Consumer complaint received 2026-01-07 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns PRIVATE student loans serviced by Firstmark ; it is not about federal student loans.

I am submitting this complaint because Firstmark Services is providing inconsistent and misleading information about my private student loans, while continuing collection activity and refusing to provide basic documentation needed to verify the debt and the accuracy of the balance. 

XXXX ) Identity of the parties and what Im disputing Firstmark states that it services my private student loans on behalf of Firstmark Serviced Trust. 


They also state the loans were previously held by XXXX XXXX and then sold to Firstmark Serviced Trust, with servicing transferred to Firstmark. 

My dispute is not simply I want copies again. My dispute is that : The promissory note documents and identifying details Firstmark has provided are internally inconsistent across different productions, and Firstmark is refusing to address/document these inconsistencies, while continuing normal servicing/collection. 

XXXX ) Inconsistent promissory note header data ( same loan, different proof ) Firstmark has produced versions of a Student Loan Promissory Note that include a DocuSign Envelope ID at the top ( even though these loans were originally executed in-person with wet signatures ). 

More importantly, the versions Firstmark provided are not consistent with each other : In XXXX production, the promissory note header includes a Tracking Number field that is blacked out/obscured ( a visible alteration ). 

In a later production, that same header instead displays a different presentation of the tracking number ( masked text rather than black-box redaction ), and the loan period text is presented differently/clearly. 

These are not minor formatting issues. These are identifying fields used to tie a promissory note to a specific loan. If Firstmarks proof changes between productions, it raises serious concerns about document integrity and whether they possess the actual original documents. 

XXXX ) Firstmark refuses to provide key information, then claims my requests are no new demands I have repeatedly requested ( and still have not received ) the core information needed to validate the debt and servicing accuracy : Complete, unaltered copies of the original promissory notes for each loan ( complete pages, consistent identifiers ) Full chain-of-title / assignment documentation showing ownership/transfer to the current holder Complete transaction-level payment history, including how payments were applied, capitalization events, and definitions of internal categories Amortization schedule ( XXXX ) that match the contractual terms and explain how the balance was calculated over time Audit trail / evidence supporting any claim of e-signature / DocuSign execution if theyre relying on that Instead of addressing the inconsistencies and producing complete supporting documentation, Firstmark responded in writing that my correspondence raises no new demands and that they are not required to accommodate it.

They further imply they may ignore similar inquiries without action.

This is not an acceptable response when the companys own documentation has changed between productions and the account balance is being enforced. 

XXXX ) Ongoing confusing/incorrect communications that derail the dispute Firstmark has repeatedly sent communications that do not address my dispute and instead appear to be boilerplate or diversionary. For example : sending irrelevant statements about federal loans ( even though this is a private loan servicing dispute ), and repeatedly attempting to force this into an XXXX  XXXX lane ( police report / forgery affidavit ), even though my complaint is about inconsistent documents, missing documentation, and servicing/balance accuracy. 

I am not submitting this complaint to claim someone else opened the account. I am submitting it because Firstmarks documentation is inconsistent, and they are refusing to provide the documentation needed to prove the debt and prove the accuracy of the balance they are attempting to collect. 

XXXX ) Harm and risk Firstmark continues collection activity and delinquency pressure while refusing to correct or fully document the account. They also repeatedly reference the possibility of negative credit reporting/default. This creates ongoing harm and risk while the dispute is unresolved.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation