Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
THIS IS FOR NELENET My name is XXXX XXXX, and I am disputing the late payments Nelnet reported for XX/XX/year> on my federal student loan account. Nelnet responded to my complaint but did not provide documentation to support the late-payment reporting or show that a reasonable investigation was done. 

Below is a summary of the issues, with the laws that apply to each. 

-No proof that repayment had resumed or that a payment was due I did not receive clear notice that repayment had resumed after the CARES Act pause or that a payment was due for the period leading up to XX/XX/year>. Nelnet did not provide a copy of any repayment-resumption notice, billing statement, or payment schedule. 
* Under the CARES Act, Section 3513 ( Pub. L. 116-136 ), federally held student loans were placed in administrative forbearance and servicers were required to properly handle the transition back into repayment. Reporting someone late without showing that payments were clearly due and noticed is inconsistent with that requirement.

* Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) [ FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ], a furnisher may not report information it knows or has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate.

-No proof of contact or communication attempts Nelnet did not include any billing statements, due-date letters, email copies, or call logs to show it contacted me before reporting me late. They simply stated that they had reported accurately, but did not back that up with evidence.

* Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 8 ) [ 623 ( a ) ( 8 ) ], when a consumer files a direct dispute, the furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation. A reasonable investigation requires reviewing and providing relevant records, not just giving a conclusion.

* Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) [ 623 ( b ) ], once a furnisher is notified of a dispute ( through a bureau or CFPB ), it must review all relevant information and correct any information that is incomplete or inaccurate.

-Verification was done without supporting documentation Nelnet verified the late payments but did not supply billing statements, detailed payment history, or any record showing when the payment became due and went unpaid. Without documentation, it is not clear how they determined the account was truly 30, 60, and 90 days late.

* Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 8 ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), a furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or delete information that can not be verified. Verifying a delinquency without records does not meet that standard.

-Dates and reporting are inconsistent across the credit bureaus The Date of First Delinquency, Date of Last Payment, and payment history months do not match across Experian, TransUnion , and Equifax for this same Nelnet account. That means at least some of the data is wrong.

* Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) [ 607 ( b ) ], consumer reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Conflicting dates for the same account show the information is not maximally accurate.

* Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a furnisher must not report information it knows or should know is inaccurate, which includes allowing inconsistent dates to remain uncorrected.

Reporting does not follow Metro 2 education-loan standards The reporting does not show a clear and consistent timeline of forbearance, on-ramp, or active repayment status. Metro 2 ( the industry standard credit-reporting format published by the Consumer Data Industry Association ) requires that education loans be reported with accurate status codes and date logic. The lack of a clear transition from forbearance/on-ramp to active repayment and the inconsistent late codes suggest the account was not reported using accurate status information.

Wrong legal framework was referenced in their response Nelnets justification relied on language about the FDCPA and collection standards, but federal student loan servicing is governed primarily by the Higher Education Act, the CARES Act, and the FCRAnot the FDCPA. This suggests they did not apply the correct legal standards to my dispute and did not provide the documentation required for federal student loan delinquency reporting. 

Because Nelnet has not shown that repayment had clearly resumed, has not provided proof that I was properly notified or billed, has not supplied records to support the delinquency, and is allowing inconsistent reporting across bureaus, I believe the XX/XX/year> late-payment reporting is inaccurate and not fully verified.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation