Consumer complaint received 2025-10-21 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: MOHELA
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX approval of more than {$6.00} XXXX in automatic student loan relief to nearly XXXX borrowers who enrolled at any XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or after XXXX XXXX, XXXX, through XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The XXXX Department of Education XXXX Department ) found that XXXX XXXX XXXX and its parent company, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), made pervasive and substantial misrepresentations to prospective students about postgraduation employment rates, salaries, and career services during that time. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sold its remaining XXXX XXXX campuses, and all existing XXXX XXXX campuses closed under separate ownership in XX/XX/XXXX. 

MY FEDERAL LOANS ARE NOW CANCELLED AND THESE SHOULD BE AS WELL. For more than a decade, hundreds of thousands of hopeful students borrowed billions to attend XXXX  XXXX XXXX and got little but lies in return. Based on the evidence, the Department found that The Art Institutes engaged in widespread and pervasive substantial misrepresentations that deceived students about the value they would be receiving from their education : The XXXX XXXX advertised that more than XXXX percent of graduates obtained employment related their fields of study within XXXX months of graduation, but the school 's own records demonstrate that it inflated advertised employment rates. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX counted graduates as employed in-field when the school did not know graduates ' job titles, when a graduate 's job title was too vague to indicate that they worked in-field, and when a graduate 's job title was unrelated to their field of study. The school also excluded some graduates with out-of-field jobs from their calculations to inflate their in-field employment rates. When recalculated to account for these issues, The XXXX XXXX ' average in-field employment rate dropped from XXXX percent to no higher than XXXX percent, XXXX percentage points lower than advertised. The true average in-field employment rate was lower than XXXX percent because the school also falsified some internal data to make graduates appear to be working in-field when they were not. The advertisements promoting The XXXX Institutes ' falsified employment rates also displayed inaccurate average salaries that graduates earned from their in-field positions based on the same flawed data as the employment rates. Testimony from former high-raking school officials supported the findings that school personnel made up graduate earnings and annualized the actual or estimated incomes of graduates working in temporary positions. They also included high-earning outliers in its averages and falsified incomes reported for graduates. 

The XXXX XXXX also represented to prospective students that it had partnerships with employers and offered ongoing postgraduation career services. However, the evidence showed that The XXXX XXXX exaggerated its relationships with employers. In fact, the school had a negative reputation, so companies generally did not want to hire its graduates. Former employees and borrowers also described that graduates did not have access to ongoing career services after leaving school. For example, once students graduated, school staff did not return their phone calls. The XXXX XXXX communicated these substantial misrepresentations to prospective students through its website and print materials, and school personnel distributed misleading information to prospective students before and during the admissions process. The school 's misconduct harmed borrowers by burdening them with high amounts of debt without the advertised employment opportunities or salaries necessary to pay. Many XXXX XXXX borrowers also dropped out of their programs and defaulted on their loan payments. 

Even if borrowers did complete their programs, they did not receive the promised career services, which hindered their ability to obtain employment. Under these circumstance my private loan should be completely XXXX! Please help me to get in touch with Mohela so that I can work to get these loans XXXX - their staff has not been helpful in allowing me to at least fill out a misconduct application for the XXXX XXXX that would hear my complaint. Mohela is my servicer, but they claim my loans are still with XXXX. I am asking they allow me to fill out an application that provides more evidence. Their website states that this is an offering and telling me school isnt ' eligible based on the information provided is not sufficient when there have been others who have been successful in their attempts even after multiple submissions.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation