Consumer complaint received 2024-04-26 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to complain about Navients unfair handling of my XXXX XXXX XXXX debt and their refusal to honor my contractual right to a defense to repayment under the FTCs Holder Rule. 

I attended the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) in XXXX, IL, from XXXX to XXXX. This school was later named XXXX . I XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that cost me {$51000.00}. Notably, I did not accrue any federal student loan debt in the course of attending XXXX. My financial aid advisors deceptively saddled me entirely with XXXX XXXX XXXX debt, despite the fact that I had Title IV eligibility XXXX XXXX XXXX. I currently owe Navient about {$83000.00} in XXXX XXXX XXXX, accrued as a result of my attendance at XXXX. 

XXXX, as you likely know, has been widely discredited as a notorious and predatory for-profit school, and ultimately closed around XXXX, with a reputation for scandal and fraud. It was owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), a company with an equally atrocious reputation for defrauding students across its national chain of for-profit institutions. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a complaint to the CFPB regarding Navients unfair collection of my XXXX XXXX XXXX debt stemming from my time at XXXX. 

The Department of Education has delivered student loan relief to borrowers who attended XXXX , as part of its settlement in the Sweet v. Cardona matter. In that settlement, the Department found that student borrowers who attended XXXX were entitled to presumptive relief because of a strong indicia of substantial misconduct by the school. However, I was denied similar relief because as Ive mentioned I hold no federal student loan debt associated with my enrollment at XXXX, just XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

The Holder Rule preserves my right to challenge the legitimacy of my loans to Navient on account of my XXXX original wrongdoing. On XX/XX/XXXX, I asserted my right to a defense to repayment of these XXXX XXXX XXXX to Navient by submitting a XXXX misconduct application ( see attached ) along with a detailed explanation and several exhibits supporting my well-established position that XXXX XXXX engaged in misconduct that should negate XXXX XXXX XXXX ( also attached ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a denial notice ( see attached ) from Navient that provided no reason for my denial, stating only that I do not meet the requirements for discharge based on misconduct by your school. 

This is obviously an unfair and unreasonable result. I should at least be entitled to a reason for my denial. I have contacted Navient requesting an explanation for this decision, but I have not heard back yet. 

I suspect that I am being denied because Navient determined I cant produce a discharge notice from the Department of Education, which I obviously can not do because I never held any federal student loans from XXXX. However, if I did have federal student loans from XXXX, they would indeed have already been canceled through the Sweet settlement. Again, this is an unreasonable result that I hope the CFPB can help address. 

I was wronged by XXXX substantial misconduct. Consequently, I deserve my loans from XXXX to be canceled and I think it is unfair that Navient is denying me a fair process to present my well-founded case for loan cancellation. 

Thank you, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation