SLM CORPORATION – CFPB Complaint 2017-10-11

Date Received: 2017-10-11

Product: Private student loan

Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer

Consumer Consent Provided to Share Complaint: Consent provided

Consumer Complaint: This applies to both Private and Public loan service providers and is partly due to a significant gap in 34 CFR 685.204 concerning In-School Deferment and the National Student Loan Data System. Per 34 CFR 685.204, ( b ) ( 2 ) ( iv ), Student Loan custodians MUST process in-school deferments when they verify a borrower ‘s half-time enrollment status. First and foremost, this section should be amended such that the Student Loan originator MUST NOTIFY the borrower of their updated information and eligibility for In-School Deferment. At a minimum, the statute should include a mandatory notification to the borrower that they have been placed into In-School Deferment. I will now present an example of how the current process is predatory in nature : Educated borrower has graduated and begun making payments. They sign up for automatic bill pay with each Student Loan Originator and begin to pay down their debt. Years later, they decide to re-enroll to pursue a XXXX XXXX XXXX. They do not take out any additional loans. Unbeknownst to the borrower, the school supplies the borrower ‘s information to the National Student Loan Data System ( and possibly the National Student Clearinghouse ). The Student Loan Originator receives this information and as required by 34 CFR 685.204, ( b ) ( 2 ) ( iv ), moves the borrower into In-School Deferment. The Student Loan Originator has no requirement to inform the borrow of this transaction. While in deferment, minimum payments drop to {$0.00}, so no further payments are made. For borrowers with unsubsidized loans, their interest continues to build, with payments no longer coming in. So, through no action of the borrower and no notification to the borrower, the Student Loan Originator has increased the overall cost of the loan to the borrower, by a difference of potentially thousands of dollars. This is a predatory action. Any and all activity into and out of deferment should require written documentation and notification to the borrower. Additionally, Student Loan Originators should not be required to AUTOMATICALLY move borrowers into In-School Deferment. The action should instead be to notify the borrower to request permission to move their loan status to In-School Deferment.

See also  Hunter Warfield, Inc. - CFPB Complaint ID 2774409

Company: SLM CORPORATION

State/Zip: IL 625XX

Company Response to Complaint: Closed with explanation

Was Company Response Timely: Yes

Did Consumer Dispute Company Response: N/A

Complaint ID: 2699506

The above data is from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Keep in mind that every company will get a complaint from time-to-time, even the great ones. But there are a few key data points that will give you an idea about how well the company values their customers and handles consumer issues.

Look at the item Company Response to Complaint: and Did Consumer Dispute Company Response: to get a better idea of how this was resolved. And the field Consumer Complaint: can give you some context of the issue.

In particular what you are looking for was that the company response was timely and that the consumer did not dispute it. The posting of complaints has proven to be a valuable resource for both companies and consumers.