Blog

Consumer advisory: Accessing your scholarships and student loan funds

By

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is issuing a consumer advisory today to all students expecting to receive scholarship and student loan proceeds onto – what appears to be – a school-endorsed debit card. We are also asking consumers to tell us about their experiences getting their financial aid funds.

Yesterday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, another banking regulator the CFPB works closely with, fined one of the largest providers of campus debit cards.

Many college students, especially those enrolled in community colleges or who live off-campus, receive scholarships, grants, and student loans that are for more than the cost of their tuition. These funds help them pay rent, get to and from school, and cover other costs, like textbooks. Many schools work with third-party financial companies to disburse these funds directly to students. Consumers should remember the following:

  • You can’t be required to use a specific bank or card. There may be a financial institution that operates on your campus, but you generally can’t be required to use a specific account or card to access your student aid. If you have received a federal student loan, your school must provide a paper check or cash option.
  • Consider choosing an account before arriving at school. Shop around, and don’t feel limited by the banks operating ATMs on or near campus. Some financial institutions don’t charge you for using any ATMs, and some will automatically reimburse you for fees charged for using an out-of-network ATM. Many institutions also provide a mobile phone app to remotely deposit paper checks.
  • If your school offers it, sign up for direct deposit as soon as possible. If your school offers direct deposit, you may be able to provide the school with your account information in order to access your funds more quickly.

If you have a specific problem with your student checking account and need to resolve it, please file a complaint with CFPB. If you want to just share your experience with student checking accounts and debit cards, tell us your story and use the tag “financial aid.” We’ll also share what we learn with the Department of Education, who recently published a notice on this topic.

Ask CFPB if you have more questions about student checking account.

Share this post on Facebook and Twitter, and we look forward to hearing from you.

Meet Julio from Florida

By

Since we launched on July 21st 2011, we’ve heard directly from consumers about the challenges they face in the marketplace, brought their concerns to the attention of financial institutions, and helped address their complaints. Accepting, resolving, and analyzing consumer complaints is an integral part of our work.

Periodically, we’ll feature stories from consumers who we have helped, and who have agreed to let the CFPB make their stories public.

Julio, a 31-year-old waiter from Florida struggled to pay his private student loans from a for-profit college after his payments shot up.

When Julio left Puerto Rico to pursue his dream of studying to be an artist, he chose a for-profit college that he says advertised itself as a top ranking school. But after accruing $110,000 in debt and graduating with only an Associate’s Degree, not the Bachelor’s he wanted, he couldn’t find a job in his field. The college was not competitive, he was told.

Like many other students, Julio says the school steered him into taking on expensive private loans before exhausting his federal loan options. For more than a year, he promptly paid $700 a month to the private student loan lender. But when his federal loan kicked in, his payments increased to $1,100 a month and he could no longer make ends meet. He called his private student lender and asked to work out a deal for lower, extended payments. The company refused, he said.

After Julio contacted the CFPB, the loan provider discovered that Julio was eligible for a reduced-payment program. Julio’s private student loan payments were cut back to $407 a month for the next year. Julio is still working out a plan for to reduce his payments for the federal loans.

Learn more

To see more about how we handle consumer complaints, read our Consumer Response Snapshot and to see all credit card complaints, visit our consumer complaint database.

Meet Jonna from Texas

By

Since we launched on July 21st 2011, we’ve heard directly from consumers about the challenges they face in the marketplace, brought their concerns to the attention of financial institutions, and helped address their complaints. Accepting, resolving, and analyzing consumer complaints is an integral part of our work.

Periodically, we’ll feature stories from consumers who we have helped, and who have agreed to let the CFPB make their stories public.

Jonna, a 53-year-old legal assistant from Texas, was accruing high fees on her credit card because of a card issuer computer glitch.

The problems started in August 2011 when Jonna says she tried to pay $200 toward her $3,100 credit card debt but a malfunction of the credit card issuer’s website instead caused a $3,100 withdrawal from her bank account. That malfunction resulted in an overdraft charge from her bank and a charge of $25 from the card issuer for a bounced payment.

After repeated phone calls to customer service, the card issuer finally straightened out the amount that Jonna had wanted to pay but accidentally put the $3,100 balance as cash advance charges, which have a higher interest rate than purchases. Interest owed was ratcheting up fast. The fees grew to $345 before the issuer agreed to return the balance to the purchased category.

When Jonna contacted the CFPB in May 2012 she says there was still an erroneous cash advance balance on her card, extra fees were still being charged, and the issuer still had failed to reimburse her for the mistaken interest charged while the balance was in the higher-interest cash advanced category. Within a week after the CFPB got involved, the credit card issuer corrected all their errors. And, although the issuer could not refund Jonna for the insufficient fund charges from her bank, it sent Jonna a gift card for a national retail outlet.

Learn more

To see more about how we handle consumer complaints, read our Consumer Response Snapshot and to see all credit card complaints, visit our consumer complaint database.

Open for amicus suggestions

By

In the past eight months, we’ve filed six amicus briefs – also known as “friend-of-the-court” briefs – in cases about federal consumer financial protection laws. These briefs allow us to share our position with courts considering significant questions about the interpretation of consumer finance laws or affecting our responsibilities. We’ve now posted all our prior amicus briefs and, starting today, we’re asking for your suggestions of additional cases for us to consider.

consumerfinance.gov/amicus

We’re looking for cases with one or more important legal questions about the interpretation or application of a federal consumer financial protection statute or regulation that we interpret and enforce. Strong candidates are typically cases that have been or will soon be filed in a federal court of appeals or state supreme court.

How can I suggest a case?

Email amicus@cfpb.gov, and include:

  • Case name
  • Docket number
  • Circuit or district court name
  • Brief description of the case and issue
  • Explanation of why you believe we should file an amicus brief in this case
  • Current status of the litigation
  • Your contact information
Where can I read more about the briefs you’ve filed?

You can find all of our amicus briefs at consumerfinance.gov/amicus.

We look forward to your thoughts and suggestions.

Foreclosure help is free, and scams are expensive

By

If you’re having trouble paying your mortgage, we can help you get connected to a HUD-approved housing counselor at no cost to you. The counselor can help you work with your servicer or lender to try to avoid foreclosure, organize your finances, understand your mortgage options, and find a solution that works for you.

Get foreclosure help.

How to spot a scam

Mortgage loan modification scams are designed to take your money by making a false promise of saving you from foreclosure. Scammers may:

  • Ask you to pay high fees upfront to receive services,
  • Promise to get you a loan modification,
  • Ask you to sign over title to your property,
  • Ask you to sign papers that you do not understand,
  • Say you should start making payments to someone other than your servicer or lender,
  • Claim to be conducting a “forensic audit,” or
  • Tell you to stop making mortgage loan payments altogether.

Companies that offer mortgage relief services aren’t allowed to collect any fees until they give you a written offer from your servicer or lender that you decide is acceptable. A mortgage relief company must also tell you that:

  • The company is not associated with the government;
  • Your lender may not agree to modify your loan; and
  • If the company tells you to stop paying your mortgage, that you can lose your home and damage your credit.

If you think you have been scammed

File a complaint online or call us at (855) 411-CFPB (2372) from 8 a.m. – 8 p.m. ET, Monday-Friday.

Share this with #ForeclosureHelpIsFree

It can be hard for people to talk about finances, especially if they’re in trouble. Even if you’re not facing foreclosure yourself, please share a link to this advice with your networks using the hashtag #ForeclosureHelpisFree. You’ll never know who you might be able to help.

Explainer: Why did it take 1,099 pages to propose a three-page mortgage disclosure?

By

Dear CFPB,

Recently, I saw your notice of proposed rulemaking to combine and simplify existing mortgage disclosures. It’s 1,099 pages long! Why does it take so many pages to create something that’s supposed to be easy to use and understand?

Sincerely,
Interested in your regulations

Dear Interested,

This is a great question, one you’re not alone in asking — 1,099 is a lot of pages, as those of us who were involved in writing them can attest.

Let’s start with some background. Currently, two federal laws – the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) – mandate that consumers receive disclosures of certain information about mortgage loans. The Dodd-Frank Act required the CFPB to propose a rule to combine the TILA and RESPA disclosures.

If you want to see the new combined disclosures, combine and simplify existing mortgage disclosures check them out here. If you want to see what the proposal means for you, we’ve provided summaries, one on what it would mean for consumers and one with more technical detail.

You said “propose a rule to combine the disclosures” instead of just “propose combined disclosures.” Why?
It’s an important distinction. The rule explains how we would expect industry to use the disclosures: when to issue them, how they apply to different loans, what various terms mean, etc.

And that proposed rule is 1,099 pages?
Actually, no. We are not proposing 1,099 pages of new regulations. That page count is for the notice of the proposed rule, not the rule. Like notices of proposed rulemaking issued by other agencies (particularly the Federal Reserve Board), our proposal consists of three basic parts: (1) the preamble explaining the proposal; (2) the text of the proposed regulations; and (3) guidance on how to comply with those regulations.

In terms of pages, the new regulations are only a small part. Most of the pages explain what we are doing and why we are doing it. As required by law, we analyze the costs and benefits of the proposal for consumers and industry. We also provide thorough guidance on how to comply including samples of completed forms, which the industry requested during our outreach and Small Business Review Panel process. Because of the variability of mortgage loan and real estate transactions, industry wanted specific guidance for many different potential scenarios. This added to the page count.

Here’s how the notice breaks down:

Content Pages
Preamble
  • Directions on how to submit comments
  • Summary of the proposed rule
  • Overview of the mortgage market and the mortgage shopping process
  • Summary of 43 years of TILA and RESPA mortgage disclosure regulation
  • Summary of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions requiring the Bureau to combine the TILA and RESPA mortgage disclosures and related Dodd-Frank Act mortgage rulemakings
  • Summary of the Bureau’s outreach, disclosure testing, and Small Business Review Panel
  • Statement of the Bureau’s legal authority
  • Detailed explanations of the reasons for each aspect of the proposed rule and requests for comment
  • Analyses of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule for consumers and industry, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act), and the Paperwork Reduction Act
684
Proposed amendments to regulations
  • New rules
  • Technical and conforming amendments to existing rules
209
Proposed guidance regarding compliance with the amended regulations
205
Signature page
1
TOTAL
1,099

The preamble is long.
It is. The preamble provides context for the proposed forms and regulatory changes. The mortgage market is big, and mortgage disclosure regulation has 43 years of history. Also, before writing the rule, we spent a lot of time talking to industry and consumers and analyzing costs and benefits. That’s a lot of context, and that means a long preamble.

Why bother with all this context?
First, some of it is required by law. Second, we believe that part of our commitment to open government is providing more rather than less information about our work. Finally, we want your comments to help us understand the market better, and providing context can lead to more informative comments. Explaining what we considered in writing the proposal makes it easier to craft specific responses or to draw our attention to something you think we’ve missed. Comments that provide new insight or information can be the ones that have the greatest impact on what we do next.

That leaves 415 pages. Only part of that is new rules, though. What else is left?
The technical and conforming amendments make sure the new rules don’t conflict with existing rules, that they make the right cross-references, etc. This actually accounts for more than half of the proposed regulatory language.

The proposed guidance explains what certain regulatory language means in context. For example, the phrase “within three business days” appears a lot in this notice, as in: a creditor must deliver the loan estimate disclosure “within three business days” of application. But what counts as a business day? If a bank is closed the Friday before an Independence Day that falls on Saturday, does that Friday count as a business day? (Answer for purposes of delivery of this disclosure: yes.) Providing guidance that clarifies issues like these can save time, energy, and costs for both industry and regulators.

And the signature gets its own page?
Yes. We don’t expect a lot of comments on that page.

So where can I comment on this notice of proposed rulemaking?
First, we hope you’ll take a look at the Know Before You Owe project that helped us develop the proposed disclosures. Then, review the rule and submit your comments at Regulations.gov.

The CFPB blog aims to facilitate conversations about our work. We want your comments to drive this conversation. Please be courteous, constructive, and on-topic. To help make the conversation productive, we encourage you to read our comment policy before posting. Comments on any post remain open for seven days from the date it was posted.