Consumer complaint received 2024-07-14 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Need information about your loan balance or loan terms
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
In conjunction with a previous complaint filed regarding Navients high-default rate predatory loans and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misconduct ( CFPB complaint XXXX ), I would like to submit an additional complaint asking for my School Misconduct Application to be reassessed. ( THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE COMPLAINT ) On XX/XX/XXXX Navient provided a School Misconduct Discharge application to my account inbox indicating that I could be eligible for discharge on applicable loans. I filled out the XXXX XXXX XXXX application and submitted it to XXXX XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received both an email confirmation and a Navient Inbox message stating that my School Misconduct Discharge application was received by Navient. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received both an email confirmation and a Navient Inbox message with a letter stating that my School Misconduct Discharge application was denied. The letter stated that my applicable private student loans are not eligible for discharge due to the following reason ( s ) : Navient carefully considers a variety of factors in determining whether a private loan should be XXXX based on school misconduct and you do not meet the requirements for discharge based on misconduct by your school. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent an email to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX requesting a detailed explanation of how and why my application did not meet the requirements for discharge based on misconduct by my school. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX of Navient sent a physical letter to my home address that included a generic, blanket response that they have sent to other XXXX XXXX XXXX who were denied as well. I believe XXXX decision to deny my School Misconduct Discharge application was an inaccurate and unfair response to my experience as a student at a scam school ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
I am aware of XXXX decision to settle for {$1.00} XXXX when sued by XXXX state AGs regarding their predatory loans to attend for-profit schools and that Sallie Mae/Navient were a " preferred '' lending company in a " deal '' with these schools during the early XXXX. These private loans with a high risk of default were part of a package deal offered to " for profit online schools ''. But those who were not in default for 7 months or more during a " specific '' time frame, like myself, were excluded from the settlement. Im also aware that XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was won by the Plaintiff in XXXX, XXXX where The XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) was recognized as a scam school by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Yes, the case is regarding federal student loans but I am referencing the acknowledgment of my school being a scam school and the loans they distributed ( which would include XXXX loans, of course ). Under the FTCs " XXXX XXXX, predatory student loans in Navients portfolio are subject to claims and defenses based on well-established school misconduct and predatory lending. It appears Navient is refusing to grant discharge in order to keep people like myself who have paid the original principle 2 times over as passive income and let the people who refuse to pay anything go because Navient doesnt want to waste overhead chasing and begging defaulting borrowers to pay. In a letter to President & CEO of The Navient Corporation, XXXX XXXX acknowledged that on XX/XX/XXXX, Navient announced it will outsource the servicing of XXXX XXXX student loans to XXXX in the coming months. But a large portion of these loans are eligible for cancellation. Navient is aware that borrowers have meritorious defenses to the enforcement and collection of these loans, and has set aside at least {$35.00} XXXX in anticipation of claims or defenses being brought against Navient for misconduct. For borrowers like myself, Navient shouldnt have to set aside {$35.00} XXXX in anticipation for legal action as I have already paid the original principal 2 times over and my accumulative payments do not constitute a loss for the company. Accounts like mine who qualify for federal discharge and who have paid the original principle back 200 %, should be XXXX if this company had any integrity. At this point, its greed and avoiding unaccountability that is driving this company. These factors, along with other lawsuits against Navient makes me question the integrity and business practices of them and schools like the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  for which they have done business with. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a Notice of Borrower Defense Discharge Approval from The United States Department of Education. The notice stated that The U.S. Department of Education ( ED ) has determined that the federal student loan ( XXXX ) you received to attend XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX on or after XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and on or before XXXX XXXX, XXXX, are eligible for a full discharge. This means the remaining balance on the eligible loan ( s ) will be forgiven. Your loan ( s ) will be discharged based on an XXXX finding that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX made pervasive and widespread substantial misrepresentations that borrowers relied on to their detriment. The XXXX.S. Department of Educations criteria is in part based on my schools misconduct. This confirms XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX misconduct in relation to my experience. If The U.S. Department of Education was able to identify my schools misconduct and the impact it had on me as a borrower, I do not believe XXXX denial of my application is fair or moral. I believe XXXX criteria for XXXX XXXX XXXX approval needs to be evaluated and investigated for legitimacy. 

As of today, I have paid {$54000.00} on this loan. The principal amount on the loan was {$25000.00} and the current balance as of XX/XX/XXXX is {$35000.00}. After 12 years of paying the loan and not missing payments, I have paid the loan twice already. Navient has made it so that most of my payments only apply to the interest on the loan with {$0.00} being applied to my principal on over half of the loan payments. After capitalized interest-grace end and repayment fee, when the loan repayment period started in XX/XX/XXXX, the balance was {$36000.00}. For me to have paid {$54000.00} over a 12 year span and the principal balance to only go down {$1600.00} is a prime example of Navients plan to have borrowers like myself in debt forever. These predatory loan practices are a prime example of the schools misconduct as my for-profit school and Navient looked to have worked hand in hand to distribute these high-default rate predatory loans to student borrowers like myself.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation