Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. seriously!!?? If they were hacked than how can they prove what they report as accurate? I don't know about you guys, but I'm not convinced I should give my ss# again, or be automated into any company endorsed by equifax... all things considered....
  2. This is what I was initially responding to. You gave me the impression, that recent grads may not be eligible for PSLF, that recent grads could lose eligibility. I think maybe you missed the original question which was pertaining to 'recent grads'. You stated, 'hate to burst your bubble but the Trump Administration is planning to revoke the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF)" (Hodap2001, 2017) That's a big statement pertaining to a lot of money and a lot of students. I asked for you to please cite where you obtained this info. You gave the article from the WP. I wanted to read it for myself to verify what you were saying. As it turns out, you missed mentioning a few key facts. So I gave the second article specifically in reference to the one article you gave from the WP. The article from the WP, and the one I gave referencing the WP article, both state it does not affect recent grads, congress still has to vote, etc. We know right now as long as the loan was taken out prior to July 2018 a borrower is eligible. The WP as well as the article I posted both say "The proposal would only impact borrowers who take out their first federal student loans on or after July 1, 2018, according to the Washington Post." (Trull, 2017) You then go on to say "it's so funny that you are quoting an article that is re-quoting from the Washington Post that I just referenced earlier; however, the FAKE News Student Loan Hero exaggerated the actual article, so I'm always skeptical of website that try to reference a real website with real news. (SMH). Your source citations needs some work." (hodap2001, 2017) I'm trying to understand your reasoning for saying this, and your use of the hot button words "FAKE news', when I am pointing out your misinterpretation of the WP article, and the article I posted. I am trying to understand your reasoning behind you saying, "Your source citations needs some work" when you are misquoting your own reference. So now you go a few steps further and mention the percentage rate of 12.5 % vs. 10%. You stated, "How is a 12.5% Income Based discretionary repayment better than a 10%? Explain that to me? The proposal would wreck havoc on every federal student loan borrower regardless of income." (Hodap2001. 2017) Again, another very big statement you make which pertains to a lot of money and a lot of students. Currently the income based repayment is 10% discretionary income for 25 years until one is eligible for loan forgiveness. Under the proposal, which Congress will decide and vote it would be: 12.5% of the discretionary income for only 15 years for undergrads and 12.5% of the discretionary income for 30 years for graduate students. Undergrads, which could arguably be considered a lower income group would be saving a ton of money by eliminating 10 YEARS of payments with interest, before loan forgiveness even though they have a 2.5 % increase in the discretionary income adjustment . Graduate students are not so lucky because they are asked to pay more... a 2.5% increase for 30 years. 2.5% more and for an additional 5 years until they reach loan forgiveness. Looking at this set of facts as published by your own reference you quote and the second supporting reference I offered in conjunction, it appears to be a bigger savings break offered to the undergraduates yet an increase to the graduate students. You stated, "How is a 12.5% Income Based discretionary repayment better than a 10%? Explain that to me? The proposal would wreck havoc on every federal student loan borrower regardless of income." (Hodap2001. 2017) I think I explained it well enough based on your statements which are not based on any reference from either your citation of the WP or the second article which gives further explanation of the WP article. So again, I am afraid I have to ask, where did you get that fact? Your use of 'every federal student loan borrower' and 'regardless of income' are not based in the truth or the facts. These are awfully big statement for you to make which impact a lot of students and grads and a lot of money, with no supporting facts. Wouldn't you agree? I am beginning to have a greater understanding of how "FAKE news" as you call it, can be irritating. References: Trull, Jeffrey. May 24, 2017. Update: Current Borrowers to Remain Eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness under Trump's Budget Proposal. As found at: https://studentloanhero.com/blog/trumps-proposal-end-public-service-loan-forgiveness/
  3. https://studentloanhero.com/blog/trumps-proposal-end-public-service-loan-forgiveness/ Hmmm..not so fast. This article is saying that the Public Service Loan Forgiveness will remain in effect for past loans or current loans. The proposal is to make changes perhaps, but it would apply to loans taken out AFTER July 2018...if that happens at all. So according to this, many who have already graduated or are expecting to graduate soon are still eligible. I'm always skeptical on news from certain sources. This is why I asked for a citation, basically if it is from a 'certain' source, I would ask for a second or third source that is non-political. Also, it looks as if the income driven payment has gotten better under Trump's plan which is forgiveness after 15 years instead of after 25 years of payments.
  4. Could you please site your source for this info? I've only 'heard' that as being reported by a few which are, well, hate to say, not necessarily credible nor reliable sources. Calling the number of the student loan site you provided, they are not aware of any such pending or future cxl of the program. This is why I ask for a credible source of info ? Thanks.
  5. My husband and I recently graduated after going back to college later in life to serve in the Ministry as Pastors. I was hoping I could get some advice from CB on how to best deal with Student loans and repayment. My husband has his with Great Lakes, both sub and unsub are combined in one loan according to what shows on his credit report. I have mine with Navient, which they separated into seven different loans, sub and unsub, according to my credit reports. We should be eligible for loan forgiveness in ten years after making perfect payments according to the loan forgiveness for nonprofit, community. I am assuming? When I check the Federal Student loan repayment calculator and put in our info, salary, dependents, loan amount, etc, it comes to 0.00 for the Income Driven Repayment. I think then it shows that with the expected cost of salary increase we may end up at paying $77 a month after 10 years. Seems pretty good... Should I consolidate the seven loans with navient or not? Maybe I have to in order to qualify for IBR and loan forgiveness, do I have to apply for loan forgiveness now, or do I just wait. Navient has not been forthcoming as to what any of my options are, I suspect I will open a bill one day where they have already heaped on fees and interest and expect a big payment in a short amount of time, hoping to avoid that and plan it out now. But what do I have to do now because I keep reading these horror stories about Navient and how so many are being crushed by SL debt. Before they become due I would like to have a plan in place because I understand that once a negative gets on our Credit reports by Navient or any other student loan servicer its really difficult to move past that. Any help or advice anyone can provide I greatly appreciate.
  6. I would demand a copy of the written contract which has your signature from Comcast and every statement in its complete and original form. I doubt they will send it, maybe the last statement with just a non-itemized total. That won't help to find instances of negative option billing. Of course ask them to validate first, they may go away, if not, I would go after the OC demading statements and attach a copy of the letter from the FCC stating this is why you want copies of all statements in complete and original form to review all itemizations of fees and charges and you want a copy of the handsigned original written contract.. I would also file complaint online with FCC before mailing the letter to Comcast so you can attach the complaint number to your letter. In the complaint to FCC, I would mention that Comcast has engaged in 'negative option billing' and you are disputing this, and while still under dispute they began collection actions and have reported it to CAs, violating the terms of the FCC order against Comcast with the intent to harm this consumer. Maybe some other folks have a better plan of how to handle this.
  7. Dear Comcast, June 25, 2017 Re: account # xxxxxxxxxxxxxx8 FCC Complaint # xxxxxx8 I am writing to inform you that I will no longer participate as the recipient of the intentional abusive practices of Comcast. I object to the mandatory arbitration statements published by Comcast which makes it impossible for any one consumer to legally dispute erroneous charges by Comcast. I object to your practices of representatives having access to consumer’s personal identification information such as bank account numbers, credit card numbers, social security number and the account holder’s date of birth. Which when assembled in such a way by Comcast to ‘verify’ the person to the account, presents a very high risk for identity theft and fraud that any Comcast employee has access. Name, address, account number is sufficient to verify. Comcast has engaged in negative option billing AFTER being fined by the FCC, October 2016 for this illegal billing practice. I might add, that under the terms of the settlement for Comcast, the FCC ordered to that you were required to: “implement a five-year compliance plan. Specifically, Comcast will adopt processes and procedures designed to obtain affirmative informed consent from customers prior to charging them for any new services or equipment. Comcast will also send customers an order confirmation separate from any other bill, clearly and conspicuously describing newly added products and their associated charges. Further, Comcast will offer to customers, at no cost, the ability to block the addition of new services or equipment to their accounts. In addition, the settlement requires Comcast to implement a detailed program for redressing disputed charges in a standardized and expedient fashion, and limits adverse action (such as referring an account to collections or suspending service) while a disputed charge is being investigated. “ (FCC, 2016) Your continual engagement in negative option billing after the date of the FCC ruling indicates Comcast’s willful noncompliance. Continuing in this practice after the millions of dollars in fines by the FCC clearly sends a message to all Comcast’s consumers. The message is that your noncompliance with FCC is willful and done with intent to commit fraud, and the message is that the profit from illegal billing practices far outweighs the FCC orders and fines. I am demanding you mail me a copy of any signed contract or agreement I have made with you in regards to account # xxxxxxxxxxxxx8. Please be aware of the following actions by Comcast in regards to this consumer: Repeated acts of negative option billing occurs on statements for this account number. Repeated acts of increased billing and charges without an order confirmation from customer as required by FCC’s order as described above. THEREFORE, this account # xxxxxxxxxxxxxx8 has filed complaint against Comcast to the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau) and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and seeks to be reimbursed for the false charges through Comcast’s illegal billing practice of negative option billing in the amount of $450.38 (Negative option billing as described by FCC or otherwise referred to as ‘cramming’). This amount includes up to the date of July 15, 2017. Should this not be received in ten days, the account holder may seek other legal options and remedies available. Be advised the arbitration mandate as outlined by Comcast is an adhesion contract, which the Court has ruled is not binding to consumers in this instance. Consumers are not obligated to your unconscionable provisions and cannot be forced into arbitration, nor are they precluded from engaging in a class action suit against Comcast. (Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp) The amount of $450.38 represents negative option billing as well as the $100 deposit paid on April 11, 2016. Please forward payment to the account holder by way of check as the account may be cancelled by way of written notice after review of contract, and unable to accept credit. Regards, XXXXXX XXXXXXXX References: FCC. October, 2016. FCC News from the Federal Communications Commission. As found at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1011/DOC-341621A1.pdf Superior Court of Pennsylvania. December 2006. Philip THIBODEAU, Appellee v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Comcast Holdings Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc., Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, Comcast MOP Group, Inc., Comcast MO of Delaware, Inc., Comcast of Massachusetts II, Inc., and AT & T Corporation, Appellants.
  8. I think if anyone were to review their Comcast statements they too would find overbilling of items not requested by consumer which they are entitled to have refunded. In my case, this amounted to $450.38 for 15 months of Comcast TV and Internet. These added 'fees' and services not requested by consumer can really add up, and give you solutions in debt settlement, etc...possibly.
  9. I didn't find this on the CB, so I opted to start a thread. Sorry if I am reposting something already discussed. If not, I thought it worthy of posting because I found over $450 that Comcast owes me for their illegal cramming practices. FCC fined Comcast 2.3 million for negative option billing and has ordered Comcast to end other practices which harm consumers. (FCC's statement attached) Further, Comcast's forced arbitration clause in their contracts present consumers with an unconscionable provisions to dispute billing errors. (Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp) These two things caused me to take a further look at all my bills from Comcast. By the way, while you can view all your statements online if your account is active and in good standing, you cannot download or save your statements. There is a way around that by using the print prompts from you desktop. I noticed that I had overpaid Comcast in the amount of $450.38 over the course of 15 months. More interesting to me right now is how they try to lock you into a 2 year contract when in fact if you ordered by phone, you are not obligated by anymore than 12 months according to Statute of Fraud law which requires them to have a written and hand-signed contract with the consumer in order for it to be enforceable. FCC statement to the public in regards to Comcast is found at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1011/DOC-341621A1.pdf transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1011/DOC-341621A1.pdf I composed a letter that I thought you all could critique and help me with in order to damand a refund of overpayment to comcast. Should I post the letter I wrote to Comcast? Thanks and looking forward to any advice or comments on this one.
  10. I finally managed to get the registered agent info for Pinnacle Credit Services LLC in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as Corporation Service Company 2704 Commerce Dr Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 526-4330 c/o Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC 7900 Highway 7 St. Louis Park MN 55426 US So my next step is to file at the local Magistrate which allows to hear small claims up to $12,000. I was looking at violations and thus far came up with Creditor, collection agency and credit bureau, if they reage your debt (FCRA section 605©. Creditor, collection agency if they report your credit history inaccurately ( extent of damages incurred ) a collection agency can not misrepresent a debt as to the date, legal, or amount( FDCPA ) FCRA Section 604(A)(3) covers the pulling of a credit file without permissible purpose Am I missing anything or do you think these violations are incorrect? Thanks, and I appreciate your help.
  11. I am sending the letter you suggested and the one to Verizon. I am wondering if I file a claim in Small Claims Court, do i need a registered agent for this company in PA. How do I serve Pinnacle? Do I list the address they gave CFPB? I am in Pa, and they are out of state. Thanks for your help.
  12. So when I sent a complaint to CFPB I received a response from Pinnacle. They sent one bill from 2012 that has an old address of mine with my first name but not my last name. Not a type-o, just completely different. I also did not live at the address they have listed in 2012. It was a rental that I moved out in 2009. I lived there at one time,but not there at the time they are stating on the bill from 2012. Then they attach another verizon bill with a completely different name, not the correct first or last name, and another one of my former addresses from 2015 with a bill date of 2012. So what gives? I do see that they have done a soft pull on my credit which is likely where they got an address, but those address are now gone except my current address. I also see they have the wrong month and day of my birthdate, just the year correct on my Experian report. This whole thing looks to me like a hodge podge of information that was assembled... and most incorrect. What I did have was a verizon account in 2007 and closed in 2010. They show that there was a bill in 2012 but nothing matches correctly to my name, address, date of birth, but they do have the former phone number and a former address. I am wondering if they recycled a 2010 phone number I had in 2010 to a new person in 2012. I just don't know from what angle to attack this false claim. It is as if pieces of my information are correct in part, part of my name (first name) part of my date of birth (year) and on experian. What law do I have a basis to take them to small claims court for this? PInnacle states that if I feel this is wrong, I need to file a police report. But they don't say that they are the one's who I should file against for stealing pieces of my identity to commit fraud. Any advice, direction help would be much appreciated. I think it is important to note that Experian states they have met the requirements as Pinnacle states they have met the requirements of FCRA. Experian states in my complaint to CFPB that I need to send my drivers license, ss, and utility bill to them. Which will show all the incorrect information, but why is it that I get the feeling they are not looking to do what is right but looking to put the correct info on so that Pinnacle can pull my report and fill in their blanks. Pinnacle also asks that once I have updated my information correctly to Experian they want a copy of the first page on my credit report with all my personal information and the page of my report where they have inserted this information.
  13. Are you kidding me with FHA and $2099 v. $2000 that's just makes me even more suspicious of this debt buyer. So tell me, when looking at my credit report I see that Pinnacle pulled my credit report twice. It shows as a soft inquiry....what's up with that? Thanks

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
  • Create New...

Important Information