Consumer complaint received 2025-07-16 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Don't agree with the fees charged
Company: SLM CORPORATION
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
I was in my XXXX  grace period with Sallie Mae until XX/XX/XXXX. To pay the lowest amount possible ( monthly ), I had called Sallie Mae to discuss my options in early XXXX ( I also did the online chat ). I was told I could apply for the Graduate Repayment Plan ( GRP ) only AFTER my grace period ended, on XX/XX/XXXX. The GRP was described to me as making interest-only payments for 12 months ( 1 year ), and would have no negative impact on my loans or cosigners. 

As instructed, I applied for the GRP AFTER XX/XX/XXXX, and was approved on XX/XX/XXXX. I spoke with many representatives via online chat on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX of XXXX regarding the matter, clarifying what I owed and when, to make sure I had a clear understanding. Due to having co-signers, and limited funds, this understanding was imperative. 

A representative explained to me in XXXX of XXXX, that since I applied for the GRP and was approved mid-billing cycle ( the XXXX statement was sent out on XX/XX/XXXX ), that the interest-only payments would take XXXX billing cycles to reflect accurately, along with my request to change the due date. I was advised to pay what was on my statements until the new changes reflected. 

I received my XXXX billing statement, which was confirmed to be sent out on XX/XX/XXXX, for a total of {$420.00}, which included the principal and interest payment amount. In XXXX of XXXX AND XXXX of XXXX, I was told by Sallie Mae representatives that they advise customers to pay what is on their billing statement, until their statement reflects otherwise. 

The first interest-only payment did NOT occur until XXXX of XXXX. The statement would've been automatically sent on XX/XX/XXXX. This led me to believe that since my first payment was in XXXX ( interest-only ), the XXXX would run from the XX/XX/XXXX, billing cycle, to the XX/XX/XXXX, billing cycle, meaning, in XXXX of XXXX, I would still only owe the interest amount. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed that my billing statement sent out XX/XX/XXXX reflected the principal and interest amount of {$410.00} -- loans have variable interest rates which explains the change. I was confused as to why I owed the principal and interest amount, as I thought I had XXXX month left of interest-only payments and would be making my FIRST principal and interest payments for the next billing cycle, ending on XX/XX/XXXX, which would make the due date XXXX of XXXX. 

I contacted Sallie Mae on XX/XX/XXXX, in both chat and a phone call, and requested more information on why my GRP had ended in XXXX. I was told that my GRP was backdated to XXXX, and the first billing cycle that counted towards my GRP was the statement sent out for XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I asked for clarification on how that counts as the first billing cycle, because in XXXX, I was required to pay the principal and interest amount indicated by my billing statement and the multiple Sallie Mae representatives that I spoke with. 

While originally, I was told -- MULTIPLE times -- that the GRP couldn't be backdated, and would NOT be applied towards my XXXX statement ( as they had already been sent out ), on XX/XX/XXXX, a representative confirmed that while that's normally true, since I applied for the GRP in the same month that my grace period ended, XXXX of XXXX, that the GRP COULD be backdated. 

I still asked for more clairifcation because my statement sent out in XXXX still requested the full amount for XXXX -- backdated or not, I didn't pay interest-only in XXXX. Additionally, I was never notified that my GRP was backdated to XXXX. 

The representative noted, that since I applied for the GRP AFTER the XXXX statement was sent out -- approved for the GRP on XX/XX/XXXX, that it would be accurate for the amount to reflect the principal and interest total -- {$420.00} since the statemtent was sent out before I ever applied, there would be no reason I wouldn't be billed the flul amount. 

The issue is, as a consumer, I was advised to pay what was on my billing statement, was told my GRP can not be backdated for my XXXX total, that it could take XXXX billing cycles to reflect my GRP. Due to this information, I had reasonable expectations to make the payment on my statement, which was confirmed that I did pay, manually by my XXXX due date. 

The representative said that since they WERE able to backdate my GRP to XXXX, in XXXX, I technically owed interest-only, despite my billing statement being the principal and interest amount, and the representative stating otherwise. I asked how I was supposed to know that only the interest was due, if my billing statement reflected otherwise, and if I was never notified that my GRP was backdated. I was never sent an amended billing statement, as I was told these are automatically sent out once a billing cycle, never twice. 

Based on this information, in good faith, I relied on the GRP to go from the XX/XX/XXXX, billing cycle through the XX/XX/XXXX, billing cycle, making my first principal and interest payment in XXXX of XXXX. 

I questioned the representative on how I was supposed to know that my GRP WAS backdated, since I was explicitly told it couldn't be, and I was never notified. I also, asked that if my billing statement reflected the principal and interest amount, how I was supposed assume I could pay an amount LESS than what was on my statement, if not told otherwise, or if a correction was never sent out. As a consumer, I feel we should be able to rely on the billing statement and the information relayed by representatives. 

Since XXXX of XXXX, I relied on what I was told and my billing statements, and believed in good faith, that my GRP plan would run through XXXX of XXXX. I believe I was misled, and have concerns about consumer protections in this instance, as this feels to be a violation of my rights as a consumer, in addition to not being morally sound.

Company public response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief