Consumer complaint received 2025-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
Dear XXXX XXXX, I am writing in response to your letters dated XX/XX/2025, and XX/XX/2025, regarding account XXXX. I am formally disputing this account and demanding its immediate removal from my credit report. It is evident from your correspondence that Nelnet is not genuinely attempting to verify or validate this alleged debt, but instead engaging in harassing and deceptive practices in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. Furthermore, your reliance on a typed signature, rather than a wet signature, undermines the validity of any alleged agreement, as I will explain below. I demand corrective action based on the legal violations outlined herein.

Grounds for Dispute 1. Lack of a Wet Signature Undermines the Alleged AgreementYour letters reference a binding agreement and a supposed violation of 15 U.S. Code 1001, yet you have failed to provide any evidence of a signed contract. In particular, I have not seen any documentation bearing my wet signaturemeaning a physical, handwritten signatureon an original loan agreement or promissory note. A typed signature, such as XXXX that might appear in an electronic form ( e.g., XXXX XXXX typed in a signature field ), does not constitute a legally binding wet signature under federal and state laws governing contracts, including student loans.The Higher Education Act ( HEA ), 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., and its implementing regulations require that federal student loan agreements, such as those serviced by Nelnet on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, be supported by a signed promissory note. According to 34 C.F.R. 682.414, the lender or servicer must retain a copy of the signed promissory note to enforce the debt. A typed signature does not meet the legal standard for a binding contract under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 3-401, which requires a handwritten signature for negotiable instruments like promissory notes, nor does it satisfy the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ( E-SIGN ), 15 U.S.C. 7001, which requires clear evidence of intent to sign electronicallyevidence you have not provided.Without a wet signature or proof of a legally compliant electronic signature, there is no enforceable agreement. Therefore, Nelnet has no legal basis to claim I owe this debt, and any reporting of this account to credit bureaus is inaccurate and unlawful. I demand the immediate removal of this account from my credit reports. 
XXXX. Failure to Provide Evidence of the Debt ( Violation of FDCPA 1692g and FCRA 1681s-2 ) Beyond the issue of the signature, your letters fail to provide any documentation to substantiate the existence of this alleged debt, such as a signed promissory note, account history, or proof of Nelnets authority to collect. Under FDCPA 1692g ( a ), a debt collector must provide clear validation of the debt, including the amount owed and the identity of the original creditor. Additionally, under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), a furnisher of information must conduct a reasonable investigation and provide evidence to support its reporting when a consumer disputes an account.Your letters contain no such evidence, suggesting that Nelnet is not acting in good faith to verify the debt, but rather attempting to intimidate me into compliance. The absence of verifiable documentation renders your collection efforts unlawful under the FDCPA and your reporting to credit bureaus inaccurate under the FCRA. This account must be removed from my credit reports immediately.

3. Harassment and Deceptive Practices ( Violation of FDCPA 1692e and 1692f ) The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using false, deceptive, or misleading representations ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ) and from engaging in unfair practices ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f ). Your letters appear to be a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate me rather than a legitimate effort to resolve a debt. Specifically : You cite 15 U.S. Code 1001, a statute related to false statements in federal matters, which is wholly inapplicable to a private student loan dispute. This misuse of a federal statute constitutes a deceptive practice under FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), as it falsely represents the legal status of the debt.

You threaten to file my concerns with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) without providing evidence of the debt, which is an unfair and coercive tactic under FDCPA 1692f.

These actions demonstrate that Nelnet is not attempting to verify the debt in good faith, but rather using deceptive and harassing tactics to pressure me into payment. This is a clear violation of federal law, and I demand that all collection activities cease immediately.

4. Improper Credit Reporting ( Violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ) Your letter implies that this account has been reported to credit bureaus, as you mention filing my concerns with the CFPB. Under FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ), furnishers are prohibited from reporting information that is inaccurate or can not be verified. Since Nelnet has provided no evidence of a valid agreementlacking a wet signature or otherwiseany reporting of account XXXX to credit bureaus is unlawful. Furthermore, under FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ), Nelnet is XXXX to delete this account from my credit reports if it can not verify the debt following a dispute. I demand that Nelnet immediately request the deletion of this account from my credit reports with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX. Failure to Act in Good FaithYour letters offer no meaningful opportunity for resolution, such as providing documentation or engaging in a dialogue to verify the debt. Instead, they contain vague threats, inapplicable legal references, and a lack of evidence, suggesting that Nelnets intent is to harass rather than resolve this matter. This bad faith conduct violates the spirit of both the FCRA and FDCPA, which are designed to protect consumers from unfair and unsubstantiated debt collection practices.

Requested Actions Based on the violations outlined above, I demand the following : 1. Immediate Removal of the Account from Credit Reports : Pursuant to FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), Nelnet must notify all credit bureaus to delete account XXXX from my credit reports within XXXX business days of receipt of this letter. 
XXXX. Cease All Collection Activities : Under FDCPA 1692g ( b ), Nelnet must cease all collection activities, as you have failed to provide any evidence of the debt, including a wet signature, and are engaging in harassing practices.

3. Written Confirmation of Compliance : Within 30 days, provide written confirmation that Nelnet has complied with these demands, including proof of deletion from credit bureaus.

Consequences of Non-Compliance If Nelnet fails to comply with these demands, I will take the following actions : Report Nelnets deceptive practices to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) for investigation for violations of the FCRA and FDCPA, including Nelnets bad faith practices, failure to verify the debt, and reliance on an invalid agreement lacking a wet signature.

Pursue legal action against Nelnet for statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation under FCRA 1681n and FDCPA 1692k, as well as actual damages for emotional distress and harm to my credit caused by your unlawful reporting and collection practices.

I expect a response to this dispute within the timeframes mandated by law. You may contact me in writing at the address above or via email at XXXX. I do not consent to phone calls regarding this matter, as per my rights under FDCPA XXXX ( c ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation