Consumer complaint received 2026-04-23 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to formally demand a total refund of {$64000.00} in payments made toward debts originated by Sallie Mae for my attendance at the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As documented in the attached Exhibit XXXX ( Experian Credit Report ), my total installment loan history with Sallie Mae reached a sum of {$100000.00}. This request for restitution is based on the well-documented systemic fraud and deceptive trade practices of the XXXX XXXX XXXX which rendered the education promisedand the resulting debtfraudulent at its inception. View Exhibits B, C and D financial papers the XXXX XXXX provided prior to admissions, middle and end of the Bachelors program. To clarify the allocation of this debt and my specific request for a refund : Federal Forgiveness Acknowledgment : I have already successfully secured {$36000.00} in forgiveness via the Public Service Loan Forgiveness ( PSLF ) program. While this addresses the balance of those specific federal obligations, it does not provide restitution for the out-of-pocket payments made toward my other Sallie Mae-held installment loans . Refund Request 1 ( Federal Installment ) : I am requesting a refund of {$37000.00} for payments made toward federal installment loans originated/serviced by Sallie Mae , as identified in my credit records. Refund Request XXXX ( Private/Refinance ) : I am requesting a refund of {$27000.00} for the XXXX private loans I was forced to refinance in XXXX. This refinance was a direct result of Sallie Maes failure to provide feasible relief options for debt tied to a predatory institution. Sallie Maes liability is established by the following facts : Direct Knowledge of Fraud : By the time of my XXXX refinance, Sallie Mae had documented knowledge of the systemic fraud and deceptive trade practices perpetrated by the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Rather than providing relief, Sallie Mae moved to refinance these predatory debts. Failure of Consideration : The education Sallie Mae financed was a fraudulent product. Under the XXXX XXXX, because the school ( the seller ) failed to provide the promised educational services and placement outcomes, Sallie Mae ( the lender ) is legally barred from enforcing these contracts and must return all amounts paid. Lack of Transparency and Obscured Liability : Furthermore, Sallie Maes dual role as both the original lender and the servicer created a closed loop that lacked necessary transparency. This internal consolidation intentionally obscured the fraudulent origins of the debt, making it legally impossible for me to discover the school 's misconduct or Sallie Mae 's liability as the " holder '' until now. By maintaining total control over the administration of these loans, Sallie Mae effectively shielded the predatory nature of the XXXX XXXX contracts from discovery, tolling any applicable statutes of limitations regarding my claims for restitution. Please note that while {$36000.00} of my debt has been addressed through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( PSLF ), that administrative action does not absolve Sallie Mae of its liability to refund the {$64000.00} XXXX paid out of pocket toward these voidable contracts. The XXXX XXXX misconduct regarding job placement rates and educational quality has been recognized by the Department of Education as grounds for full borrower relief. Because Sallie Mae acted as the primary lender and beneficiary of these funds, I am requesting that you return the {$64000.00} paid toward these voidable contracts. XXXX of XXXX I attended a college visit and was provided with a student financial plan projection ( Exhibit B ) by XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Admissions Representative. This plan broke down the cost of only XXXX quarters of the annual tuition. It includes XXXX subsidized/unsubsidized loans and parent plus loans, totaling XXXX with a 12 % APR. This document does not break down specific interest percentage rates. The financial planner at the time was listed as XXXX XXXX XXXX. Admissions was adamant that I would be able to finish my program in XXXX years. At the top of Exhibit A it states : staXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, which is a two-year projection. At the bottom of this it says balance of cost {$1000.00} with the total projected payments of XXXX payments. The math with a 12 % interest rate does not calculate. We were told at admissions that graduation and job placement rates were in the mid XXXX % range. Exhibit B on the back of the document shows a signature of only the admissions office and not mine. On XX/XX/XXXX, Financial Planner XXXX XXXX provided a document signed only by XXXX XXXX staff that evidenced systemic unfair and deceptive practices ( UDAAP ) under the XXXX. Specifically, the schools own ledger confirms a {$18000.00} refund that was never credited to the loan, allowing the lender to unlawfully collect interest on a non-existent principal. Furthermore, the school engaged in predatory 'omission of debt ' by projecting a total cost of {$27000.00}, while the actual loan volume required to cover tuition totaled {$120000.00} ( excluding the missing refund ). This gross miscalculation was designed to conceal the true cost of the program and the presence of high-interest private loans The core legal issue is that these loansincluding those subsequently refinanced by XXXX originated XXXX false pretenses; had the true employment outcomes been disclosed, I would never have entered into these credit agreements. Because this systemic fraud was actively concealed by the institution and its lending partners, and only brought to light by the XXXX XXXX independent investigation, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until this recent disclosure. Exhibit D : ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Exit Financials The exit paperwork and financial exhibits ( C and D ) demonstrate a systemic and illegal commingling of federal and private loans, a violation of TILA disclosure requirements that rendered it impossible to differentiate loan designations or applicable interest rates. -The failure to differentiate between federal and private loan designations, interest rates, and grace periods in the exit paperwork constitutes a direct violation of TILA 's 'Clear and Conspicuous ' and 'Segregation ' requirements ( 12 CFR 1026.17 ), which are designed to prevent the exact type of predatory 'commingling ' found in my XXXX XXXX records. Exhibit D lists XXXX ' loans totaling {$17000.00} which functioned as a hidden financial trap, accruing interest immediately without the standard grace period disclosure. Furthermore, Exhibit D shows a consolidated total of {$83000.00} with no separation of private versus federal debt, while XXXX XXXX introduces a separate {$43000.00} in Parent PLUS loans. These gross mathematical discrepancies, combined with the missing {$18000.00} refund, suggest not only deceptive lending but the potential misappropriation of loan proceeds by financial management for personal gain. Exhibit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXxhibit XXXX references a credit report from XXXX XXXX years after leaving school in XX/XX/XXXX. The installments I carried at the time were only college loans. The original lump loan amount of {$83000.00} closely coincides with the {$83000.00} found on Exhibit XXXX Exhibit XXXX shows that this balance had escalated to {$100000.00}, an increase of more than {$17000.00} without any meaningful reduction in principal. This substantial and immediate balance inflation was the result of accruing and capitalized interest, including during periods of forbearance in which I was not required to make payments but interest continued to accumulate. At no point during the enrollment or financial aid process was I clearly or adequately informed that my loan balance could increase so dramatically in such a short timeframe, or that the structure of these loans would permit negative amortization and early balance growth before repayment could reasonably begin. Exhibit F : Sallie Mae Holder Rule XXXX XXXX XXXX Sallie Mae was the holder of this debt, and can not claim immunity from the underlying fraud committed by The Art Institutes. I am submitting XXXX XXXX XXXX as Exhibit XXXX This federal regulation, known as the FTC XXXX Rule, explicitly mandates that any subsequent holder of a consumer credit contract ( such as XXXX ) remains subject to all legal claims and defenses that the borrower could assert against the original seller ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). Because the Department of Education has formally confirmed the seller 's 'pervasive and widespread substantial misrepresentations, ' Sallie Mae XXXX the holder of the debt, is legally barred from distancing itself from that fraud under this federal mandate. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, through its financial aid process and representations, failed to provide accurate, transparent, and complete disclosures regarding the true cost of borrowing and the long-term financial consequences of these loan products. Instead, I was led to believe that the debt incurred would be manageable based on projected outcomes that did not materialize. The immediate and substantial increase in my loan balance following graduation demonstrates that the financial realities of these loans were materially misrepresented or omitted, and that I was induced into accepting a loan structure that was inherently deceptive and financially unsustainable.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation