Consumer complaint received 05/19/2016 about Student loan (Federal student loan servicing) with GREAT LAKES (MI).
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Trouble with how payments are handled

Complaint: Great Lakes servicer/guarantor of several student loans mailed me a letter that requires me to clarify something regarding previous CFPB complaints. Originally, I contacted the FTC when erroneous fraudulent information by XXXX XXXX XXXX was reported to XXXX credit reporting agencies over several years. The year XXXX was particularly alarming and detailed for 13 consecutive months. Because Great Lakes had a servicer " XXXX '' that was committing fraud on XXXX student loan that same year, the identity theft forms mailed by Great Lakes not applicable to my circumstances. I therefore need to explain that Great Lakes ' ability to help me get the servicer to do the right thing was to no avail because it was XXXX in XXXX that had the decision-making ability to cause the problem. As a result of an XXXX credit report I received today, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, Confirmation # XXXX, the address in XXXX was provided to virtually prove it was the servicer XXXX there, using XXXX computer system furnished the fraudulent data to the XXXX agencies and also was in XXXX and XXXX in discussions with my U. S. Senator ( surrounding the Government Shutdown ) and the liaison for the Department of Education over the XXXX-serviced account for which Great Lakes was a guarantor. Therefore, Great Lakes was frauded by their own servicer on this single loan which at the end of XXXX, did not allow me to reapply for another IBR form ( or any form ) due to XXXX actions. So I disputed my student and the credit card in the aggregate as a chain of events that affected my entire credit report as a whole. I am not complaining about Great Lakes per se. They were very helpful in XXXX and XXXX. It was not until today, seeing the XXXX address as the reinvestigation contact for the credit card account that I can finally connect the entire matter to XXXX. I hope this helps Great Lakes do an internal investigation into how XXXX mishandled this loan and affected the other Great Lakes student loans that were caught up in XXXX actions. The many CFPB complaints and XXXX responses are in attachments for which XXXX is among them. XXXX continued to lie even in the written responses to both XXXX and to CFPB and me. So that presents a stark contrast to the truth which I can prove. As Great Lakes knows, I submitted my IBR form on time and was approved. I could not reaapply in XXXX and XXXX is why. XXXX is a problem for Great Lakes because the 57 % default rate on all IBR forms is a massive failure that some servicers used as an excuse to gain immediate access to IRS reporting. My loan was the " sacrificial lamb '' to create the 57 % default to warrant that access agenda. This is not my fault not Great Lakes fault. Nevertheless, the credit reporting of Great Lakes accounts appear on my credit reports. I must include the request tobremove negative reporting because XXXX caused this mess. So any accounts affiliated with XXXX are accounts affiliated with fraud by both the refusal to accept my IBR form but also the credit reporting they conduct as both " XXXX '' from XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX anonymously. The year XXXX ties the fraud to XXXX and it XXXX address. Naturally, all this for no good reason. Had XXXX done their job in XXXX, none of the subsequent fraud would have taken place. I detailed all this in many CFPB complaints. This is quite an unfortunate mess. So I hope this results in Great Lakes accessing the original handwritten IBR form as given to XXXX. When doing so, see Great Lakes own IBR form. Thise two and the one I mailed to XXXX are identical. Both Great Lakes and XXXX approved both IBR forms in XXXX. Only XXXX - corporation - posed as a government agency rather than a servicer to XXXX XXXX XXXX - and refused the IBR. Months of disputes ensued. After the Government Shutdown, I lost time, in which negative reporting happened.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation