Consumer complaint received 05/24/2016 about Student loan (Federal student loan servicing) with Navient Solutions, LLC. (NE).
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Trouble with how payments are handled

Complaint: The Transfer of my Consolidated Federal Loans from Navient to the Dept of Education on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX got screwed up. For some reason, Navient ADDED {$200.00} in Principal just prior to the loans being transferred. The transfer should have been for {$76000.00}, but instead it was {$76000.00}. 

As the attached documents show, Navient ADDED Principal to both loans just before Transfer. The outgoing transfer amounts are recorded in the payment history as follows : Unsubsidized portion {$43000.00} in Principal plus {$46.00} in interest equals {$43000.00} Subsidized portion {$32000.00} in Principal plus {$35.00} in interest equals {$32000.00} For a total principal amount of {$76000.00} and a total transfer amount ( including accrued interest ) of {$76000.00} However, the actual amount transferred is significantly higher than the actual Principal balances ( plus accrued interest ) on my Consolidated Federal Loans at the time. Documents show an outstanding principal of {$43000.00} on XXXX XXXX, XXXX for the Unsubsidized portion of the Consolidated Federal Loan and {$32000.00} in outstanding principal on XXXX XXXX, XXXX for the Subsidized portion of the Consolidated Federal Loan. For a total of {$76000.00} in Outstanding Principal on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
Therefore, the details of the transfer SHOULD HAVE BEEN : Unsubsidized portion {$43000.00} in Principal plus {$37.00} for 12 days of interest ( XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX ) equals {$43000.00} Subsidized portion of {$32000.00} in Principal plus {$28.00} for 5 days of interest ( XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX ) equals {$32000.00} For a total principal amount of {$76000.00} and a total transfer amount ( including accrued interest ) of {$76000.00} To further complicate the situation, something else funny happened. Navient records show that {$76000.00} was transferred to the Dept of Education on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; subsequently, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( 3 days PRIOR, Navient certainly would n't be adding extra days of interest here too, would they? ) the Department of Education records receiving {$76000.00}. However the amounts for each of the Loans are different than Navient has recorded as being sent. Somehow, {$110.00} has been ADDED to the Principal of the Unsubsidized portion of the Consolidated Federal Loan, and {$110.00} has been SUBTRACTED from the Subsidized portion of the Consolidated Federal Loan. The amounts are as follows : The Dept of Education records show that for the Unsubsidized portion {$43000.00} was transferred from Navient and for the Subsidized portion {$32000.00} was transferred from Navient. ( See attached documents ) Not knowing that my Loan was being transferred from Navient to the Dept of Education, I made a payment to Navient in the amount of {$190.00} for XXXX XXXX, XXXX. That check DISAPPEARED. 
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX Navient email correspondence states that the check had been located and was sent to the Dept of Education. As of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the check had not yet reached the Dept of Education because Navient mailed the check to the wrong address. 

I recall the check being deposited with the Dept of Education in late XXXX XXXX, and applied towards my student loans with the amount properly allocated between the XXXX portions of my Consolidated Federal Loan. After receiving documentation via email from Navient in XXXX XXXX, it now appears that the {$190.00} check sent in XXXX XXXX was retroactively applied ENTIRELY towards the Unsubsidized portion of the Consolidated Federal Loan as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This allocation is in error and must have been made at the behest of Navient because the Dept of Education staff were entirely aware that payment made towards Consolidated Federal Loans must be allocated first towards any fees, then towards accrued interest, and then towards principal on both the Unsubsidized and Subsidized portion of the loans.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation