Consumer complaint received 2021-04-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I sent one of my first letters to the three credit bureaus to dispute the accuracy of the closed account listed as DEPTEDNELNET with the account number XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX. Among the inaccuracies I listed was the issue that the bureaus were reporting what could be a violation of a Nondisclosure Agreement. The contractual agreement between the U.S. Government and me is to never to disclose information to an unauthorized person.

Upon further research, it is specifically the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, that DEPTEDNELNET violated. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual absent the written consent of the individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions.

Most importantly DEPTEDNELNET never had the authority under the Privacy Act to disclose any information about me to the credit bureaus ; DEPTEDNELNET never had my consent ( implied or otherwise ) to disclose any information about me to the credit bureaus. The Federal courts have explained that, 5 U.S.C. 552a ( 4 ) ; see also 5 U.S.C. 552a ( b ) ( " No agency shall disclose any record.... " ). The Privacy Act also requires government agencies to apply the protections mandated by the Privacy Act to record systems operated by government contractors. 5 U.S.C. 552a ( m ) ( 1 ). Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Navient Corp., 3:17-CV-101, at *5 ( M.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2018 ).

The courts have established a personal right of action. In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 ( 1981 ) and in Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 19 ( 1981 ) ; the U.S Supreme Court has established that my privacy rights are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

I was forced to grant the Department of Education certain uses of my personal information ; see attached loan contract. Demonstrating DEPTEDNELNET never had my consent or the authority to disclose my personal information to any of the credit bureaus.

I have also requested the deletion of the account DEPTEDNELNET for its inaccuracies. The report shows OK one month ; then the next month it reports 90 days late. An account can not mathematically be 90 days late after one month. 
Now that XXXX is the only credit bureau still reporting this unauthorized account with such a glaring inaccuracy they are violating my privacy and violating 5 U.S. Code 1681i : Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 5 ) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information ( A ) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall ( i ) promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer The Department of Education and DEPTEDNELNET have duplicated similar derogatory information but different payment histories, different start dates. It is negligent for XXXX to allow Department of Education and DEPTEDNELNET to Morph or duplicate negative credit information for the sole purpose of injury. After 73 days of inaction, it is clear XXXX doesnt want an amicable resolution.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation