Citi Student Loan sold to Sallie Mae

[Falcon50Driver]

I had a Citi Student Loan that was sold to Sallie Mae. I got behind when it was Citi and when Sallie Mae took over it was 90 days late. I then made the loan current with Sallie Mae and have never been late on a payment since. Sallie Mae is reporting my very first payment as being 90 days late on my CR because it was late when they bought it. Is that legal, and can they do that? Besides GW'ing is there anything else I can do?

Thanks,

[scvbd99]

No idea about private loans, but for federal loans, no,  Sallie Mae should not be reporting 90 days late if everything you said is correct.  

If you're 100% sure you were never late with Sallie Mae since they took over servicing the loan, and have documentation to prove it, you should dispute it by snail mail to the CRA.  Certified mail, return receipt request it if you want to be extra careful.  I highly recommend NOT responding the CRA's email asking you if you want to view the results of the dispute online.  

[Falcon50Driver]

I have so many student loan issues that I confused them. THIS IS A FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN!

I originally talked to a representative of Sal Mae that didn't see the late payment, and told me to send a  letter and copy of my CR showing the late payment.

I sent the letter and they confirmed the payment as 90 days late. I called Sal Mae again, and talked to a supervisor who confirmed that the bill was late when it got to Sal Mae. This sounds HIGHLY ILLEGAL to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Sal Mae purchased all of Citi Student Loan debt? They have different account numbers on my credit report. 

My CR shows a: SLC Conduit I LLC with Transferred to another lender; Transferred to another office - a 60 day late on 10/2011

      and then

                               Sallie Mae with Current; Paid or Paying as Agreed - a 90 day late on 10/2011 and current on 11/2011

Thoughts Anyone? Where is the law book that these companies operate or who is the governing authority? I would like to be able to call Sall Mae and and tell them where they are breaking the law. They have already confirmed the late payment when I sent them a letter directly so Im sure they would do the same to a CRA Dispute.

Thanks

[Falcon50Driver]

Also, Since both TL are reporing different lates during the same month for the same loan could I dispute with the CRA as incorrect information? Do you think they would delete both or either of the TL's?

[Teardrop]

---

@Falcon50Driver wrote:

Also, Since both TL are reporing different lates during the same month for the same loan could I dispute with the CRA as incorrect information? Do you think they would delete both or either of the TL's?

---

I think the reporting is correct.  When Sallie Mae acquired the loan, they also acquired your credit history with the loan; ie all your ontime payments and your lates.  I would try to GW the lates but I do believe the reporting is correct.

[Rikku]

Sorry, but the reporting looks correct to me. SM did not pay off your loan with Citi and open a new one - they just took over servicing your existing loan. That means that Citi reports the TL's status as of the date it was transferred and SM reports the status as of the date they took over.

My federal loans were also transferred from Citi to SM and that is how they were handled as well. My Citi TL ends with "paid as agreed" for the month it was transferred and the SM one starts with "paid as agreed" for the same month, as it was paid as agreed when they took over. Unfortunately for you, yours was late when it was transferred - but both lenders are accurately reporting the status of the loan at the time that they transferred it or took it over. Because SM took over an account that was 90 days late, they are correct to report it as 90 days late. Because your account with Citi was 90 days late, they are correct to report it as 90 days late.

It sounds like it's double-reporting, but both Citi nor SM have an obligation to report accurately and neither has control over what the other reports. You can try GW-ing it, but neither lender is doing anything illegal. You just made a mistake at a time when it affected two lenders rather than one.