Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
This is a follow-up to my prior CFPB complaint regarding adverse credit reporting on a federal student loan serviced by Nelnet. The servicer responded XX/XX/XXXX, then issued a more detailed response XX/XX/XXXX. After review, I am following up because both responses rely on a notice mailed to the wrong address, advance inconsistent rationales, and are inconsistent with the servicer 's own subsequent conduct. Background : The loan transferred from XXXX to Nelnet on XX/XX/XXXX. Auto-debit was paused for XXXX relief and did not resume. The account remained paid ahead through XX/XX/XXXX, then became past due on XX/XX/XXXX the first date a payment was required. Nelnet furnished adverse data for XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet applied an administrative forbearance retroactive to XX/XX/XXXX, enrolled auto-debit, and processed a {$2300.00} payment. The account has been current since. Issue XXXX Misdirected notice. Nelnet 's XX/XX/XXXX response identifies a XX/XX/XXXX letter as the operative notice telling me to reconfirm auto-debit enrollment. The enclosed copy is addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX My correct address is XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX statements they enclosed are also addressed to XXXX. The earliest enclosed correspondence reaching the correct address is dated XX/XX/XXXX after the account was XXXX days past due. An FCRA investigation that relies on a notice the borrower could not have received is not reasonable under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Issue XXXX Shifting rationale. The XX/XX/XXXX response says auto-debit " would be removed from accounts that had not confirmed the prior information was still current '' a servicer-applied action. The XX/XX/XXXX response says the reconfirmation requirement " applied to borrowers who wished to continue automatic debit '' a borrower-initiated obligation. The XXXX framings differ on who bore the burden. Issue XXXX Retroactive forbearance contradicts current position. The administrative forbearance applied XX/XX/XXXX was made effective XX/XX/XXXX the exact date the account first became past due. Applying retroactive relief covering the entire delinquent window is an implicit recognition that the situation warranted curative action, which is difficult to reconcile with the position that the same delinquency reflects accurate, fair reporting under FCRA. Issue XXXX On-ramp framing is circular. Nelnet says on-ramp forbearance protections did not apply because the account was not delinquent during the on-ramp window. That is true only because it remained paid ahead. It became delinquent on the first day a payment was required the same day the underlying servicing failure could have surfaced. I have filed a parallel appeal with Nelnet requesting the address change log, returned mail notices, the XXXX guidance referenced in their responses, and the call attempts log. I am asking that the adverse reporting for XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX be retracted and the bureaus notified.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation