Consumer complaint received 2026-03-09 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: IA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding Nelnets misleading and incomplete communication during the COVID19 payment pause and the handling of my PSLF/TEPSLF review, which together caused substantial, avoidable financial harm. This may seem like another borrower asking for an exception to a missed deadline or for special treatment on PSLF/TEPSLF. However, my request is based on the servicers misleading wording and omissions, and on objective errors in how my payments were evaluated. In XX/XX/XXXX Nelnet sent me a CARES Act letter explaining the COVID19 administrative forbearance on my federally owned loans. That letter stated : Although you will not be required to make monthly payments during this administrative forbearance period, payments you would have been required to make between XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, XXXX, will count toward loan forgiveness provided all other qualifying factors are met. The letter did not clearly explain that months in the COVID payment pause would count toward PSLF even if no payments were made. As a fulltime XXXX XXXX XXXX working mandatory overtime during the pandemic, I understood Nelnets language to mean that payment requirements were paused, but that I still needed to keep making payments in order to preserve PSLF eligibility. Acting in good faith, I continued making monthly payments throughout the COVID payment pause for 41 months, totaling {$18000.00}. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet never communicated that ( 1 ) paused months would still count as qualifying PSLF months even with no payments, and ( 2 ) payments made during the COVID19 payment pause were fully refundable if requested by the federal deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet sent me a letter about the end of the payment pause and an administrative forbearance for XX/XX/XXXX, stating that payments would resume in XX/XX/XXXX, but did not mention the COVID refund option or the XX/XX/XXXX refund deadline, even though it was sent the same month the refund window closed. Is it reasonable for servicers like Nelnet to aggressively communicate when a payment is missed, yet stay silent about a limitedtime COVID refund right that could prevent substantial financial harm? It seems PSLF/TEPSLF borrowers like me were treated unfairly : Nelnet accepted 41 months of payments during the pause without ever clearly explaining that I did not need to pay to earn PSLF credit or that those payments were refundable. If I missed a payment today, I have no doubt Nelnet would promptly notify me, yet during the COVID pause they accepted my goodfaith payments to preserve PSLF/TEPSLF while withholding critical information about my options. I later learned from external sources that ( 1 ) paused months did count toward PSLF even with no payments, and ( 2 ) payments made during the COVID19 pause could be refunded if requested by the deadline. When I called Nelnet to inquire about the COVID refund, I was told they could not issue a refund because the deadline had passed and was directed to submit my concerns through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I followed their direction and, on XX/XX/XXXX, opened Federal Student Aid Feedback Case # XXXX to request the COVIDpause reimbursement and to ask why I had never received clear and timely communication of my PSLF/TEPSLF eligibility without making payments or of the COVID refund option. In a written response dated XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet acknowledged that I believed I had to continue making payments through the COVID19 payment pause to maintain PSLF eligibility, but denied my reimbursement request solely because the refund deadline had passed. There was no attempt at resolution and no explanation of the communication failures, just a flat denial. The XXXX XXXX XXXX closed my Feedback Case # XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I formally requested my case be escalated for compliance and equity review by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have not yet received a response, so I sent an additional followup message after 90 days on XX/XX/XXXX requesting an update. The Ombudsman guidance indicates feedback and resolution within 60 days. As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, over 120 days later, I have not received any response regarding this case. How is this treatment not considered financial harm to borrowers? Additionally, my XX/XX/XXXX PSLF/TEPSLF application was denied. The first denial stated I was not currently eligible based on the TEPSLF 12month paymentamount test. I was advised by a XXXX phone representative to apply again, and that application was also denied. I escalated the PSLF/TEPSLF case, which was opened on XX/XX/XXXX by a XXXX phone representative ( Case # XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter saying that I would need to apply for TEPSLF. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX my PSLF/TEPSLF qualifying payment count changed several times, and a banner indicated that changes were being applied and accounts were being reviewed, and to expect delays. After another followup phone call with a XXXX representative on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that my loans would not be eligible for PSLF/TEPSLF because they were not on an incomedriven repayment plan. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted an incomedriven repayment ( IDR ) application selecting the IncomeBased Repayment ( IBR ) plan to align my payments with an IDR amount. XXXX XXXX XXXX then sent a TEPSLF Missing Information Request letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, listing estimated effective forgiveness dates in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and requesting my income and familysize documentation. This timing shows that the renewed TEPSLF review in XX/XX/XXXX was initiated by XXXX own processes, after earlier PSLF/TEPSLF reviews in XXXX, not by a new application from me. I provided the requested information on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another denial of PSLF/TEPSLF stating that We reviewed your payment history and determined that your most recent payment made and/or the payment made 12 months prior were less than the monthly incomedriven payment amount, which is not true. I have attached copies of my payments for those months ( most recent payment XX/XX/XXXX and 12 months prior XX/XX/XXXX ) to the PSLF/TEPSLF application date of XX/XX/XXXX. It appears the denial is based on incorrect paymentamount data ( showing {$64.00} ) rather than an accurate review of my actual payment history ( which shows {$420.00} ). How is there such inaccurate and constantly changing information when historical payment data are concrete? XXXX XXXX PSLF/TEPSLF tracking shows that I effectively reached XXXX qualifying PSLF payments before my XX/XX/XXXX payment. By XX/XX/XXXX, that XXXX count had not changed even though I continued to make ontime payments. Since then, I have continued making payments while waiting for forgiveness to be processed. For the entire time I have been in repayment, I have consistently paid substantially above my estimated incomedriven repayment amount ; I am not asking for a refund of all amounts paid above the IDR level over the years, only for the payments that became unnecessary because of misleading COVIDpause information and PSLF/TEPSLF processing errors. In summary, I am a longterm VA public servant who relied in good faith on Nelnets communications and XXXX processes. Nelnets XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX letters omitted critical information about PSLF credit during the pause and about the COVID refund option and deadline, leading me to make XXXX unnecessary payments during the payment pause and miss the refund window. FSAs TEPSLF handling has required me to continue making additional payments after I met the XXXXpayment PSLF/TEPSLF threshold, and the latest TEPSLF denial appears to be based on incorrect paymentamount data. In other words, a PSLFeligible XXXX XXXX XXXX made years of qualifying payments, paid far more than her IDR requirement, and then lost access to COVID refunds and timely forgiveness because of servicer omissions and data errors, not because she ignored her obligations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation