Consumer complaint received 2024-02-27 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: MOHELA
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I applied for the XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX when it initially was open for loan borrowers to apply. I submitted my information with the understanding that they would pull my XXXX salary from my XXXX tax record. Prior to the new XXXX plans I believe I was paying under the XXXX plan before COVID and then paused making payments during COVID. For my new application I applied for the XXXX plan to ensure my payments to better reflected my current financial status. The application was completed ( as stated on the XXXX website ) and sent to my loan servicer XXXX. I received a letter from them stating that my payment would be XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Which was cheaper than my previous payment under the XXXX. I then received a second letter stating that I had requested an adjustment and my monthly payment increased to XXXX ( slightly more than what I paid under the REPAYE plan. I did not request an adjustment. I contacted both Federal Student Aid and XXXX ( my original loan servicer ) in early XXXX when I noted the discrepancy. After being redirected back and forth between the two institutes multiple times, spanning multiple days I finally spoke with a representative at XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that stated they received XXXX separate IDR applications in XXXX. Confirmation with a representative at Federal Student Aid stated I only had my initial XX/XX/XXXX application and no additional application in XXXX of XXXX. 

When I requested a copy of both applications from XXXX they refused stating that because it was transferred to them via electronically, they had no feasible way to send this information to me. When I requested written confirmation via email or the XXXX portal in regards to this representative who does see and can confirm XXXX separate applications that were 'approved ' they refused. Upon further questioning the XXXX representative stated that my IDR was based on an income of approximately {$72000.00}. My XXXX for taxes in XXXX was {$9000.00}. When I pull my record of the XXXX application of XX/XX/XXXX, I can not see where I listed approx. {$72000.00} or that the IRS sent information stating I made approx. {$72000.00} in XXXX. 

Following this the a customer representative from XXXX recommended I submit a complain through studentaid.gov. I completed this on XX/XX/XXXX and never got a response back. I called XX/XX/XXXX for an update and the Ombudsman service representative stated that after my initial application in XX/XX/XXXX they completed an update to the XXXX servicing site/IDR process ( or something along those lines ) and that my XXXX application was canceled. Hence why XXXX sent out the second letter in XX/XX/XXXX. This entire time I thought the application had been submitted and approved. I asked why I was never notified of this canceled application or at least notified to resubmit my application and she stated that due to the upgrade in service it just never happened and wasn't apart of how they approached the rollout or the update. I believe this is basic negligence on FSA part as this incorrect information has traveled from XXXX to now my new servicer XXXX. The XXXX ombudsman stated on the phone that in my application they could see where I put my income as XXXX. On my copy of the application I don't see that listed anywhere. Even if it was listed on the XX/XX/XXXX application, per what I was told, they can't explain to me how they were okay to use that information on the application when they told me that it ended up canceled. 

I have been told a lot of contradicting information surrounding these errors and the fingers are being pointed in a lot of directions with XXXX accountable from the loan servicers or XXXX. The Department of Education has no issues in finding fault in the loan servicers due to poor rollout and bad decisions that impact the borrower but who is holding XXXX and DoED accountable for their own errors and poor decision making?

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