Student loan -- Dealing with your lender or servicer -- Complaint #17902140

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 17902140

Company: Nelnet, INC.

Product: Student loan

Sub-Product: Private student loan

Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer

Sub-Issue: Trouble with how payments are being handled

State: Utah

ZIP Code: 84047

Date Received: 2025-11-27T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2025-11-27T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

XXXX has now responded to multiple CFPB complaints ( XXXX by my co-signer and XXXX by me ) and, in doing so, has effectively shown that it can not demonstrate a legal, enforceable right to collect on these loans or to report them as valid debts. In both cases, XXXX failed to provide the basic documentation that is required by law before pursuing collection, including : ( XXXX ) the complete, unaltered original promissory notes ; ( XXXX ) a full chain of title/assignment from XXXX XXXX to each subsequent holder; and ( XXXX ) a complete amortization schedule showing how each payment was applied under the contract terms. The first packet XXXX sent, CFPB Response - XXXX, to the CFPB, which is in my co-signers original complaint through the CFPB Portal and attach to this complain as well, included a Student Loan Promissory Note that literally states right under where it was altered : ( No alterations, scratch outs or white-outs will be accepted on this form. ) Yet the very same copy they provided has key account and tracking numbers blacked out Those numbers exist precisely to validate the loan and link it to a specific transaction. Redacting them not only defeats that purpose, it directly contradicts the terms printed on the face of the document and calls into question whether this is the true original or a modified copy. Its formatting and pasted-in values ( including XXXX overlays ) make it look like something created after the fact, rather than a copy of the in-person, hand-signed notes from XXXX. In my view, it is not a legally sufficient promissory note at all, but simply XXXX own reconstruction. All of the signing we did was by hand and in person, there was no Docusign Documents. Redacted information Pages : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX of CFPB Response - XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ' image which is on page XXXX of the same document which shows, just from an initial anlalysis these things. The numbers and dates in the cells ( e.g., {$43000.00}, XX/XX/year>, XXXX, XXXX ) are much sharper and darker than a typical scan of that age, while the surrounding body text has softer scan artifacts. The alignment of those values is slightly off-center in the cells classic look of form fields dropped into a template, instead of text that was printed with the rest of the page. The little boxes with our names addresses The font weight and spacing in those XXXX blocks look slightly different from the main paragraph text below ( XXXX. DEFINITIONS ). The boxes themselves have clean, vector-like borders, while the horizontal line just below ( No alterations, scratch outs or white-outs will be accepted on this form. ) shows scan noise. That combination ( crisp boxes + softer background text ) is exactly what you get when someone drops text fields on top of a scanned or PDF template. This is NOT valid for a docusign document, and shows evidence of tampering, which would explain why XXXX is redacting information. The second packet they later submitted, titled " XXXX XXXX '' is essentially a stand-alone, internally generated document. It does not contain the original tracking numbers, campus vendor references, or other identifiers that appear on the contemporaneous XXXX XXXX disclosure and repayment paperwork I still have. Nor is there anything on it legally binding, such as signatures, or anything else. Making up whatever they want does not dictate any enforceable law Taken together, these responses show that XXXX is continuing to collect and report a large private student-loan balance without producing the legal unaltered/un-tampered with original contracts or the required supporting records. I am asking the CFPB to treat these loans as unvalidated and disputed, to require XXXX to cease collection and negative credit reporting unless and until it can produce complete, consistent, and unaltered documentation proving a valid, enforceable debt. XXXX has also. XXXX. Continued Collection Activity During Active CFPB Review Since filing this complaint, XXXX has continued : sending delinquency notices, issuing payment demands, threatening credit reporting, and attempting to collect the alleged debt. These actions occurred after : a formal validation request was submitted, the debt was stated as disputed, and XXXX acknowledged receiving my CFPB complaint. This is prohibited by : FDCPA 809 ( b ) CFPB XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) UDAAP prohibitions XXXX. They continue to tack on Identity Verification Obstruction Firstmark repeatedly asked for identity verification despite the fact that : the CFPB already verified my identity, I already provided the requested information in prior emails, and they replied to that same verified email address. XXXX repeated verification requests are being used to delay, obstruct, and avoid the lawful debt validation process. Including now responding as if we claimed identity theft which we NEVER did, only ticked the box for a dispute that this loan is either 'Fraudalent or identity theft ' and provided info about how the loan is fraudelant yet they still push it as identity theft in order to stall even further. XXXX. Evidence of Unauthorized Interest-on-Interest Capitalization Their own payment history shows : Principal Interest entries Interest Cap entries irregular capitalization events interest repeatedly added back into principal compounding on top of compounding These actions : are not authorized in the promissory note, materially change the loan terms, inflate the balance unlawfully, and constitute servicing violations and contract breach. My monthly payments ( ~ {$1300.00} across XXXX loans ) have not reduced the balance, which has only slowly declined from ~ {$120000.00} to ~ {$81000.00} over more than a decade. This is mathematically impossible without unauthorized capitalization. XXXX. Pattern of Transfers After Disputes Raised Before XXXX received the loan, the exact same servicing issues were raised with : the original lender, then XXXX XXXX, and after each dispute, the loan was sold instead of corrected. This pattern must be investigated, as it appears intended to avoid addressing the unauthorized servicing alterations. XXXX. Misrepresentation in Prior CFPB Response XXXX response to the previous CFPB case ( filed by my co-signer ) contained : incomplete documentation, mischaracterized payment amounts, no signed authorization for capitalization, no chain of assignment, and no full amortization schedule. Their own records contradict their statements. XXXX. Request for Immediate Regulatory Action I am requesting that the CFPB require Firstmark Services to provide the following mandatory documentation : REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ( FULL LIST ) ( A ) Loan Ownership & Contract Documents XXXX. Original promissory note for all three loans XXXX. XXXX, endorsements, and every assignment XXXX. Full chain-of-title documentation XXXX. Any documents authorizing interest capitalization XXXX. Any document authorizing principal interest charges ( B ) Full Servicing & Payment Application History XXXX. Full payment history ( not the summary ) XXXX. Full record of how each payment was applied XXXX. All servicing codes and internal definitions XXXX. Complete amortization schedule from origination to today XXXX. All versions of the amortization schedule ( if changed ) ( C ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Identity verification logs XXXX. Call logs XXXX. All borrower messaging logs XXXX. All servicing notes XXXX. All internal records showing delinquency status changes ( D ) Documentation Used in XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXX. Every document XXXX used when responding to the previous CFPB case XXXX. Every document they intend to use for this case XXXX. Requested XXXX I request the following resolution : Cancellation of all three loans in full, as the ongoing unauthorized capitalization ( principal interest, repeated interest-on-interest, and other non-contract terms ) constitutes a material breach of the original agreements. Full reimbursement of all payments made over the life of the loans, as these payments were collected under terms that did not exist in the signed promissory notes. Reparative compensation for the decade-long financial, emotional, and practical harm caused by improper servicing, repeated loan transfers following disputes, and the years of time required to investigate and correct these issues. Reversal of all unauthorized capitalization actions, including interest cap, principal interest, and any interest-on-interest additions not provided for in the original contract. A full recalculation of the balance using only the original interest rate and amortization terms stated in the promissory note. A complete refund of any funds misapplied to unauthorized sub-accounts or internal accounting categories not included in the contract. A requirement that XXXX produce chain-of-title documentation, showing lawful ownership from the original lender through each transfer. Independent CFPB verification that XXXX documentation aligns with the terms of the signed promissory note before closing the case. A pause on all collection activity during the investigation. A freeze on all credit reporting and requirement that the loans remain marked as disputed with all credit bureaus. A prohibition on transferring or selling the loans during the CFPB investigation, to prevent further evasion or consumer harm. And for at least XXXX and up to XXXX days after the CFPB gets a response so that me and my co-signer can go through the documentation and respond properly and adequately. Documentation of obstructions, and all emails can be provided once this issue gets escalated properly so that XXXX can not tamper with or alter any more documentation sent through this portal. NOTE : : Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), FCRA 623 ( a ) and 623 ( b ), and the CFPBs servicing rules in Regulation XXXX, a company that chooses to purchase or service a loan assumes the obligation to maintain and produce the documentation necessary to verify the debt. They can not lawfully continue collecting or reporting the account as valid if they are unable or unwilling to provide complete, unaltered copies of the promissory notes, chain of title, and payment history. There is no 'we got it from somwhere else, we don't have to supply those ' - accepting the loan and enforcing it someone must also except any and all of its obligations, to the law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Nelnet, INC. Company Profile
• Student loan Complaints
• Dealing with your lender or servicer Complaints
• Utah Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints