topic Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (Full Success!) in Student Loans

Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (Partial Success!)

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:33:38 GMT

My wife and I have been working very hard to rehabilitate her defaulted student loans. Two of them are from AES/PHEAA, and part of the reason those loans went into default was because they were using the wrong SSN for her, so she was never made aware of them (I know, it's not a good excuse, but it still happened). We told the CA involved months ago her correct SSN and they told AES. AES finally updated last month, but, of course, what they did was add two NEW tradelines with the correct number, but LEFT the two wrong ones (still showing a balance), so the same loans are reporting twice.

I disputed the incorrect TLs online as duplicates, but they came back as verified AND updated!

I complained to PHEAA/AES and was told that without credit reports, they can't correct the reporting, so I faxed the relevant pages on 6/2. Today (6/5) I called to find out if they received the fax and was told that they are reporting correctly. Two lines (one subsidized and one unsubsidized) are the default, which will be removed in the next 30 days as the rehab is now complete, and the other two are delinquent, which can stay for up to 7 years. So they are reporting both a delinquency and a default as different accounts. And the lady acknowledged that they were the same accounts!

On the EX report, the incorrect ones have their status as "Claim filed with government, $xxx past due as of May 2009" and the correct ones have "Collection account, $xxx past due as of May 2009." All four have "Student loan permanently assigned to government" as the Creditor's Statement. The two incorrect ones show the account history as "Claim filed with the government as of May 2009 / Collection as of May 2009, Sep 2008, Apr 2007 to Aug 2008" and the correct ones have the account history listed as "Claim filed with the government as of May 2009, Apr 2009 / Collection as of May 2009, Apr 2009." They also all show "This account is scheduled to continue on record until Sept 2010." EX is also showing payments on all four lines that add up to double what the CA was being paid.

For EQ, the Status fields are all blank, and all four show in the comments "Collection account, Student loan assigned to government." Only the correct accounts are showing a payment, the incorrect ones show a payment of $0. All four show a DOFD of 12/2003. In the Payment History, the incorrect ones show "CA" from August 2005 to July 2008, then "*" from August 2008 to April 2009, while the correct ones show "*" until March 2007, then "CA" through April 2009.

Are they allowed to report the SAME loans twice? Keep in mind that all four are the GUARANTOR, I'm not looking at the lender and the guarantor reporting separately. If they verified with the CRAs, now tell me that they are not going to change the incorrect reporting by removing the incorrect lines, what should my next step be? Should this be taken care of as quickly as possible, as one set will be (should be!) deleted the next time they update (I was told they update the first Saturday of the month, so they could be removed as soon as tomorrow!), as rehab is now complete. When that happens, the remaining ones will no longer be a "duplicate!"

Should I dispute by mail with the CRAs?

Thanks!

Message Edited by Mike14 on 06-07-2009 01:00 AM

Message Edited by Mike14 on 06-11-2009 09:33 AM

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:51:16 GMT

Here's another question: would my time be spent better notifying the CRAs of noncompliance with the FCRA, or notifying the OC of noncompliance?

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:48:08 GMT

Typically they are supposed to correct the information on the original TL and not create new ones and then leave the old ones there also. This is major double dipping and certainly incorrect way of doing things. You can send them an ultimatum letters to fix it and if they don't it IS a violation and you can contact the CRAs and they WILL correct it, they have to. Although as usual, keep in mind they can open it as a dispute and give them a chance to correct it first. Ultimately the OC needs to fix this otherwise it will keep reporting wrong.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:02:56 GMT

So I need to send the OC (really the guarantor) an ITS letter? Has anyone sent a guarantor an ITS letter before?

Two of the TLs should be falling off once the rehab is FULLY complete (we've already made the payments, they just need to do their administrative things, like update their records, to make it complete). Once that happens will my argument lose its weight, as the remaining ones (if they don't also fall off) won't be a duplicate of anything anymore?

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:11:57 GMT

Yes you can. Level of success is a bit of a hit and miss. Just send the letter before its FULLY paid off as they will have more motivation to do something, otherwise they might just take it off your report, its easier. I hate that but it happens. Most of the time I don't care as it won't affect me overall but sometimes that annoying.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:19:24 GMT

Having the accounts removed is the goal! What more could we expect to get, without actually suing them for violation and/or damages?

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:39:37 GMT

Not a whole lot, that's the unfortunate reality of it. If they don't abide by the law, there isn't much we can do to force them short of an all out federal case. Even then they settle, admit no wrongdoing and just put us through the motions. If you are content having them removed and don't care about the AAOA or the history, then that's probably what you are most likely to get.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:20:18 GMT

Well, two should be coming off the next time they update, and the other two should have never appeared, and they are default collection accounts, so the best is for them to all disappear. They aren't very old (2006) and the history is mostly bad anyway, so I'll say good riddance when they come off!

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:40:43 GMT

Yes, its optimistic that you can get them to be removed. Just need to work patiently towards that.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:45:01 GMT

I sent the fax on 6/2. Do I still need to wait 30 days before following up? Should I call and try to explain the issue again, or just send the ITS as soon as I can?

Yesterday we received a letter stating the rehab has been complete and the loans were purchased by Sun Trust. AES will remain the servicer.

Looking back on old TrueCredit reports (which show the actual reporting date), "PHEAA/HCB" started reporting in October 2008 on the 29th. Prior to then, the trade line was reported as "AES" and was updated on the 13th (the TLs just converted from the one to the other on TC), so I may only have 5 days to make them update the incorrect TLs.

Message Edited by Mike14 on 06-09-2009 10:45 AM

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:27:00 GMT

It's always best to give them the acceptable period of time to reply as to make sure your claim is the strongest by allowing proper time to pass. Their failure will weigh stronger that way if you need to take further action.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:40:22 GMT

By the time the 30 days is up, at least two should be gone and will no longer be duplicates. AES has already updated the NSLDS (though not their own website!), so I expect the two default lines to come off any day.

However, that may make it easier to dispute again...?

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:33:10 GMT

We redisputed the inaccurate accounts with EX and EQ (TU doesn't have any of the accounts) on Tuesday, and Experian already deleted them! Come on EQ!

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:40:12 GMT

Well then you are 2/3 of the way there

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:09:52 GMT

So we see from her CCT report today that EQ has now removed the NEW, correct TLs, leaving the incorrect, disputed ones. Well, both EX and EQ now only only have 2 TLs, instead of 4, and those TL's should be coming off very soon anyway.

How the inconsistencies are driving me nuts!

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:43:20 GMT

Yes, they love their inconsistencies and so sad that we can't do much about it.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (LynnInMN, any suggestio

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:28:08 GMT

All of the PHEAA references are gone from EX, and they were never on TU. EQ has only the incorrect TLs showing in dispute. I can't help but think they might have been gone if we did not dispute them. We'll see what happens!

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (Full Success!)

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:01:16 GMT

Just to update everyone following this thread, in the past week, all four PHEAA lines disappeared, as well as the lines from Great Lakes Guarantee Corp, who had two lines on each of EQ, EX, and TU! Because each of thise lines were reported slightly differently, CCT had all six on different lines on DW's report, so in the past week, her report shrunk by 10 lines (6 Great Lakes and 4 PHEAAs)!

Of course, the OC for Great Lakes is still showing the lates from before the default, but there doesn't seem to be an OC for PHEAA. And the new lenders have not yet reported.

A few days ago, Scorewatch woke up and DW's EQ went up 20 points! Unfortunately, it's only 1 point higher than the 19 points it went down when PHEAA reported the dispute a few weeks ago, but her EQ score is now 631, up almost 50 points from last year. Thanks to all who helped us on this!

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (Full Success!)

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:19:45 GMT

Well Mike, that's may not be much but its something right? Keep at it.

Re: Actual Duplicates Reported by AES/PHEAA, Claim They Can Report That Way (Full Success!)

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:52:45 GMT

Well I was hoping for a greater score increase, but 585 to 630 is a good change. My intent when we started last September was to deliver a fully-cleaned up credit report, along with a much-improved score, to her for her birthday this July. Her report isn't FULLY cleaned up, but it's much, much better. She's still thinking her credit is totally shot, but it's actually far from it!