Consumer complaint received 2025-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: SLM CORPORATION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
The core of this complaint is based on Sallie Mae 's own actions and written statements, which I have confirmed with them via telephone. 

I filed for Chapter XXXX bankruptcy on XX/XX/XXXX. The automatic stay, as per 11 U.S.C. 362, went into effect, prohibiting all collection actions against me. My bankruptcy was discharged on XX/XX/XXXX. 

During the automatic stay, Sallie Mae restricted my online account access and sent a letter to my co-signer advising them they were responsible for payments. 

After my discharge, Sallie Mae confirmed in writing that a loan with the ID XXXX was discharged. However, Sallie Mae proceeded to collect on the other XXXX loans [ ID XXXX, ID XXXX, ID XXXX, ID XXXX, ID XXXX, & ID XXXX ], all of which originated from the same loan documents as ID XXXX. The account was put into a past-due status, with a total amount of {$1500.00}, despite a {$230.00} payment made by my co-signer on XX/XX/XXXX. Sallie Mae threatened to send the account into default on XX/XX/XXXX if I did not make a payment of {$290.00}. 

Pending Default : On XX/XX/XXXX, just days before the threatened default, Sallie Mae reallocated my co-signers payment. The timing of this action is a questionable practice. 


Sallie Mae 's actions demonstrate a clear pattern of negligence and a willful disregard for my rights as a consumer and a bankruptcy debtor. 

Sallie Mae 's actions of allowing a delinquency to accrue and threatening default based on a past-due amount that includes the automatic stay period is a direct violation of federal law. The law does not permit a creditor to use a period protected by a court order to penalize a debtor. Furthermore, the threat of default on the loans that should have been treated as discharged, based on the precedent set by loan ID XXXX, is a willful violation of the discharge injunction ( 11 U.S.C. 524 ). 


Sallie Mae furnished inaccurate information to credit bureaus. The delinquency reported is based on a period when collection was prohibited. A delinquency derived from a violation of the Bankruptcy Code is, by definition, an inaccurate report. Their failure to correct this upon my initial complaint is a direct violation of the FCRA. 

Sallie Mae 's actions are both deceptive and unfair. 

According to Sallie Mae 's own words, they sent me a letter stating no payments were required during the stay, while simultaneously informing my co-signer that she was still liable. This contradictory communication set me up for failure. 

A Sallie Mae representative stated over the phone that the impending default would harm my co-signer 's credit. This tactic uses the co-signer as a tool to pressure a discharged debtor into paying a debt they are no longer personally liable for, which is a classic unfair debt collection practice and a willful violation of the FDCPA. 



The belated reallocation of my co-signers payment days before a threatened default ( set to XX/XX/XXXX ) is a questionable practice. While it may appear as a helpful action, it does not absolve Sallie Mae of its prior violations. It is a tacit admission of an internal error in their payment system and raises questions about their intent. 


The enclosed original loan documentation proves that the XXXX loans were a single " Smart Option '' program with the same origin in XXXX & XXXX. The fact that Sallie Mae later broke these into XXXX loans and then discharged XXXX ( Loan ID XXXX ) while refusing to discharge the others [ ID XXXX, ID XXXX, ID XXXX, ID XXXX, ID XXXX, & ID XXXX ] is a willful and legally indefensible action that directly contradicts the terms of our original agreement and their own precedent.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation