Consumer complaint received 2025-08-20 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan — Can't temporarily delay making payments
Company: LendKey Technologies, Inc.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to formally submit a regulatory complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its affiliated loan servicer, LendKey Technologies , Inc., for what I believe constitutes violations of federal law, regulatory standards, and institutional ethics regarding the improper denial of a forbearance request submitted by a documented XXXX  XXXX survivor. 

I am a survivor of sustained and extreme XXXX  XXXX, including repeated XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and credible XXXX XXXX substantiated by both a criminal protective order and a civil restraining order. After fleeing my home under imminent threat to my life, I submitted a forbearance request supported by documentation including the following : - Criminal Protective Order - Civil Restraining Order - Connecticut Paid XXXX  XXXX Safe Leave documentation - Emergency relocation bill of lading - New lease agreement - Employer-confirmed income reduction Despite submitting all of the above, my application was denied by XXXX XXXX and LendKey on the grounds that they were unable to determine a hardship or expense. This denial reflects a failure of due diligence and ethical obligation, and I believe it constitutes violations of the following : XXXX. The Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA ), 42 U.S.C. 14043e11 2. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. 
XXXX. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Servicing Guidance, including Bulletin XXXX XXXX. Connecticut General Statutes 31-51ss XXXX. XXXX XXXX published Code of Ethics The denial demonstrates a harmful institutional indifference to the financial and personal risk endured by survivors. My communication with their representative, identified as XXXX # XXXX, was dismissive and lacked any trauma-informed sensitivity. I submitted a formal demand to the institution and, as of the date of this complaint, have received no resolution. 
Perhaps the most profoundly troubling aspect of this experience is the institutions stated requirement that survivors produce documentation such as XXXX invoices or formal moving expenses to be considered eligible for hardship relief. 
I ask you to consider the following. What if I did not have those documents? What if I had been forced to sleep in my car, in a shelter, or on a strangers floor, fleeing the very real possibility of further XXXX, including XXXX and XXXX? What if, like countless other survivors, I escaped without time or ability to gather bank statements or moving contracts? Should I then be denied support because I could not afford proof of my suffering? 
To imply that survivors without commercial documentation do not qualify as having experienced hardship is not merely poor policy, it is institutional cruelty. 
It penalizes the most vulnerable individuals for lacking resources. It tells those already silenced by XXXX that their experiences do not count unless validated by paperwork. 
This standard does not protect survivors. It systematically excludes them. It effectively communicates that those without assets, access, or documentation are invisible. 
I respectfully urge your agency to take action. This policy must be scrutinized, reformed, and corrected. Survivors deserve protection, not procedural barriers. Someone within your agency must have the courage to say, clearly and without hesitation, that this must stop. 
I am formally requesting that your agency initiate an inquiry into this matter and compel the institution to revise its hardship evaluation policies, implement survivor-centered procedures, and issue a written response and corrective action plan.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief