CFPB issues Student Loan Servicing Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights – JD Supra

Ballard Spahr LLP
Last week, the CFPB issued a “Student Loan Servicing Special Edition” of Supervisory Highlights.  In this blog post, we highlight a stealth expansion of supervisory jurisdiction and focus on the CFPB’s findings in two key areas:
Supervisory jurisdiction.  The CFPB indicated that simultaneously with issuing the Special Edition, but after apparently having already conducted exams based on its interpretation of Dodd Frank, it had updated its Education Loan Examination Procedures regarding the definition of “private education loans” for purposes of its authority to supervise nonbanks.  A previous version of these procedures referenced the Regulation Z definition of “private education loans” which differs from the Truth in Lending Act  definition.  The updated procedures reference the TILA definition, meaning that the Bureau can supervise an institution that extends credit expressly for postsecondary educational expenses so long as the credit is not made, insured, or guaranteed under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and is not an open-end consumer credit plan, or secured by real property or a dwelling.
Transcript withholding.  The CFPB observed that some postsecondary schools withhold official transcripts from students who are delinquent on a debt owed to the school.  The CFPB reported that one school would not release transcripts to borrowers in default that had entered into new payment agreements but had not yet paid their balances in full and that some schools collected payments for transcripts but did not provide the transcript if a student was delinquent on a debt.  The CFPB determined that blanket policies to withhold transcripts in connection with an extension of credit are abusive and directed schools to stop this practice.  (Earlier this year, the CFPB published a blog post in which it endorsed a call from Department of Education Secretary for schools to end the practice of transcript withholding in order to promote equity and diversity.  In 2019, California enacted a law that prohibits postsecondary schools from withholding transcripts as a debt collection tool.)
Administration of forgiveness programs. 
TLF.  Examiners found servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices when they wrongfully denied TLF applications in the following circumstances: (1) where consumers had already completed five years of teaching, (2) where the school was a qualifying school on the Teacher Cancellation Low Income Directory, or (3) when the consumer formatted specified dates as MM-DD-YY instead of MM-DD-YYYY, despite meeting all other eligibility requirements.  The servicers were directed to review all TLF applications denied since 2014 to identify improperly denied applications and remediate harmed consumers to ensure they received the full benefits to which they were entitled, including any refunds for excess payments or accrued interest.
PSLF. Examiners found servicers engaged in deceptive acts or practices by:
Examiners found servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by:
In addition to any remediation that borrowers were entitled to receive through the PSLF waiver or the one-time payment count adjustment for IDR forgiveness announced by ED, remediation steps that the CFPB directed servicers to take include completing reviews of PSLF determinations to identify consumers impacted by the PSLF violations and providing monetary relief to consumers who continue to face financial injuries from the violations.
IDR.  Examiners found servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by:
Examiners found servicers engaged in deceptive acts or practices by:
In its introduction to the Special Edition, the Bureau cautioned that the findings in the report impact servicers’ entire portfolios, including commercially-owned Federal Family Education Loan Programs loans, and encouraged servicers to address the issues across their portfolios.  In its conclusion, the Bureau recommended that servicers, originators, and loan holders review the findings and implement changes in their operations to ensure that the risks identified are thoroughly addressed.  It advised market participants that it expects them to incorporate measures to avoid these violations and similar consumer risks into internal monitoring  and audit practices and notes that evidence of strong compliance programs that take these risks into account is a factor in the Bureau’s decisions on whether or not to open up follow-up investigations.  The Bureau also stated that it expects institutions to self-identify violations and compliance risks, proactively provide complete remediation to consumers, and report those actions to the Bureau.
[View source.]
See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising
Refine your interests »
This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.
Back to Top
Explore 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © JD Supra, LLC

source

Leave a Comment