. § 1022.40-
194. As a student loan servicer, Navient routinely furnished
information about federal student loan borrowers’ performance on loans to
one or more consumer reporting agencies for inclusion in a consumer
report, and is therefore a “furnisher” under Regulation V. 12 C.F.R. §
1022.41(c).
195. Regulation V requires a furnisher to “establish and implement
reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and
integrity of the information relating to consumers that it furnishes to a
consumer reporting agency.” 12 C.F.R. § 1022.42(a).
196. However, from at least October 2012 to approximately June
2014, Navient failed to establish and implement reasonable written policies
and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information that it
furnished regarding borrowers who had received a discharge on their
federal loans due to a total and permanent disability.
197. Therefore, Navient, acting together with or on behalf of Navient
Corporation, violated Regulation V, 12 U.S. C. § 1022.42(a).
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 65 of 66
THE COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF
198. The CFPA empowers this Court to grant any appropriate legal
or equitable relief with respect to violations of Federal consumer financial
law, including, without limitation, a permanent or temporary injunction,
recession or reformation of contracts, the refund of moneys paid,
restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, and civil
money penalties. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5565.
199. WHEREFORE, the Bureau requests that the Court:
a. Permanently enjoin Defendants from committing future
violations of the CFPA, FCRA, Regulation V, the FDCPA, or any other
provision of federal consumer financial law, as defined by 12 U.S.C. §
5481(14);
b. Order Defendants to pay appropriate restitution to
consumers harmed by their unlawful conduct;
c. Order Defendants to institute appropriate injunctive
d. Order disgorgement of ill-gotten revenue against
Case 3:17-cv-00101-RDM Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 66 of 66
e. Impose civil money penalties against Defendants;
f. Order the rescission or reformation of contracts where
necessary to redress injury to consumers;
g. Order Defendants to pay the Bureau’s cost incurred in
connection with proceeding with this action; and
h. Award additional relief as the Court may determine to be
Dated: January 18, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
Assistant Deputy Enforcement Director
_/s/ Brandis Anderson_________
Brandis Anderson, CA 261325
(Email: Brandis.Anderson@cfpb.gov)
(Phone: 202-435-7548)
Nicholas Jabbour, DC 500626
(Email: Nicholas.Jabbour@cfpb.gov)
(Phone: 202-435-7508)
Fax: (202) 435-9346
More From This UserSkip carouselThe 2016 Kids Count in Michigan Data BookMichigan Department of Civil Rights Flint Water Crisis Report 2017Democratic Judiciary Members Letter To DOJ Inspector General To Investigate Trump Whistleblower Threats & Sessions Conflicts of Interests 2.17.17Committee on the Judiciary Authorization and Oversight Plan for the 115th Congress v2House Judiciary & Oversight Democrats Call For DOJ & FBI Briefing On General Michael FlynnSEO is Proud and Honored to have Grosvenor Capital Management LP as our Presenting Sponsor for SEO’s Fourth Annual Alternative Investments ConferenceNearly 50 Members of Congress Introduce Resolution Condemning Trump’s Personal Attacks on the JudiciaryU.S. SEC Filings on Dyncorp Merger with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)CIA Report on Foster Children as Dependents of Military Members 4-24-1968More Than 100 Members Of Congress Call ForDHS Briefing On Trump Muslim Ban Executive Order Letter 2-1-2017The Solve Act of 2017 - "On the Executive Order of Banning U.S. EntryTOP HOUSE JUDICIARY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS & HOMELAND SECURITY DEMOCRATS CALL FOR MEETING WITH HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY; RAISE CONCERNS OVER IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVE ORDER LETTER 1-29-17DOD Kosovo Human Trafficking Report 2003POTUS Letter on VF Allegations - CBCJudiciaryHouse Judiciary Democrats Second Request For Hearings On Trump's Conflicts Of IinterestU.S. v Dyncorp International LLC False Claims Act Complaint 7-16-2016Aga Khan Foundation Early Education Brief "Is Everybody Ready"U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Letter to FBI Director Comey On Trump Investigation (1.13.17)Coretta Scott King Letter and Testimony on Nomination of Jeff Sessions 1986FACT SHEETKentucky Democratic Party Federal Denial Due Process Complaint 10.28.16U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler Letter To Senate Judiciary on Jeff Sessions Confirmation on Trump ConflictsPresidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMS RELEASE LETTER FROM MORE THAN 35 LAW PROFESSORS EXPRESSING CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS OVER GOP STREAMING BAN PROPOSAL COMING TO HOUSE FLOOR 1-3-2017
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulConsumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Navient Pioneer Credit Recovery Complaint 2017 by Beverly Tran0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionNavient’s servicing failures, however, were not just limited to enrolling and renewing borrowers in affordable repayment plans. Navient also misreported information to consumer reporting agencies...Navient’s servicing failures, however, were not just limited toenrolling and renewing borrowers in affordable repayment plans. Navientalso misreported information to consumer reporting agencies aboutthousands of borrowers who were totally and permanently disabled,including veterans whose total and permanent disability was connected totheir military service, by making it appear as if those borrowers haddefaulted on their student loans when they had not, damaging their credit;misrepresented one of its requirements for borrowers to release theircosigner from their private student loan, thereby denying or delaying accessto an important feature on many cosigned private loans that relieves acosigner of responsibility for the loan once the borrower meets certaineligibility criteria; and repeated the same errors in processing federal andprivate student loan borrowers’ payments month after month, even afterborrowers complained to Navient about those errors.Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedLetter to Spokane County Board of Commissionersby Wilson CriscioneCFC Report to County Commissioners 1.05.2017by Wilson CriscioneEstores v. Sps Supanganby haruhime08HDMF (RA 9679).pptby Marchini Sandro Cañizares Kongfull-text-rd-8by Micah ClarkMedel vs. CA Up to Nacar vs. Gallery Framesby Yanee Diane Dee YanMedel vs. CA (299 Scra 481)by mgbautistallaLoan Amortizationby M70AB2PMT Function - Office Supportby Amandeep PuniaCrismina Garments and Ibarollaby Threes SeePilipinas Bank v CAby dinvHOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - WHAT BORROWERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CREDIT SCORING MODELS AND CREDIT SCORESby Scribd Government DocsCredit Mgmnt Revisedupdatesby Leena ChatterjeeRaising Private Money - Final 11-22by yourlearRapid Report Audit Sampleby Mortgage Loan Compliance description: tags: 03SpringSession6by anon-684229amortizationby Punjabian Munda1st Digest Obliconby James SantillanCredit Transactions My Digestsby Ivy Noreen Tabañag1. Republic v. Grijaldoby Giee De Guzmanindy Macby Bill Black12-20-09 WHY BANKS ALWAYS FORECLOSE_INDYMAC_ONEWEST.pdfby power_Singapore Moneylender Regulationsby BobUS Federal Reserve: bcreg20070529b1by The FedCredit rationingby Sandra S-B description: tags: 03SpringSession6by anon-79503 description: tags: doc2346 bodyoftextby anon-484397HOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON RESPA AND ITS IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSby Scribd Government DocsSimilar to 201701 Cfpb Navient Pioneer Credit Recovery ComplaintSkip carouselLetter to Spokane County Board of CommissionersCFC Report to County Commissioners 1.05.2017Estores v. Sps SupanganHDMF (RA 9679).pptfull-text-rd-8Medel vs. CA Up to Nacar vs. Gallery FramesMedel vs. CA (299 Scra 481)Loan AmortizationPMT Function - Office SupportCrismina Garments and IbarollaPilipinas Bank v CAHOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - WHAT BORROWERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CREDIT SCORING MODELS AND CREDIT SCORESCredit Mgmnt RevisedupdatesRaising Private Money - Final 11-22Rapid Report Audit Sample descriptionamortization1st Digest ObliconCredit Transactions My Digests1. Republic v. Grijaldoindy Mac12-20-09 WHY BANKS ALWAYS FORECLOSE_INDYMAC_ONEWEST.pdfSingapore Moneylender RegulationsUS Federal ReserveCredit rationing description descriptionHOUSE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON RESPA AND ITS IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSDirector or Senior Project Manager or program manager or Operati201701 Cfpb Navient Pioneer Credit Recovery Complaint