Consumer complaint received 2025-11-30 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Trouble with how payments are being handled
Company: Maximus Federal Services, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT DATE : XX/XX/XXXX | RESPONDENT : Aidvantage ( Maximus Federal Services , Inc. ) | PRODUCT : Federal student loan servicing ( Direct Unsubsidized & Grad PLUS Loans ) | ISSUE : Problem with a credit report or credit score ; Dealing with lender/servicer | SUB-ISSUE : Problem with information on your report ; Trouble with how payments are being handled ; Failure to send billing statements | COMPLAINT SUMMARY : I am filing a new complaint against Aidvantage based on additional violations discovered after my original complaint ( filed XX/XX/XXXX ) was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This complaint documents : ( 1 ) false statements in Aidvantage 's XX/XX/XXXX company response that may violate FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), ( 2 ) a 355-day internal contradiction between their XX/XX/XXXX repayment-begin notice and their XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response, ( 3 ) additional evidence of willful FCRA violations under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and ( 4 ) regulatory violations established by official Department of Education and CFPB sources XXXX This complaint is supported by a 47-page detailed legal response with CFPB Investigator One-Page Snapshot, Comprehensive Loan Matrix showing all 22 loans, Servicer Position vs. Records contradiction table, Methodology section explaining data compilation, 55+ exhibits, legal analysis ( 100+ cases ), enforcement precedents, and federal database evidence. | THE 355-DAY CONTRADICTION : On XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage sent me a " Loans Entering Repayment '' notice stating " Original repayment begin date : XX/XX/XXXX '' for the disputed loans. On XX/XX/XXXX ( one day later ), Aidvantage told CFPB these same loans " had not yet used their 6-month Grace Period '' following a graduation date of XX/XX/XXXX. Those dates are 355 days apart. Either ( a ) the XX/XX/XXXX repayment-begin date is correct, which makes the XX/XX/XXXX grace-period defense impossible, or ( b ) the XX/XX/XXXX date is a system placeholder, which means Aidvantage 's systems are too unreliable to support accurate credit reporting. Either way, Aidvantage 's own records conflict and can not be trusted as the basis for negative credit reporting. | BACKGROUND : I hold dual graduate degrees and have a demonstrated history of responsible borrowing, having paid three undergraduate loans in full ( XXXX ) before the violations at issue in this case. I have 22 federal student loans totaling {$170000.00} in principal. In XX/XX/XXXX I enrolled in autopay " for my Federal Direct Loans '' through Aidvantage 's portal. Aidvantage systematically excluded 9 loans representing {$140000.00} ( 84.2 % of my total debt ) from autopay enrollment without clear disclosure. I then made eight consecutive monthly autopay payments totaling {$3200.00}, which Aidvantage debited from my bank account but applied {$0.00} to the excluded loans. During this entire period, my online account and monthly statements repeatedly showed " Total Payment Due : {$0.00}, '' " {$0.00} Past Due, '' and even " PAID IN FULLCongratulations! '' for all 22 loans, while Aidvantage was simultaneously reporting 90+ day delinquency to the credit bureaus. The federal XXXX  database confirms {$0.00} cumulative payments were applied to the disputed loans over this period despite the autopay debits. | VIOLATION # 1 INACCURATE DELINQUENCY REPORTING ( FCRA 1681s-2 & CAL. CCRAA 1785.25 ) : Aidvantage reported me 90+ days delinquent on multiple tradelines while ( 1 ) I was enrolled in autopay, ( 2 ) Aidvantage was successfully debiting payments, and ( 3 ) their own statements and account summary showed " {$0.00} Past Due '' and " PAID IN FULL. '' Under XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX, information is " inaccurate '' when it is misleading by omission ; here, Aidvantage omitted critical context that payments were being made, that most of my loans were excluded from autopay without notice, and that billing statements for the excluded loans were not being sent. This conduct caused a XXXX credit score drop ( from a documented baseline of XXXX before the violations to XXXX after the new tradelines ). Under California 's CCRAA, I seek {$15000.00} in statutory damages ( three Grad PLUS tradelines {$5000.00} per willful violation ). California law applies because I am a California resident and provides higher statutory damages than federal FCRA ( {$5000.00} vs. {$1000.00} per willful violation ). | VIOLATION # 2 BILLING STATEMENT FAILURES ( 34 C.F.R. 685.207 ( b ) ) : For the nine excluded loans, Aidvantage failed to send required billing statements between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The first time I was told these loans were seriously delinquent was a XX/XX/XXXX disclosure stating they were already 151177 days past due. Regulations require billing statements at least 30 days before a payment due date. This failure closely mirrors the Department of Education 's XX/XX/XXXX $ XXXX penalty against Aidvantage for failing to send timely statements to XXXX borrowers. | THE XX/XX/XXXX SELECTIVE NOTICE FAILURE : On XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage sent me a " 1st Delinquency Notice '' for Account XXXX ( the autopay-enrolled loans ) following a one-time payment processing failure. This notice demonstrates that Aidvantage 's systems were fully capable of detecting delinquency and generating timely notices within 6 days of a missed payment. However, this same capability was never exercised for Account XXXX ( the XXXX excluded loans totaling {$90000.00} ) or the XXXX excluded loans in Billing Group XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX notice lists ONLY the autopay-enrolled undergraduate loans and does NOT include any of the excluded graduate loans. This is direct evidence that Aidvantage 's billing failures were selective, not systemic. | VIOLATION # XXXX UNSUPPORTED GRACE-PERIOD CLAIMS ON GRAD PLUS LOANS ( 34 C.F.R. 685.207 ( d ) ) : Aidvantage 's CFPB response stated that the disputed Grad PLUS loans " had not yet used their 6-month Grace Period '' after my XX/XX/XXXX graduation. This conflicts with federal regulation : Grad PLUS loans do not have a post-enrollment grace period34 C.F.R. 685.207 ( d ) states that repayment " begins on the day the loan is fully disbursed. '' Aidvantage 's own XX/XX/XXXX notice shows a XX/XX/XXXX repayment-begin date for the same loans, making the later " grace period '' explanation contradicted by their own system-generated notice. | VIOLATION # 4 UNDISCLOSED AUTOPAY EXCLUSION & THE " 45-DAY RULE '' : Aidvantage now claims that to be included in autopay, loans " must be within 45 days of repayment status. '' I have found no such requirement in 34 C.F.R. Part 685 or other published federal authority. The 45-day limitation appears to be an internal policy being presented as if it were a regulatory rule. This " rule '' was never disclosed to me during enrollment and first appeared only in Aidvantage 's XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response. The mathematical contradiction is stark : if the XX/XX/XXXX repayment-begin date in the XX/XX/XXXX notice is correct, the disputed loans were 421 days into repayment when I enrolled in autopay on XX/XX/XXXX. This means Aidvantage 's own records show the loans were 376 days beyond any alleged 45-day window. CFPB Supervisory Highlights ( XX/XX/XXXX ) had already warned servicers that falsely claiming borrowers are ineligible for autopay discounts is a violation. | VIOLATION # 5 PAYMENT APPLICATION FAILURE : From XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage debited eight consecutive autopay payments totaling {$3200.00} but applied {$0.00} to the excluded loans according to XXXX  and Aidvantage 's own records. This raises concerns under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act/Regulation XXXX regarding unauthorized retention or misallocation of ACH funds. | VIOLATION # 6 UNAUTHORIZED INTEREST CAPITALIZATION ( 34 C.F.R. 685.202 ( e ) ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage capitalized {$6800.00} in accrued interest on three Grad PLUS loans. As of XX/XX/XXXX, excluded loans have accrued {$21000.00} in unpaid interest. These capitalization events occurred while my account portal continued to display " {$0.00} XXXX XXXX '' and while I was receiving no billing statements for the excluded loans. | PATTERN OF CONDUCT EVIDENCE : CFPB complaint data shows XXXX complaints against Aidvantage ( XXXX ), with complaint volume increasing 157 % from XXXX to XXXX. " Trouble with how payments are being handled '' is the # XXXX cause of monetary relief ( 30 % of all monetary relief cases ) this is my exact sub-issue. Three CFPB complaints with the same sub-issue resulted in monetary relief ( Complaints # XXXX, # XXXX, # XXXX ). XXXX similar complaints ( autopay exclusion, payment misallocation, false credit reporting ) were identified, with a 100 % denial rateall were " Closed with explanation '' with XXXX monetary relief. The 99.2 % " closed with explanation '' rate ( XXXX of XXXX complaints ) demonstrates systematic denial of valid claims. | ENFORCEMENT CONTEXT & WILLFULNESS : Aidvantage 's conduct meets the XXXX XXXX XXXX willfulness standard through escalating regulatory warnings : ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Department of Education withheld {$2.00} XXXX from Aidvantage for failing to send timely billing statements to XXXX borrowers, ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : CFPB permanently banned another major servicer and obtained {$120.00} XXXX settlement for identical conduct, ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : CFPB Supervisory Highlights specifically identified " falsely claimed certain borrowers were ineligible for autopay discounts '' as a violation. By XX/XX/XXXX, when my autopay enrollment occurred, Aidvantage had received three escalating regulatory warnings establishing that the conduct at issue was unlawful. | DOCUMENTED DAMAGES : Direct financial harm of {$27000.00} ( capitalized interest {$6800.00} + unpaid interest {$21000.00} ), plus at least $ XXXX in credit-related harm from a XXXX score reduction ( XXXX XXXX ), plus {$15000.00} in California CCRAA statutory damages ( XXXX XXXX PLUS loans {$5000.00} ), for a total documented harm of $ XXXX, excluding any punitive damages, attorney 's fees, or emotional distress. | REQUEST : I request that CFPB ( XXXX ) investigate Aidvantage 's systemic autopay exclusion, billing-statement failures, and contradictory repayment-date records ; ( XXXX ) require deletion of all delinquency entries from all credit bureaus for loans XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX through XXXX ; ( XXXX ) order reversal of {$6800.00} capitalized interest and waiver of {$21000.00} accrued interest ; ( 4 ) order restoration of autopay enrollment for all loans with 0.25 % discount ; and ( 5 ) consider enforcement action under 12 U.S.C. 5564 ( a ) ( XXXX ) based on pattern-or-practice evidence, including prior federal enforcement and CFPB complaint data showing XXXX complaints against Aidvantage.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation