Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I received a notice ( EX-01 ) stating that loan forgiveness would be processed in the coming months and providing an XX/XX/year> deadline to decline forgiveness. The notice described forgiveness as a future process, stated that information would be sent to loan servicers after the opt-out deadline, and presented the deadline as an actionable decision point for borrowers. However, a subsequent forgiveness confirmation ( EX-03 ) stated that the forgiveness was effective as of XX/XX/year>. The XXXX Ombudsman later confirmed that XX/XX/year> was the effective date of forgiveness ( EX-05 ). A credit reporting record ( S-1 ) reflects later reporting activity associated with the same account, highlighting the existence of multiple dates in the record and contributing to questions regarding when the forgiveness became effective, when it was processed, and what actions remained available to the borrower during that period. Because the XX/XX/year> notice presented forgiveness as a future process with an XX/XX/year> deadline, I sought clarification regarding how that notice could be reconciled with an asserted XX/XX/year> effective date. Specifically, I requested clarification regarding what actions remained available to borrowers between XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>, what notice was provided prior to the asserted effective date, and what authority governed the notice and opt-out process. The record also contains correspondence stating that account adjustments could result in reinstatement of the loan ( EX-02 ). However, subsequent responses from the loan servicer stated that it could not reopen the discharged consolidation loan, did not administer the one-time IDR adjustment, and did not control the underlying count or discharge process ( EX-04 ). As a result, I requested clarification regarding the circumstances under which reinstatement may occur and which office possesses authority to review, approve, deny, or otherwise address such requests. The Ombudsman response concluded that no further action could be taken regarding the discharged consolidation loan ( EX-05 ). However, the response did not directly address the specific factual questions raised by the record regarding timing, notice, available borrower actions, authority, and the reinstatement pathway. Those questions are summarized in EX-06. In addition, a Department of Education FOIA request seeking servicing correspondence and related account records remains pending ( S-2 ). According to the Department 's FOIA office, records are still being sought from the program office. Those records may help clarify the timeline of communications, notices, and servicing activity associated with this matter. I am seeking clarification regarding the timeline reflected in the record, the notice provided to borrowers, the actions that remained available after the asserted XX/XX/year> effective date, the reinstatement language contained in the record, and the office responsible for these determinations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation