Consumer complaint received 2025-02-14 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: MOHELA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint has been filed against XXXX XXXX, however the loan has now been transfered to Mohela, however, contact information, including bank account numbers, have remained the same, implying Mohela is a related party to XXXX XXXX. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereafter referred to as XXXX due to XXXX XXXX divesting that segment ) overtook ownership of two student loan accounts ( hereafter referred to as loans ) of a US citizen with XXXX XXXX outside of the United States. XXXX overtook the loans despite not having the proper basic processes in place to service an account XXXX XXXX XXXX reXXXX within the United States. This included : - Only accepting payment via paper-check issued by a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  - No telephone numbers that were accessible outside the continental United States. - No subject matter experts to resolve unique issues - Policy that prohibited representatives from following a case after phone conversations had ended During the period from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX representatives, acting in an advisory capacity, with the same access to documentation and proclaiming to be experts in Student Loan processes and procedures, repeatedly stated that there was no solution to the lack of a valid method of payment. They continually recommended that the account be placed on forbearance as a temporary solution to prevent the account from going into default. However, they did not disclose that the loan could be moved to a new service provider with different payment facilities via the loan consolidation process. This behavior was reflected in a class action lawsuit against XXXX. In a settlement announcement on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Pennsylvania Attorney General XXXX XXXX was quoted : Our investigation uncovered two deceptive and unfair schemes XXXX was using that broke the law and put their own profits ahead of the people they served. The first scheme involved XXXX issuing subprime private loans to borrowers they knew could not pay the money back similar to the mortgage crisis in XXXX. The second scheme we uncovered was XXXX drive to mislead borrowers into forbearances, which stopped them from paying down the principal on their loan and led many to accumulate more debt and never-ending interest payments, said AG XXXX XXXX As a result, when payments were initiated to XXXX in XXXX, pending interest of over 50 % of the initial disbursement was capitalized. When initially contacted about this issue, a XXXX consumer advocate agreed with the complaint and credited all late fees that had accumulated during the period in question, however the interest was not discussed until with a new consumer advocate in XXXX. The most recent ground for rejecting the request to reverse the capitalized interest was that, although XXXX had acted as expert student loan advisor and, between XXXX and XXXX, had specifically stated that there was no solution to the issue, there was a reference to the US Department of Education website. The was also misleading one to believe that the US Department of Education was a governing body for XXXX regarding student loans.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation