Consumer complaint received 2023-12-23 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Problem with customer service
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I have been denied relief for Firstmark 's billing errors in which FM sent multiple billing statements and payment reminders to incorrect addresses. Although I made several attempts to correct my address information, FM errant skip-tracing practices allowed cascading skip-tracing to occur from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX. Firstmark blames me for their errors alleging that I did not contact them to let them know the addresses were invalid. I explained that I have attempted to correct FM mistakes to the best of my ability specifically citing my XXXX as limiting factors. I explained that I have XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I requested relief from FM to include correction of credit files to mark as " No data '' or " paid as agreed '' for the period XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, administrative forbearance for thirty ( 30 ) days to stop any additional skip-tracing, and a payment schedule that ensures at least twenty ( 20 ) days between billing cycle statement generation date and statement due date. All of this has been communicated through CFPB complaints. Firsmark has consistently declined to provide relief. In response to CFPB complaint XXXX, Firstmark stated it would not respond to any further complaints regarding the issues within XXXX  unless I submitted " compelling documentation. '' I submitted CFPB complaint XXXX  with nearly one-hundred ( 100 ) pages of documentation. The documentation included medical journal articles on XXXX, HHS and USDoJ guidance on long-COVID as a XXXX, articles on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I provided two ( 2 ) credit reports from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX both showing the address in XXXX was a previous address by that time and thus was no more valid in XXXX. I provided an e-mail from FM circa XX/XX/XXXX where FM stated the address in XXXX was an invalid address. I provided copies of billing statements and payment reminders that were inconsistent in the mailing address indicating a return of one piece of mail continued cascading skip-tracing to occur. I also provided a concise statement " For the period over which Firstmark was sending my billing statements to address, and the cascading skip-tracing that resulted, that beyond the extent to which I demonstrated an ability to correct my address information when skip-tracing may have overwritten my correctionsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX' I requested relief to ensure timely statement delivery, as quoted by the originator and original servicer of the loan : twenty ( 20 ) days. I requested corrections to my credit files strictly for the period of time over which Firstmark mailed my statements to the wrong addresses. I requested a thirty ( 30 ) day administrative forbearance so that adjustments in the billing schedule could be made to enable the twenty ( 20 ) days, and so that corrections to my credit files could be made. Firstmark responded with a near identical response to the previous response, again denying me any relief, citing no basis in law to cease normal servicing practices. I contacted Firstmark on XXXX XXXX XXXX and spoke with XXXX. I explained the situation and the latest response received from Firstmark. I explained all the CFPB responses have been written by a single individual : XXXX XXXX I explained her responses were concerning because they did not take the circumstances into consideration. XXXX looked for a dispute in my file and found one received on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX from all three CRAs. XXXX reviewed further quoting the notes which alleged " the appropriate department confirmed that all the information was 'factually " accurate as furnished to the CRAs. '' XXXX then explained the skip-tracing was conducted by another portion o the company on the backend and justified mailing to the incorrect address as Firstmarkt trying to get the info to me in any way possible and any previously verified address. Further she explained Firstmark had no way to know whether the address was valid or not, but simply that it was an alleged address for contact from their " database. '' I countered noting that FM used the oldest address when more recent addresses were available and more likely to be fruitful if information was to reach me. I pointed out a better address, and a newer address, would have been to mail a payment reminder and/or a billing statement to the address of my co-borrower, which has not changed in 30+ years. XXXX stated my co-borrower should have called in. I explained both the limits of my co-borrower as an individual of advanced age, and that my co-borrower had neither been mailed statements nor payment reminders and would have no way to know ANY payment was due, or that the loans even entered repayment. XXXX then read the notes in the file which claimed " the FCRA prevents Firstmark from applying the requested modifications to my credit '' and as such " need [ ed ] to dispute the matter with the CRAs. '' XXXX asserted the law is black and white for everybody and I counter with it being based upon what's based upon the circumstances. XXXX asked if it was unreasonable for an individual to call and make a payment if they " realize '' they have not received a statement in a couple of months. She pointed out that the account was past-due multiple times over the period of repayment. I countered reminding XXXX that the nature of my medical conditions makes it incredibly painful to communicate via light and sound when the condition is unmanaged. I explained Firstmark sent all statements to incorrect addresses from the moment the loan entered repayment and that skip-tracing continued to change addresses with each piece of returned mail on such a frequent basis that the address on a billing statement and payment reminder over the same billing cycle at points were different. I explained it was not reasonable for any individual to have to catch Firstmarks errors, let alone someone who has difficulty XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX again mentioned Firstmark didn't know the XXXX address was not a good address for me. I pointed out this was patently false because Firstmark sent an e-mail XXXX XXXX XXXX stating they received returned mail from the XXXX address. To the e-mail was a document dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  noting the loans had gone into repayment. XXXX explained she didn't know what else it was she could do for me. I made clear that if this was not resolved I would be filing the matter withe the state and federal agencies responsible for civil rights, and would be faxing the committee members that have oversight responsibiliy of financial services within he US Congress. I then asked to speak with a supervisor. XXXX and I ended amicably and I was transferred. I explained the situation to the supervisor and the conversation I had with XXXX. The supervisor acknowledged what I was saying as a human being, but that the practices of Firstmark were the practices. I explained I am someone that holds or has held XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and asked how I can prevent this matter from occurring again. I was told there was a Release Authorization that I could fill out in case I needed someone to handle payments on my account and keep track of the account status. This form was neither mentioned nor offered by the individual responding to the CFPB complaints and had never been offered to me before when speaking with a representative -- the only other form I'd been offered was a loan modification form in around XXXX XXXX XXXX, which would reset my statement dates and increase the interest rates. 

The notes read by XXXX suggested I file disputes with the CRAs and that Fisrtmark was bound by the FCRA to report accurate information. Presumably the individual anotating the file regarding the FCRA was referring to the difference in the language of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( covering data furnishers ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( covering CRAs ). However, The Fourth Circuit has recognized the synergy between the language of both stating, " Although the majority of cases involve the duty the same standard of accuracy applies to a furnishers response under 1681s-2. Both 1681e and 1681s-2 serve the same purpose : ensuring accuracy in consumer credit reporting. A CRA can best fulfill its obligation to report accurately under 1681e if it receives accurate information from a furnisher under 1681s-2, '' ( XXXX v. XXXX Banking, 526 F.3d 142 ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). The Seventh Circuit came to a similar conclusion, " Section XXXX681s-2 at times uses incomplete or inaccurate. E.g., 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ). Section 1681e, on the other hand, speaks only in terms of 'maximum possible accuracy. ' One might draw the inference, then, that accuracy and completeness are different... We think not '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Quoting from the XXXX circuit, " Courts have long understood that, when it comes to the FCRA, accurate means more than just 'technically correct. ' E.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. For the definition of incomplete and inaccurate information one can look to the Sixth circuit, " We have interpreted the phrase incomplete or inaccurate to encompass not only false information, but also correct information that nevertheless create [ s ] a materially misleading impression. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Yet, given my situation Firstmark continues to verify that all the information furnished to the CRAs for my account i s " [ technically ] accurate, '' when it is Firstmark 's unfair practices that resulted the furnished derogatory payment history for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thus, While XXXX XXXX continues to claim there is no basis in law to honor what are alleged as " demands, '' nor a basis in law to " accommodate '' those demands, she is mistaken. 

On XXXX XXXX XXXX  alleged Firstmark was require to make contact with me at all " verified '' addresses. Firstmark knew the XXXX address was not an address I received mail by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Consider, if the assumption was that I no longer lived in my current state of residence ( the same state I have continued to reside in since XXXX ), then the next previous address outside my current state for any extended period of time chronologically would have been the address listed on the MPN, which is NOT a XXXX  address, but a XXXX  address. It was the same address for the co-borrower, was the address listed on the loan MPN, was the address tied to my Driver 's license listed on the loan MPN, and was a newer address than the XXXX address. Although not a valid mailing address for me, Firstmark could have tried sending the billing statements and/or payment reminders to my last known physical and mailing address outside my current state of residence : XXXX The distinction between the two ( 2 ) is duration. The XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Yet, Firstmark neither mailed billing statements nor mailed payment reminders, to either the XXXX XXXX XXXX  addresses. If, as XXXX claimed, Firstmark was " required '' to send mail to all verified addresses for me, there would substantial incentive to mail statements to a previous address that is known to coincide with the co-borrower. For Firstmark to forego mailing statement to newer, more relevant addresses, in favor of an older address, in a state with which I have no nexus, is indicative of unfair acts and practices. For Firstmark to employ skip-tracing practices Either Firstmark saw an opportunity to charge-off a loan they believed was non-performant and/or Firstmark has poor skip-tracing practices. 

XXXX XXXX references the MPN in at least three ( 3 ) of the responses, claiming the provisions under the original MPN do not permit a borrower to claim a failure to receive statements as a defense to non-payment on the student loan. It is true, as XXXX XXXX points out, there exists language in Section E.2 of the MPN that states " I am not relieved of my responsibility and obligation to make such payments if I do not receive billing statements and any other written payment notices from you. '' While the MPN makes clear a borrower is not absolved of responsibility to make payments, it makes zero ( XXXX ) mention regarding the time-frame those payments must be made in when billing errors arise. That the XXXX XXXX be silent on the specifics of Billing Error Resolution and Timing of Payments is not a surprise. The originator of this loan is XXXX and at the time of origination XXXX would have serviced this loan in its normal course of business as a banking and financial services institution. This MPN was written BEFORE Dood-Frank, before we collectively understood the collective and catastrophic economic impact predatory lending and poor service practices would inflict upon the entire financial system and individual consumers. With minimal oversight and regulation Financial Services Institutions engaged in poor acts and practices that nearly collapsed the United States economy, leaving many consumers in financial disarray and ruin. Although Financial Services institutions were thought able to best be equipped to handle Billing Error issues in a reasonable way on their own as good business practice, that viewpoint changed when multiple financial services institutions failed -- XXXX was one of them and ultimately merged with XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX overlooks the placement of the alleged defense to non-payment provision. The MPN makes a statement regarding non-receipt of statement, only after declaring what the lender/servicer must do. The opening sentence of E.2 reads : During the Repayment Period, you will send me monthly statements, coupons, or other notices that show the amounts of minimum monthly payments and the payment due dates. It is important for me, and my co-borrower, to receive monthly statements because although the loan in question is a student loan, it has an adjustable interest rate like an open-ended card account and as such the portion of total amount due that is applied to both principal interest varies with changes interest rates set by the Federal Reserve XXXX There have been five ( 5 ) in-total over the time period when Firstmark was mailing statements and payment reminders to incorrect addresses. Therefore, to claim a borrower and/or co-borrower should know what the monthly payment amount is and make payments is unfair. In this case the XXXX borrower and their co-borrower of XXXX XXXX would have to be versed in the finer points of actuarial math and keep track of interest rate changes in order to " know '' what the payment " should '' be absent a statement and/or payment reminder -- that is unreasonable and unfair, especially if the first statement is not received. 

That from the first response to my CFPB complaints in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX never informed a Release Authorization existed, but at least one ( 1 ) representative over the same time period offered to help solve the issue by a loan modification is telling. The mechanism offered to me was one that would increase the amount of each monthly payment, and potentially the number of total payments until maturity, making it likely that Firstmark would increase its profit through is a deceptive act or practice ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ) and discriminatory. 

That after disclosing my XXXX to XXXX, they would allow XXXXXXXX XXXX to suggest it reasonable for me to rely solely on electronic statements, which would require me to stare at a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  is discriminatory and cruel. That Firstmark after disclosing my XXXX to Firstmark they would allow XXXX XXXX to suggest it reasonable to contact Firstmark by phone to inquire about a payment that may e due, check a balance, etc., during periods of XXXX is discriminatory and cruel. It is unreasonable for Firstmark to expect I compensate for their poor acts and practices, especially when involves subjecting to me pain on account of my XXXX. To expect such is discriminatory and cruel on its face and shows Firstmarks willingness to engage in acts and practices that intimidate and discriminate against individuals with XXXX. 

That XXXX XXXX would claim my valid enhanced drivers license, all Driver 's licenses back to XXXX, which all show my current state of residence, were not not compelling to warrant any change in " normal servicing practices '' is abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ). That XXXX XXXX would claim credit reports that show the XXXX address was a previous addess by XXXX was not compelling to warrant any change in " normal servicing practices '' is abusive ( 12 U.S.C 5531 ( d ) ). That Firstmrak knew by XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX  address was not an address at which I receive mail, but allowed XXXX XXXX to respond to a CFPB complaint in XX/XX/XXXX claiming Firstmark believed I received mail at the address because no mail was returned from that address to Firstmark is abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ) and deceptive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ).

That Firstmark has refused to offer relief by removing false/misleading/inaccurate information it supplied to the CRAs is unfair ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ) and unlawful ( 12 U.S.C 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) as covered person, 15 U.S.C. 1681e and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 as data furnisher ). That Firstmark would deny me relief is retaliatory, The very concept of retaliation [ being ] that the retaliating party takes action against the party retaliated against after, and because of, some action of the latter. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX An individual need not even file a complaint for retaliation to occur ; rather an individual can be engaged in any lawful conduct connected with exercise of a protected right ; in this instance the act of filing billing errors via CFPB complaints is one form of exercise ( 12 U.S.C. 5534 ), request for access to paper statements in a timely manner at the proper address ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.2, MPN at E.2 implying 12 C.F.R. 1026.41 ) via CFPB complaint process ( 12 U.S.C. 5534 ) ( separate from and in conjunction with requests for reasonable accommodation under Section 302 of the ADA / 42 U.S.C. 12182 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii ), and 28 CFR 36.202 prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability ) is another, and complaints to state and federal agencies filed in good faith alleging discrimination, unfair, deceptive, abusive, or any other unlawful acts/practices, are yet others. Complaints that expose predatory servicing practices within the private student loan industry, make it more likely the CFPB will compel covered persons to implement reasonable procedures designed to ensure the mailing or delivery of statements at least twenty-one ( 21 ) days before the payment due date by using their power under the CFPA, which enables the CFPB to bring enforcement action to prevent a covered person or service provider from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. '' Student loan trusts are now considered covered persons and as such are subjected to CFPB XXXXforcement authority ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ). 

XXXX knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information they were furnishing to the CRAs from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and continue to furnish for that period, is false/misleading/inaccurate. While they may contend the the payment history for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is [ technically ] accurate, " 'accurate ' [ under the FCRA ] means more than just 'technically [ accurate ], ' '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

The payment history furnished by Firstmark to the three ( 3 ) major CRAs was generated as a result of Firstmark 's own unfair ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ), deceptive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ), abusive ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ), unlawful ( 12 U.S.C 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) as covered person, 15 U.S.C. 1681e and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 as data furnisher ), and discriminatory ( 42 U.S.C. 12182 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( ii ), and 28 CFR 36.202 ), acts or practices. As of today I have filed a Civil Rights compaint with my State 's Civil Rights department. I will be providing a copy of this CFPB complaint and a legal brief to DOJ Civil Rights Division and ADA Section. I would like to resolve this matter here so that I may let my State 's Civil their assistance will no longer be needed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation