Consumer complaint received 2025-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: MOHELA
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal rebuttal because MOHELAs response does not resolve my dispute, does not validate the account, and does not establish that the student loans they referenced belong to me in any capacity. I do not own the loans that MOHELA described in their response, and I have never authorized MOHELA to create, service, manage, or report any loan in my name. Because of this, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report to formally document that the accounts MOHELA claims to have serviced do not belong to me. Despite being notified, MOHELA has continued to report negative information, which constitutes a situation in which the company took or threatened to take negative or legal action by furnishing damaging and inaccurate data to credit reporting agencies. 

The purpose of this rebuttal is to clarify, point by point, why MOHELAs response is insufficient under federal law and why the CFPB should require MOHELA to either ( 1 ) provide legally acceptable proof that I am the person responsible for these loans, or ( 2 ) remove all reporting entirely due to unverifiable ownership, identity theft concerns, and inaccurate derogatory reporting. 

1. I Do Not Own These Loans MOHELAs Response Does Not Establish Ownership Nothing in MOHELAs submission proves that I ever legally owned, opened, applied for, consented to, or used the loans they referenced. Their response relies almost entirely on a Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) they attached ( Attachment 1 ) and a generalized Borrowers Rights & Responsibilities Statement ( Attachment 2 ).

However : The presence of a name or signature on a document does not establish identity, legal ownership, or authorization under identity-theft law.

A promissory note only demonstrates alleged origination not ownership, not servicing compliance, and not delinquency accuracy.

Identity thieves often use stolen personal information to generate or sign applications.

MOHELA has provided no evidence proving that the person who originated these loans was truly me.

The FTC makes it clear : A signature alone does not prove ownership when identity theft is involved.

MOHELA must provide : The original application Identity verification performed at origination IP logs, timestamps, device information, or geolocation Evidence of in-person identity verification Any supporting identity-match data They provided none.

Thus, MOHELA has not met its legal burden to prove these loans belong to me.

2. I Filed an FTC Identity Theft Report Because I Do Not Own This Account As soon as I learned that MOHELA was reporting loans I do not own, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 605B ) : A furnisher must block or remove information upon receipt of an identity theft report unless they can provide direct, specific evidence proving the consumer is responsible.

A furnisher can not simply rely on internal assumptions or generic documents.

A furnisher must conduct a heightened investigation, not an automated one.

MOHELA acknowledges my dispute but does not acknowledge my FTC filing or the legal protections it triggers.

Instead, they : Maintained the reporting Asserted accuracy without proof Provided no identity verification records Provided no servicing logs Provided no account-level documentation By continuing to furnish derogatory information after receiving an identity-theft report, MOHELA took or threatened to take negative or legal action against me.

Negative furnishing is a meaningful legal threat because it : Damages credit Impairs financial standing Interferes with housing, employment, and loan approvals Implies legal responsibility where none exists This behavior is unlawful under the FCRA and contradicts the purpose of identity-theft protections.

3. MOHELAs Validation Falls Far Short of Legal Requirements MOHELA asserts that attaching an MPN is validation of the debt. 
It is not. 

Validation must prove : That the consumer is the correct owner That the information being reported is accurate That the furnisher followed all legal notice requirements That all delinquency data is correct, documented, and supported MOHELA did none of these. 

They did not produce : Copies of monthly statements Evidence I received federal loan disclosures Communications between myself and the servicer Identity-verification documents Payment histories Delinquency logs Transfer records between Navient and MOHELA Borrower outreach notes Proof that I was ever 90 days past due Proof that they attempted contact before reporting They merely repeated federal regulations in abstract form. 

A description of a policy is not validation. 

Validation requires evidence, not narrative. 

MOHELA failed the validation requirement. 

4. I Do Not Own These Loans Identity Theft Makes the MPN Irrelevant Even if an MPN appears to bear my name, identity theft law explicitly recognizes that : Stolen identities can be used to access federal aid Signatures can be forged Documents can be submitted without the true person 's knowledge Victims are not responsible for fraudulent originations The FTC warns that : Identity theft may involve the unauthorized creation of accounts using legitimate consumer information. 

This directly applies here. 

The attachments MOHELA submitted do not prove : That I applied That I consented That I reviewed terms That I interacted with the servicer That I received funds That any alleged payments or delinquencies were tied to me Therefore, the MPN does not resolve the dispute.

5. MOHELAs Response Shows No Evidence That I Was Ever Notified of Any Alleged Delinquency MOHELA claims federal rules require them to notify borrowers. But they did not provide : Copies of delinquency notices Records of attempted outreach Email logs Letters or mailed statements Phone logs Any proof that I was ever contacted If MOHELA can not demonstrate that I was informed of an alleged delinquency, they can not legally justify reporting that delinquency.

This failure alone is grounds for deletion under FCRA 611 and 607 ( b ) because furnishers must maintain complete and accurate records.

6. MOHELA Admitted XXXX Never Reported Delinquency Yet Derogatory Marks Exist MOHELA stated : XXXX FFELP Loans were not reported as at least 90 days delinquent Yet derogatory information exists on my credit report. 

This contradiction suggests : Improper transfer of data Incorrect interpretation of loan status System migration errors Misapplied payment history Reporting without verified delinquency If the prior servicer never reported delinquency, negative reporting by MOHELA is not credible.

7. Reporting Negative Information About an Account I Do Not Own = Threatened Legal Action Whenever a furnisher reports derogatory information, it results in : Credit denials Higher interest rates Loss of financial opportunities Increased risk of employment and housing denial These outcomes are functionally equivalent to : Threatened or actual legal action through false representation of debt. 

By maintaining the false impression that I failed to pay federal loans, MOHELA effectively : Accused me of defaulting Created a negative legal presumption Damaged my reputation Implied I breached a federal lending contract I can not be held responsible for loans I did not open, authorize, or recognize. 

Therefore, MOHELAs actions meet CFPB definitions of taking or threatening to take negative or legal action against a consumer. 

8. MOHELA Did Not Consider the Possibility of Fraudulent Servicing Activity Even if origination documents exist, identity theft may occur : During servicing During consolidation After origination Through account manipulation Through unauthorized deferments or changes Through misapplied payments MOHELA did not investigate : Whether fraudulent access occurred Whether contact information was changed Whether unauthorized forbearances were applied Whether default status resulted from an identity thief Whether access credentials were compromised They assumed legitimacy without investigation.

9. MOHELA Provided NO Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) When a consumer disputes an account, furnishers must disclose : How they verified What documents they reviewed What systems they accessed Who conducted the investigation Whether the investigation was manual or automated MOHELA disclosed none of this.

Their lack of transparency violates the FCRA.

10. MOHELA Ignored All Inconsistencies Across Credit Bureaus If MOHELA had validated the account, they would have : Identified discrepancies in reporting dates Corrected mismatched balances Identified false delinquency timestamps They ignored all bureau discrepancies.

This is evidence of inadequate investigation.

11. I Reassert That I Do Not Own These Loans MOHELA Has Failed to Establish Ownership To establish ownership, MOHELA must show : Identity verification from origination Servicing logs proving interaction Payment records tied to me Communication logs showing I was involved They provided none.

Therefore, ownership remains unproven.

12. REQUESTED ACTION I request that the CFPB require MOHELA to : Remove all reporting for these loans due to unverifiable ownership.

Provide original identity-verification records from origination.

Provide copies of all notices allegedly sent to me.

Provide full servicing histories and delinquency logs.

Provide method of verification documentation.

Honor my FTC Identity Theft Report by blocking the information.

Cease furnishing derogatory data until validation is complete.

Acknowledge that continued reporting constitutes taking or threatening negative or legal action.

Until MOHELA provides ironclad documentation proving that I owned these loans which they have not the reporting can not legally remain.

Conclusion I do not own the loans MOHELA is reporting. I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, and despite this, MOHELA continues to furnish harmful and derogatory information. This constitutes taking or threatening to take negative or legal action under federal consumer-protection standards.

MOHELA has provided no proof of ownership, no delinquency records, no identity verification, no communication logs, and no legally sufficient validation. They have failed to meet every burden required under the FCRA, FTC identity-theft rules, and CFPB guidance.

For these reasons, I request full removal of all MOHELA-related reporting from my credit file.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation