The school was charged with fraudulent practices in obtaining student loans. The student loan amount was reduced. The company that held the student loan agreed to an income based repayment as the student did not have a job. The company that held the loan sold/transferred the loan to another company. The new company sent multiple statements to the borrower and the cosigner with differing amounts due, requesting remittance to names of companies, but with the same address. Both the borrower and the cosigner tried to reach the company by phone, but could not reach an agent. Both the borrower and the cosigner attempted to contact the company on-line but could not reach an agent and no response was given to emails. The cosigner sent payment for the amount agreed upon in the income based repayment agreement with copies of the agreement. The new company did not acknowledge, though the check was cashed. The new company sent multiple past due notices to the borrower and the cosigner. Both the borrower and the cosigner again attempted to reach the company by phone but could not reach an agent. The cosigner sent a certified letter on behalf of both the borrower and herself asking that the company make contact and communicate about this confusion. The return receipt came back showing that the letter was recieved by the company and signed by an agent of the company. Neither the borrower or the cosigner recieved phone call, email or letter in response. The company again sent past due notices to the cosigner and the borrower, this time with also with differing amounts compared to previous statements. The borrower and the cosigner informed the company in the certified letter that without clarification and communication from the company, no further monies would be sent.