Consumer complaint received 2018-11-05 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Don't agree with the fees charged
Company: GREAT LAKES
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Great Lakes is a deceiving liar, the problem first started in early XXXX of this year ( XX/XX/2018 ). I receive an email from them stating that the subsidies on my loans had been removed because I had reached my 150 % limit on my program. This was factually incorrect as I have just begun the 5th year of my 4-year program, 150 % of the program would be 6 complete years. I called them multiple times only to be told that they received all their information from the MOST RECENT school I was attending, and that they could do nothing to change it unless the school updated the information to the NSLDS. I called my school financial aid department and they stated, they had changed nothing and that my subsidy limit reported to the NSLDS still had 1.9 years left. I checked if that was true by logging in, and indeed it was true it was being reported that I still had 1.9 years of active subsidy from my most recently attended school, XXXX XXXX University XXXX. After, repeatedly talking to the Customer Service line and them not being able to do anything, I decided to post a complaint on XXXX. A few hours later I was emailed saying that the subsidies would be reinstated. After checking, I noticed that only one subsidy had been reinstated, I called Great Lakes Customer Service and was told that they were working on reinstating the rest of the subsidies, and that it would take 3-5 days to complete. After not seeing any results I called once again and was told that they were waiting to confirm the data from NSLDS before they removed the subsidies, they then called back and said that the subsidies would not be put back into place because I had two year schools reporting that I was part of 2 year program that had reached the 150 % mark. Now, keep in mind the U.S. Department of Education states that loan subsidies must be determined from the LONGEST MOST RECENT PROGRAM. This was further proven by great lakes themselves who attached a sheet on the XXXX complaint that stated the same thing, therefore themselves admitting it. They then states that the subsidy was only put back into place on my most recent loan because it was part of the new program, but as you can see on the pictures attached of the NSLDS database it shows that all loans are from the same XXXX program and it even gives you the remaining subsidy eligibility period which is 1.9 years. My subsidy limits should be determined by the LONGEST MOST RECENT PROGRAM being reported to NSLDS regardless of the other enrollments, this is stated by the Department of Education and was given to me by Great Lakes also. They stated that all their information is derived from what is being reported to NSLDS, and as you can see in the attached picture NSLDS is showing I have 1.9 years of subsidies left. I have gone above and beyond every time Great Lakes has given me an excuse of why my subsidies were revoked, every single time we get over the problem they give me a different excuse. It seems as if Great Lakes is working directly against my rights as a Federal government student loan recipient. Now lets say that I was enrolled in a two year program prior to XXXX, which I was not enrolled in PRIOR to but concurrently as you can see on the NSLDS picture attached. The subsidy would still NOT be revoked if I transferred to a longer program, the new program would be used to determine the new 150 % threshold and you can see that from the diagram attached that is a direct screenshot of the great lakes website stating so. Therefore, regardless of the situation there is absolutely no possible scenario derived from the proof attached and given that my subsidies should have been revoked. I do not understand how Great Lakes as a government loan provider does not understand this.

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