Student loan -- Getting a loan -- Complaint #18322569

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 18322569

Company: College Ave Student Loan Servicing, LLC

Product: Student loan

Sub-Product: Private student loan

Issue: Getting a loan

Sub-Issue: Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing

State: California

ZIP Code: 92104

Date Received: 2025-12-27T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2025-12-27T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

Plaintiff XXXX XXXX, commence the against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND proceeding pro XXXX, bring this action against Defendants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( " XXXX XXXX '' ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ), for willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( " FCRA '' ), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( " ECOA '' ), Regulation F ( 12 C.F.R. 1006.18 ), the Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( " DTPA '' II. THE PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD IIXXXX. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX applied for a private education loan ( Application # XXXX ) for XXXX University in the amount of {$89000.00} to cover tuition and related costs. A. The XXXX Day Privacy Breach. On XX/XX/XXXX, a federal holiday, Defendants accessed Plaintiffs Experian credit file. Exhibit D ( Experian Report ) confirms a hard inquiry by " XXXX XXXX '' on this date. At the time of this inquiry, Plaintiffs credit file was locked. Defendants bypassed security protocols or utilized an unauthorized " backdoor '' access to pull the file without a valid " thaw, '' violating 15 U.S.C. 1681b. B. The XXXX of XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX : Plaintiff participated in a recorded, incoming verification call ( XXXX minutes, XXXX seconds ) with Defendants toll-free line ( XXXX ). Exhibit G ( Phone Log ) provides the forensic proof of this call. During this call, XXXX cured all pending " identity alerts. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX completed the digital XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. Exhibit XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) provides an immutable digital timestamp confirming the " Delivered '' and " Completed '' status of Envelope ID : XXXX ... at XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX : Defendants sent a confirmation email ( Exhibit F ) stating : " All signatures requested by XXXX XXXX have been received. '' XXXX The Afternoon of Deception and Adverse Action XXXX XXXX XXXX : Defendants issued an automated email ( Exhibit B ) stating : " Congratulations! Your application is approved but it is not complete. We need to hear from you... The alert on your credit bureau requires that you call us. '' Simultaneous Denial : Defendants concurrently issued a formal Adverse Action Notice ( Exhibit A ) stating : " We are unable to approve your application... Reason : We are unable to verify the identity information contained in your application. '' Logical Impossibility : It is a reasonable judicial inference that Defendants ' internal systems were in actual or constructive possession of the XXXX XXXX XXXX verification. To issue a denial for " unverified identity '' XXXX hours after a forensic verification is completed constitutes a " false, deceptive, and misleading representation '' under federal law. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I : VIOLATIONS OF 12 C.F.R. 1006.18 ( FALSE & MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS ) 15. Defendants, acting as " creditors '' or " debt collectors '' under the broader definitions of Regulation F, utilized false, deceptive, or misleading means to communicate the status of Plaintiff 's credit application. . Specifically, Defendants represented that Plaintiffs identity was " unverifiable '' when their own systems had already processed and timestamped the verification. This contradictory messaging creates a " false sense of urgency '' and misleads the consumer regarding their legal standing. COUNT II : VIOLATIONS OF THE FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Defendants failed to follow " reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' by allowing their automated underwriting system to ignore curative identity data. 15 U.S.C. 1681m : Defendants provided a false reason for adverse action, depriving Plaintiff of the ability to accurately correct his file. 19. Fifth Circuit Rule : Under Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359 ( 5th Cir. 2001 ), a lenders persistence in relying on inaccurate data after being provided proof of the truth constitutes actionable negligence. COUNT III : VIOLATIONS OF THE ECOA ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 & REGULATION B ) 20. Under 12 C.F.R. 1002.9, Defendants are required to provide a " concise and specific '' reason for credit denial. 21. Defendants ' issuance of an " Approval '' and a " Denial '' for the same applicationbased on a cured identity statusconstitutes an arbitrary and capricious credit practice that violates the transparency mandates of the XXXX. Defendants ' unconscionable course of action caused a " gross disparity '' between the value received and the consideration paid ( in time and credit standing ). Plaintiff faced a potential finance charge of {$150000.00} ( Exhibit F ) and was forced to navigate a " procedural labyrinth '' designed to obstruct his enrollment at XXXX XXXX.

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

• College Ave Student Loan Servicing, LLC Company Profile
• Student loan Complaints
• Getting a loan Complaints
• California Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints