Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
1. Improper Narrowing of the Complaint to the Holder Rule Alone MOHELA characterizes my complaint as solely requesting relief under its School Misconduct process based on the Holder Rule. This is an inaccurate and overly restrictive framing. My complaint concerns whether continued servicing and collection of these private student loans is fair, appropriate, and consistent with consumer protection principles where the underlying education was induced by documented school misconduct. The fact that my school was a nonprofit institution does not resolve whether the loans were originated or are being enforced in a manner that is unfair, deceptive, or abusive, particularly where federal loans from the same enrollment period were discharged due to misconduct by that institution. MOHELAs response fails to address this broader issue. 2. Failure to Address Discretionary or Equitable Relief MOHELA acknowledges that private loan options vary by lender and that certain relief options may be available at the lenders discretion, yet its response does not identify whether any discretionary review, hardship relief, settlement authority, or exception process exists for borrowers harmed by substantiated school misconduct. My complaint specifically sought review and relief based on : Misrepresentations and omissions by the school that directly induced enrollment and borrowing ; Federal findings that the same conduct warranted discharge of associated federal loans ; The inequity of enforcing private debt arising from the same misconduct. MOHELA did not meaningfully address whether it considered these factors or whether such relief mechanisms exist. 3. Reliance on Legal Technicalities Rather Than Consumer Harm MOHELAs reliance on case law and statutory distinctions does not negate the presence of consumer harm. Even if the Holder Rule does not apply, CFPBregulated entities remain subject to prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. MOHELAs response does not explain why continuing to service and collect these loans, under these circumstances, does not raise UDAAP concerns. 4. Credit Reporting Discussion Does Not Resolve the Complaint A significant portion of MOHELAs response addresses credit reporting accuracy. While I understand their position, this does not resolve the primary issue raised : whether the underlying obligation itself should continue to be enforced given documented school misconduct and resulting borrower harm. The focus on credit reporting accuracy sidesteps the substance of the complaint. 5. Request for CFPB Review and Clarification I respectfully request that the CFPB review : Whether MOHELA properly investigated the substance of my complaint rather than limiting review to an internal process definition ; Whether MOHELAs refusal to consider discretionary or equitable relief is consistent with its obligations as a servicer of private student loans ; Whether the continued servicing and collection of these loans, under these facts, raises concerns under federal consumer financial protection standards. I am seeking a goodfaith review that accounts for borrower harm, documented school misconduct, and the inequitable outcomes created when federal loans are discharged for fraud while private loans arising from the same conduct remain fully enforceable. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation