Consumer complaint received 2024-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Issue where my lender is my school — Issues with fees connected to the loan
Company: Education Principle Foundation
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made me pay them directly in order for them to release my transcript so I could transfer to XXXX. XXXX wasnt even accredited for my degree at the time which was also misleading. 

Thousands of students were scammed by XXXX into taking out predatory private loans to attend for profit online schools such as the one I attended, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. As a matter of fact, all of these schools I went to were investigated by Department of Education. Because of the numerous claims of fraud and misconduct perpetrated by these online for profit schools, such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, I was able to file a Borrower Defense claim with the Dept. of Education against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and my Fed. loans of approximately {$80000.00} were discharged and my credit repaired. My Borrower Defense Claim was also part of the Sweet Vs. Cardona settlement for which I was a full class member. I am aware that XXXX was sued by 39 state AGs regarding their predatory loans to attend these online for-profit schools and that XXXX XXXX were a " preferred '' lending company in a " deal '' with these schools during the early XXXX  's. 
These private loans with a high risk of default were part of a package deal offered to " for profit online schools ''. But loans made to students in states outside of the agreement, or those who were not in default for 7 months or more during a " specific '' time frame, were excluded. I am sure this was a big win for XXXX, but what a sham of a settlement deal for the rest of borrowers scammed into taking loans to at least 150 for profit online schools. 
After the AG settlement, didn't Navient also get out of the Federal student loan business due to scrutiny from lawmakers and borrower advocates? Didn't XXXX have to pay restitution to the Federal student loan borrowers for not informing students of IDR/IBR payments students could have enrolled in, but instead steered toward forbearance? 
Furthermore, hasn't XXXX been sued at least a half dozen times for other predatory loan practices and illegal collection practices? I am also aware of a " pilot '' program by which XXXX is sending out " applications '' to " select '' students who may have filed Borrower Defense claims against their schools and were approved. This application is a sham. Why do we need to " prove '' anything? XXXX knows who we are. Under the FTC " Holder Rule '' XXXX is liable for giving predatory loans in connection with online for-profit schools. Time is running out for XXXX to do right by students who were scammed into taking out private loans to attend online " for profit '' colleges who have committed misconduct and misrepresented themselves to the public to entice students to enroll. Senator XXXX XXXX has sent a letter to XXXX 's CEO asking to discharge these loans NOW! It's time XXXX do the right thing and discharge all these predatory private loans made to attend online " for profit '' schools NOW!

Company response to consumer: Untimely response