Consumer complaint received 2017-08-22 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services — Billing dispute for services
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
*******************************THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE******************************** Re : Late Payment Removal Account # XXXX Dear Sir or Madam : This correspondence is in response to the Dept of Education/Nelnet account dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX company 's response I received regarding my request to have late payments removed from my credit score report. In the complaint I was told that such reports could not be removed due to regulations promulgated by the DOE and the FCRA. However they did find a error on Nelnet end and retracted the reporting of late payments on XXXX XXXX. Contrary to these assertions, by failing to update previously reported information, Nelnet is in violation of Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA. I have attached a FTC advisory opinion which interprets Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA. The issue posed in the advisory opinion is how a lender is to handle a situation when subsequent information updates a report that was allegedly accurate when it was made but no longer is accurate in the present time ( i.e., the identical situation I am currently in ). The advisory opinion states that the Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA addresses the duty to correct and update information by furnishers, or persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRA ) such as credit bureaus. In particular, this section requires a person that has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate to promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide any information needed to make it complete and accurate. Thus, on its face, this provision requires a furnisher to provide corrected or updated information to the consumer reporting agency that it had reported to originally. This duty extends to all student loan accounts reported to CRAs, regardless of whether they were accurate at one point, because the section requires the furnisher both to update accounts as well as to correct.
Nelnet representatives told me that because the  delinquent payments were accurately reported on the following months and year XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX that any subsequently initiated forbearance/deferments would not allow for Nelnet to update reports to CRAs to show that the payments were  not late and actually in forbearance/deferment. However, Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) clearly shows that the reports must be updated/corrected regardless of whether they were accurate at one point. * All of my Nelnet accounts that were part of the XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX late payments show forbearance status effective as of XXXX XXXX, And a economic hardship deferment was submitted and applied onXX/XX/XXXXAlso, I had an administrative forbearance added to my loans on XXXX due to accident and illness. Therefore, my credit reports do not currently accurately reflect previous payment statuses with Nelnet, both as they actually existed and as Nelnet has recorded them. I am thus requesting that in compliance with Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA that the four accounts showing a late payment from XXXX to XXXX be updated and/or corrected and removed. SINCE MY XXXX XXXX EMAIL, I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT ALL OTHER LOAN PROVIDERS TIMELY PROCESSED THE DEFERMENT/FORBEARANCE LEAVING ME TO SUSPECT A PROCESSING ERROR ON BEHALF OF NELNET. In addition to the possible Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) claim, I intend on disputing the processing of my  deferment if need be. In the event that these reports are not immediately updated to accurately reflect my forbearance/deferment status during those times I intend on filing disputes with the FTC, Florida Attorney General, and BBB, and pursue other legal routes if necessary.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation