Student loan lates in forbearance

[devotedtod]

Hello. A while back I asked around about student loan lates with Nelnet.

My spouse has 2 SLs with Nelnet which have 6 lates each in two different periods of time. So, that's 12 total late notations (90, 120, 150, 180 days late) over two loans over 2 periods of time in 2009 and 2010. I had initially planned to write GW letters to Nelnet about these to see if out of the goodness of their hearts they would remove them, but I have read over and over that is as rare as winning the lotto. Instead I ended up disputing them with the CRAs to see if they would come off, but they did not. So, I did a little more research, and it turns out, according to the NSLD (Student loan database), all of the late notations occurred during a time the loans were in forbearance. Is it possible this could actually get resolved? Has anyone dealt with this situation before and been successful? Loans were in forbearance and during that forbearance period, Nelnet reported the loans as late. Also, would Nelnet talk to me instead of my spouse? All of this is kind of confusing for spouse and it would make things much easier if I could speak on spouse's behalf.

[evapor8ted]

If the loan is delinquent and brought current through a forbearance, the lates stay. If it is current and a forbearance or deferment is used to suspend payments no lates are reported. In addition, ED has a new directive that if a loan was in a deferment for any reason even if it is used to bring delinquency current the lates will comes off.

[devotedtod]

Thanks for your answer, evapor8ted. I am a little confused because it appears that your first sentence and last sentence seem to contradict a bit. So, if a forbearance was effective for the period, 9/5/2009 to 6/6/2010 and there are 90 and 120 day late notations in Dec 09 and Jan 10, does that mean those lates should be removed? Same for a period of 7/5/10 to 3/6/11 where exists a 90, 120, 150 and 180 day late notation in Oct, Nov, Dec and then Jan 2011. Because the forbearance began 3 months before the 90 day lates occured and at least a month before a 30 day late would have occurred (and probably did, it just wasn't reported to the CRAs) should the lates be removed?

 

Is it that your first sentence is describing the traditional way the servicers have dealt with lates in a forbearance, but the last sentence is describing the way it would be going forward?

Edited May 24, 2013 by devotedtod

[devotedtod]

Ah, I think I get what you meant now. The first sentence is about forbearance and the last is about deferment. Too bad we weren't in deferment!

[BusDiva]

What if the fed loans refuse to remove? Can I contact the ED for assistance?