Consumer complaint received 2016-07-30 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer — Received bad information about my loan
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
In sum, the loan servicing companies ( Direct Loans, and VSAC ) have materially misrepresented, on arecurringbasis, therepayment options, terms, and total costs of the various repayment optionsavailable to me over the course of the last several years. As a result, the principle has been increased by approximately {$14000.00} since XXXX ( with a $ XXXX remaining balance ) and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program ( PSLF ) I should be entitled to is denied to me. Since loan servicing companies are compensated as apercentageof loans under management, they havebenefitedby the harm they have done. 
I am a XXXX. In order to get my XXXX degree, I obtained Federal Subsidized, and Unsubsidized loans. Additionally, I signed for my youngest son 's loans for college. I took out Parent Plus loans for my son 's college education from XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX. Loan repayment on the Plus loans began approximately XX/XX/XXXX. The original loan servicer, Direct Loans, instructed me to consolidate all of my loans ( Subsidized, Unsubsidized, and Parent Plus ) XX/XX/XXXX and placed on a Standard Repayment Plan. No other repayment plans were discussed at that time although available ( discussed below ). At or around XXXX XXXX, I called Direct Loans ( " DL '' ) because the payments had become too burdensome. At that time an agent for DL recommended the Graduated Repayment plan, which I agreed to and went into effect on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
In XXXX XXXX, I called Direct Loans again because the payments became too burdensome. A DL agent recommended I go on an income based repayment plan ( IBR ). The IBR program kept her payments manageable, and qualified for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( " PSLF '' ) program. I took both recommendations. This was the first time the PSLF program was ever discussed with me, despite the program 's inception in XX/XX/XXXX. My payments on the IBR program began in XXXX XXXX. 
Under the PSLF program, if qualifying persons make 10 years of on-time payments then the balance of the loan is forgiven tax free. Participation in this program must be renewed by application annually to the loan servicing company. The application is reviewed for eligibility, the payment is recalculated to reflect any changes in income, and a new payment scheduled is issued. The fact that I am a qualified person for the PSLF program is not in dispute. As a condition precedent to the PSLF, the qualified person must make 120 payments in a " qualifying repayment plan. '' The IBR program is a qualified payment plan for the purposes of PSLF. 
XX/XX/XXXX, Direct Loans went out of business and the loan was transferred to VSAC, another Federal Student Loan Servicer. At the time the loan was transferred, I was on the IBR repayment plan for 8 months. I continued her payments after VSAC obtained control of my loans. In XXXX XXXX, VSAC reviewed the IBR application. In XXXX XXXX, my IBR was renewed and the payment was increased to reflect my increased income over the prior year. The program was renewed again XX/XX/XXXX, and again the payment was increased to reflect my increased income over the prior year. As a result of a random audit XX/XX/XXXX, VSAC discovered a processing error and realized that due to the types of loans consolidated XX/XX/XXXX, I am in fact not eligible for the IBR program. Under Federal Student Loan Guidelines, a person with a consolidated loan that includes Plus loans is not eligible for IBR repayment. 
VSAC has determined, confirming with unknown persons at Federal Student Aid, that the first 3 years of payments will be able to qualify towards the 10 year PSLF. Around XXXX XXXX XXXX VSAC, without authorization, placed me into a standard-extended plan. The monthly installment is {$700.00} for a term of 316 payments. That represents a period of 26+ years. I am currently XXXX years old.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation