Consumer complaint received 2026-01-28 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: SC

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding improper servicing of my private student loan by Firstmark Services, the servicer for an XXXX XXXX XXXX issued by XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This loan is not a federal student loan and is governed exclusively by a written Promissory Note. 

Beginning on XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark Services repeatedly provided materially inaccurate and extra-contractual eligibility requirements for a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX waiver, including verbal and written assertions that approval required a Social Security Administration ( SSA ) XXXX award with a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) cycle. After multiple attempts to obtain forgiveness, I reviewed the Promissory Note to confirm the governing eligibility language. These requirements do not appear in the governing private loan contract. 

This misinformation delayed proper evaluation of my XXXX  waiver request and caused me to continue making payments that should not have been required. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, I made an estimated XXXX  monthly payments totaling {$21000.00} as a direct result of this improper servicing. 

Governing Promissory Note Disability Provision ( Verbatim Contract Language ) The Promissory Note governing my private XXXX XXXX XXXX  states : What happens to my loan obligation if the student borrower dies or becomes totally and permanently XXXX? 

In the event of the death or total and permanent XXXX of a borrower who was the student on whose behalf the Prior Loans were made, we will forgive the remaining amount due under this Promissory Note. 

Waiver request must be accompanied by documentation that confirms to our satisfaction the death or total and permanent XXXX of the student borrower. 

Interest will continue to accrue while we are reviewing any request for a XXXX waiver, and, if an application for a XXXX waiver is denied, unpaid accrued interest will be capitalized and the student borrower will have to resume making regular monthly payments as described herein. 

For the purposes of this section, total and permanent XXXX means the inability to work in any occupation due to a condition that began or deteriorated after the date of this Promissory Note and the XXXX is expected to be permanent. 

The Promissory Note contains no requirement for an XXXX XXXX award, any XXXX review cycle, or a XXXX XXXX XXXX 

What Happened ( Detailed Explanation ) I hold a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, issued by XXXX XXXX, XXXX. and serviced by Firstmark Services. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was involved in a car accident which resulted in an inability to sustain work starting on XX/XX/XXXX. After XXXX and multiple attempts to regain XXXX, it was clear that I would not be returning to work. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Firstmark Services regarding loan forgiveness under XXXX. Firstmark Services emailed me the following instruction regarding XXXX forgiveness : Your lender offers loan forgiveness in the case of total and permanent XXXX. Please submit XXXX of the XXXX documents : Documentation from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to be unemployable due to a service-connected XXXX A notice of award from Social Security Administration ( SSA ) which states that your next scheduled XXXX review will be in XXXX XXXX XXXX years. 

Firstmark repeated this same XXXX instruction on XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX, despite the absence of any such requirement in the Promissory Note. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark Services issued a formal denial stating : The SSA notice of award provided indicates the next scheduled XXXX review is less than XXXX XXXX XXXX  years from the date of your last XXXX XXXX determination. 

This was the sole stated basis for denial. I contacted Firstmark and advised the representative that I had been XXXX since XXXX ; the representative stated that unless the XXXX XXXX XXXX expressly reflected a XXXX  year review period, I was ineligible for XXXX  forgiveness. 

During my XXXX communications with Firstmark Services, I was provided an application with a physician certification and told my loan type could not use a physician certification. I submitted the application with my physician certification and the XXXX XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, Firstmark issued a notice stating it was unable to process my XXXX  application, asserting : We are unable to process your XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX application because the physician did not complete Section 3.b. indicating the date you became unable to work. 

This statement is materially inaccurate. The physician did provide the onset date, listing it as XX/XX/XXXX rather than XX/XX/XXXX. The issue was a date-formatting detail, not missing information. Additionally, the XXXX application does not contain a Section 3.b. The onset date is entered in Section 4, which my physician completed, and my XXXX was attached stating an onset date of XX/XX/XXXX. 

Rather than requesting clarification of a minor clerical issue, Firstmark mischaracterized a complete application as deficient and ceased processing. Firstmark also offered no other options to alleviate long-term financial hardship due to XXXX other than XXXX months of no payments, even after I advised that I would no longer be able to pay due to reserve depletion. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX certification stating I can not work, with XXXX onset XX/XX/XXXX and no return-to-work date XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming XXXXXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX cycle of 24 months, which is irrelevant under the Promissory Note Harm Suffered XXXX  waiver delayed beginning XX/XX/XXXX Estimated XXXX payments of {$520.00}, totaling {$21000.00} Payments made solely due to improper servicing and misinformation Supporting Documentation ( Available upon request ) Private XXXX XXXX XXXX  Promissory Note Firstmark emails ( XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ) Denial letter dated XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX unable to process notice XXXX  application including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and physician certification Why This Merits CFPB Review This complaint documents a multi-year pattern of a private student loan servicer imposing non-existent contractual requirements, issuing denials based on extra-contractual criteria, misrepresenting clerical issues as missing information, and collecting an estimated {$21000.00} that should not have been required.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation