Consumer complaint received 2025-11-12 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Trouble with how payments are being handled
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
My private student loans were originally issued through a XXXX-XXXX  lender prior to XXXX XXXX acquisition XXXX When I XXXX raised concerns about irregular interest and principal calculations with that original lender, the loans were sold to XXXX XXXX. After approaching XXXX XXXX about the same issueunexplained balance growth and interest being added back into principalthe loans were again sold, this time to Firstmark Services. This pattern of transfer appears to have been used to avoid addressing the core servicing violations and has caused years of unnecessary confusion, stress, and financial harm. These issues need to be resolved permanently before the loans are transferred or sold again. 

There are XXXX separate loans being reported under this account. I have made regular monthly payments totaling approximately {$1300.00} across all XXXX  loans for more than a XXXX, aside from brief deferment periods with XXXX XXXX, yet the combined balance has not decreased. 

The payment history that Firstmark submitted to the CFPB shows multiple XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX entries where interest was repeatedly added back into principal. This creates compounding interest-on-interest, which was never authorized in the original promissory notes and violates standard amortization and consumer-lending practices. 

The companys own documents confirm that substantial monthly payments have been made, yet those funds were misapplied toward unauthorized capitalization instead of reducing principal. Each XXXX XXXX represents a servicing action outside the contract and a material breach of the notes repayment terms. These alterations render the loan agreements invalid as currently serviced. 

Despite this, my earlier complaint filed under my co-signers name was closed by the CFPB with the status Closed with Explanation, apparently without verifying the authenticity or validity of the companys submission. The CFPB appears to have accepted the servicers documents at face value without confirming that they match the signed promissory-note terms. 

The documentation Firstmark provided actually proves that they changed how payments were applied, created unauthorized accounting categories, and used my funds to increase the balance through principal interest. I have repeatedly requested verification of loan ownership, a full amortization schedule, and any signed authorization permitting these charges, but none have been produced. 

The CFPB must require Firstmark Services to demonstratethrough chain-of-title documentation and contractual evidencethat the loans are valid and that these servicing actions were lawfully authorized. Until such verification occurs, all three loans should remain in active dispute with the credit bureaus. The XXXX should not allow this case to close again without providing us the opportunity to review and respond to any future company claims. 

The companys CFPB response contained material misrepresentations and incomplete documentation. The evidence within their own submission disproves their claims and demonstrates misapplication of funds. I am requesting this complaint be re-reviewed under the CFPBs authority to reopen or refer cases involving inaccurate or incomplete responses.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation