Consumer complaint received 2025-09-03 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Don't agree with the fees charged
Company: MOHELA
State: ME

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a XXXX XXXX application to MOHELA in an attempt to discharge my XXXX remaining private student loans. I submitted this application because in XXXX of XXXX, the Federal government ruled that the XXXX XXXX system and their parent company, XXXX, committed fraudulent recruiting practices which includedbut were not limited tohigh pressure tactics and inflated job placement and earnings potential. In the application I submitted, I included over XXXX pages of supporting documentation, from news articles, press releases, and lawsuit filings. I also included a personal statement regarding the hardships that I endured due to attending the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as documents from XXXX  ( recruiting materials, transcripts ) and added expanded upon answers to the applications questions. Prior to submitting my application, I sought advice from XXXX of my peers that also attended XXXX  and were able to get their private loans XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, MOHELA sent me notification that my application had been denied. MOHELA gave vague reasoning as to why they denied my application. 

MOHELA stated that there was " insufficient supporting evidence of alleged misconduct '' but I provided news articles that the XXXX XXXX routinely inflated job placement and earnings potential. 

MOHELA stated that there was " insufficient harm and/or narrative explanation of alleged harm '' although I providedwith regards to reasonable privacynarrative explanation of the affects these loans have had on my mental health and the credit card debt I incurred early on. 

MOHELA stated that there was " insufficient supporting evidence of alleged harm '' although I included more evidence to the misconduct of the XXXX XXXX  than my peers that were able to successfully get their loans XXXX. 

MOHELA stated that there was " insufficient evidence that alleged misconduct caused harm. '' I provided evidence of the misconduct and I provided narrative explanation of the alleged harm, which is the evidence of the misconduct that caused harm. 

MOHELA stated that the " length of time since the alleged misconduct occurred '' as a reason for my denial. The misconduct application is for students who were enrolled at an XXXX XXXX  between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, which I was enrolled from XXXX of XXXX to XXXX of XXXX, as documented in the evidence/transcripts I provided. Also it should be noted that the XXXX application only became available in XXXX of XXXX as well, and therefore I would not have been able to apply for my discharge prior to that date. 

MOHELA stated that the " length of time since you became aware of the alleged misconduct '' as a reason for my denial. I became aware that misconduct allegations held water in XXXX when the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sued the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Just because an individual does not recognize abuse from their point of view, does not mean abuse did not happen. 

I have submitted this application 3 times ( once to XXXX in XXXX of XXXX, twice to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ) and have been denied while my peers who have submitted less evidence of school misconduct have had their loans XXXX. I have had lawyers look at my application and stated that my documentation was thorough and supported my claims of the XXXX 's misconduct. XXXX lawyers have also stated that MOHELA 's denial was unfair and without merit, and that the reasonings for my denial do not make sense.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation