Consumer complaint received 2025-02-07 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereafter referred to as Navient due to XXXX XXXX divesting that segment ) overtook ownership of XXXX student loan accounts ( hereafter referred to as loans ) of a XXXX citizen with permanent residence outside of the United States. 

Navient overtook the loans despite not having the proper basic processes in place to service an account without a physical residence within the United States. 

This included : - Only accepting payment via paper-check issued by a XXXX bank XXXX 
- No telephone numbers that were accessible outside the continental United States. 
- No subject matter experts to resolve unique issues - Policy that prohibited representatives from following a case after phone conversations had ended During the period from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, Navient representatives, acting in an advisory capacity, with the same access to documentation and proclaiming to be experts in Student Loan processes and procedures, repeatedly stated that there was no solution to the lack of a valid method of payment. They continually recommended that the account be placed on forbearance as a temporary solution to prevent the account from going into default. However, they did not disclose that the loan could be moved to a new service provider with different payment facilities via the loan consolidation process. 

This behavior was reflected in a class action lawsuit against Navient. In a settlement announcement on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Pennsylvania Attorney General XXXX XXXX was quoted : Our investigation uncovered XXXX deceptive and unfair schemes Navient was using that broke the law and put their own profits ahead of the people they served. The first scheme involved Navient issuing subprime private loans to borrowers they knew could not pay the money back similar to the mortgage crisis in XXXX. The second scheme we uncovered was XXXX XXXX to mislead borrowers into forbearances, which stopped them from paying down the principal on their loan and led many to accumulate more debt and never-ending interest payments, said XXXX XXXX XXXX 

As a result, when payments were initiated to Navient in XXXX, pending interest of over XXXX  % of the initial disbursement was capitalized. When initially contacted about this issue, a Navient consumer advocate agreed with the complaint and credited all late fees that had accumulated during the period in question, however the interest was not discussed until with a new consumer advocate in XXXX. 

The most recent ground for rejecting the request to reverse the capitalized interest was that, although Navient had acted as expert student loan advisor and, between XXXX and XXXX, had specifically stated that there was no solution to the issue, there was a reference to the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX website. The was also misleading XXXX to believe that the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was a governing body for Navient regarding student loans.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation