Consumer complaint received 2017-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: AES/PHEAA
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is a request for assistance regarding a loan matter that continues to be burdensome on a variety of leve ls. PHEAA ( Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency ), the co mpany that assumes responsibility for loan collection, use an array of tactics to ensure that a flow of money continues to be received from me. There is absolutely no regard for modifications to their mission due to mistakes or possible illegal maneuvers on their behalf. For several years, company representatives have not responded to any of my concerns, written or via telephone. Representatives have shown me that they are trained to ask for money, not to respond to questions and concerns. Middle management and beyond dont respond. I have tried for several years to get answers to questions concerning how the alleged debt quoted by the company has taken its present day form. Im talking about a deconstructive breakdown in its totality. PHEAAs framework is about crunching numbers supported by the loan document. Anything outside of that framework has no relevance to them. The numbers they crunch could be fraught with error, and there might well be other circumstances that should have and should be considered, but this has never been the case. They obviously dont believe that a consumer could muster up the courage or energy to take the company to court. I am reaching out to see if a third party oversight agency can burst the bubble that PHEAA lives in. This is for the purpose of receiving full answers, and not pat responses. I have, and I will continue to have important questions and concerns to be brought to PHEAA for full disclosure.      1. I  returned to graduate school as a  XXXX  student. As required at institutions that administer these kinds of loans, a student receives counseling in order to understand the full scope of the loan obligation. The college I attended did not follow this protocol. This was an important omission. The college subsequently lost its accreditation. This was due to several egregious acts, which included financial improprieties.      2.  I never defaulted on the student loan obligation. I qualified for a deferment. I also qualified to apply for a loan discharge due to a  XXXX . Though I had applied for a deferment, I began to receive harassing phone calls from  XXXX  representatives pushing me to set up a repayment plan. These calls were received throughout the week. I filed more than one complaint regarding the calls, but they continued.  XXXX  day I was engaged in a heated conversation with a  XXXX  representative. He was pushing for me to set up a repayment plan though I had filed for a deferment. At one point during the conversation, the representative told me that he was going to default me. Within weeks after the aforementioned call, I received notice that I had defaulted on the loan. I immediately contacted  XXXX  and explained that I qualified and had applied for a deferment. I was told that the deferment document submitted to  XXXX  was never received. At this juncture the focus from  XXXX  was not the deferment, but to push through the default. I wrote letters and did my very best to challenge their assertion that I defaulted on the loan. If a deferment opportunity or an opportunity to ask for a loan discharge due to  XXXX  was available, why would I not take it?   I later received a notice from  XXXX  stating that I requested a forbearance of the loan package. This was instantly enacted by  XXXX . I submitted paperwork for a deferment. I later requested to have the loan s discharged du e to a  XXXX .  XXXX  set up the 8 month forbearance so that the company could impose an instant repayment plan. There is no document, signed by me, that consented to this.     The alleged default of the student loan moved seamlessly to a wage garnishment threat.  XXXX  being a locked system, I had no choice but to appeal this garnishment. I was told that I could fly to Pennsylvania to appear at a hearing. Those who do this for a living obviously knew that I would not be able to afford such a trip from California. This so called hearing was an insult to any judicial system that attempts to uphold a just and honest system. Firstly, those involved were too close to  XXXX  to be neutral. Given the distance between us and my inability to hire legal representation, those involved in the hearing were given free rein to exploit my written statements while making it seem that I was given due process. They allowed me to move through the hearing process while knowing fully that my appeal would be rejected. This was disturbing to me at the time and continues to disturb me today. A garnishment was imposed. The garnishment was for a percentage of the net income, though  XXXX  changed this to a percentage of gross income.  XXXX  later responded to this by stating that net and gross are the same.  XXXX  has been allowed to ride roughshod all over my legal rights because the company feels that its wall of disclosure is impenetrable. They have enforced the kinds of interest rates and penalties that will insure that the loan will never be paid in full.     I believe there is enough information to warrant an outside and unbiased agency to ask  XXXX  for a legitimate response to my concerns. I would like to start with the question Why was there a default when I never defaulted on the loan? I know that  XXXX  set me up. There are a chain of events that support my belief. My loan package was sold several times and finally reached  XXXX .  XXXX  positioned itself to put up its impenetrable wall. This allowed the company representative to tell me that he would default me if I did not set up a repayment plan. This was followed with  XXXX  assertion that my deferment document was never received, and so a default was warranted. This lead to a garnishment appeal that all parties within that particular system knew I would not win. This concluded with  XXXX  having full rein to solidify the erosion of any legal rights afforded me.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation