Consumer complaint received 2024-12-19 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Keep getting calls about your loan
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Formal Complaint Regarding Denial of Student Loan Misconduct Discharge Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint Team, I am writing to formally file a complaint concerning the improper handling and denial of my student loan misconduct discharge application by Navient Solutions , LLC, the original loan servicer, and XXXX, the current servicer of my loan. Despite providing substantial evidence of institutional misconduct, my application has been denied twice without clear or justifiable reasoning. 

Loan Information : Loan Account Number : XXXX Application Reference Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX First Denial Date : XX/XX/XXXX ( Navient ) Second Denial Date : XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) Background : I am a former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX, which has been the subject of multiple legal actions for fraudulent and predatory practices. The institution misled students about job placement rates, career outcomes, and the overall value of the education providedpractices that have been legally recognized. 

In XXXX, the parent company, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), reached a {$95.00} XXXX settlement with the XXXX Department over illegal recruiting tactics. 

Following widespread acknowledgment of these deceptive practices, the U.S. Department of Education approved over {$6.00} XXXX in student loan forgiveness for former XXXX XXXX students, including those who attended the XXXX XXXX campus between XXXX and XXXX. 

Despite these clear findings, Navient, as the original loan servicer, denied my school misconduct discharge application without justification. XXXX, now servicing my loan, appears to have adopted Navients decision without conducting an independent or thorough review of the evidence I submitted.

Under the FTC Holder Rule, I am entitled to assert defenses against loan holders when institutional misconduct occurs. Given the legal precedents set against The XXXX XXXX and Navients role in facilitating these loans, I believe Navients initial denial was both insufficient and improper. XXXX  reliance on that flawed decision perpetuates this failure. 

Concerns : Primary Investigation Failure : Navients denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of its review process. XXXX  subsequent reliance on that decision is inadequate. 

Lack of Transparency : Neither Navient nor XXXX has provided specific reasons for the denials, preventing me from addressing any perceived shortcomings. 

Failure to Address Evidence : The substantial evidence I provided demonstrates institutional misconduct. The repeated denials suggest that my case has been ignored or inadequately reviewed. 

Requested Actions : Investigate Navients Role : I request that the CFPB conduct a full investigation into Navients handling of my school misconduct discharge application, including its review process and compliance with borrower protections. 

Require XXXX to Conduct a Fair Review : Direct XXXX to independently review my case without relying on Navients flawed decision. 

Provide a Clear Explanation : Issue a detailed explanation of the denial, including specific reasons and any additional steps I may take to appeal.

The continued denial of my rightful discharge has caused me significant financial and emotional hardship. I respectfully urge the CFPB to investigate Navients mishandling of my case and ensure that XXXX fulfills its obligation to fairly review borrower claims in compliance with federal protections.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation