Consumer complaint received 2022-06-21
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: DC
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Investigation took more than 30 days

Complaint:
I am submitting a second dispute with new information regarding my vehicle loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As a result of a system error caused by their payment portal on XX/XX/XXXX, which did not accurately reflect a payment due for the month of XXXX, which they retroactively applied the payment to the following month causing me to have to make a double payment after reporting the account as 30 days delinquent. Ongoing disputes/customer service calls, have resulted in 0 assistance other than recently on XX/XX/XXXX, when I spoke with a customer service representative in " XXXX '' named XXXX. XXXX was tremendous and apologetic regarding the ongoing issue that I had. Although she could not correct the damage of inaccurate, fraudulent and malicious credit reporting, she offered a deferment for the XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX payment, which brought the account current as of XX/XX/XXXX, with a scheduled payment to be made on XX/XX/XXXX to apply for XX/XX/XXXX 's payment. As there were numerous ongoing disputes, XXXX 's payment had not yet been made, pending results of an open Attorney General Investigation. Contact with the Investigator of AG Office on XX/XX/XXXX, concurred that the documents provided along with the dispute, showed malicious credit reporting on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

To show the continued intentional, malicious, fraudulent, and illegal reporting that American XXXX XXXX XXXX continues to conduct on behalf of this account, as of XX/XX/XXXX, ( stemming from the conversation with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ), with customer service, both XXXX 's payment was processed, and XXXX 's payment was deferred, and they intentionally continued to report the account as delinquent, not applying either of those two changes on XX/XX/XXXX when they reported to the credit bureaus. They have proven that their reporting is going to continuously be spiteful and malicious as payback for me exercising my right to consumer protection complaints and disputes. To also further show their continued inaccurate and illegal reporting of incorrect information, they reported an amount that I never paid to have processed the account in XXXX, when in fact ( per my bank statement ), the payment was processed in XXXX. They intentionally held the reporting of the payment in the balance history of my XXXX Credit Report, which does not match the date debited from my account, in an effort to show delinquency that was not there so that they could report the account as late which was immediately following my XXXX  complaint. 

By the time this complaint is received and reviewed by XXXX, my current month grace period will be over and they will return as the account being " past due '' when it is not as of the date of the complaint which is today. Please see attached current status as of today 's date XX/XX/XXXX ( within grace period ), as they will update and provide an inaccurate statement in their response to this complaint. Please note when they respond and show that the amount showing past due ( within my grace period after XX/XX/XXXX ), is appearing to include XXXX for which XXXX should not be showing. XXXX would show combined, which is the exact opposite of the screen shot provided for XX/XX/XXXX which proves my point that as of XX/XX/XXXX, being 1 day within my grace period, if both XXXX and XXXX would have been due ( as currently showing for XXXX ) although XXXX was deferred as of XX/XX/XXXX ; then my statements/disputes prove true, that no amount showed past due for XXXX, and therefore should have never been reported late, despite the fact that they went back and subsequently made it due after realizing the error in their system. Both pictures can't be true. Which proves my dispute this entire time that the system did not accurately reflect XXXX as due, as it only shows one month as being current which was for XXXX, which is in direct contradiction of what today 's screenshot shows when showing multiple months due, as they are claiming my screenshot for XXXX shows, which it absolutely does not and they don't want to admit that fact. They can't have it both ways as both screen shots show something completely different and can't both be correct. As XXXX will attempt to come back and show that the XXXX screenshot proves it was due, the reason why this is inaccurate is it states that the current due date is XX/XX/XXXX and the current amount due was for {$680.00} and total amount due was {$680.00}. If both XXXX and XXXX were reflecting as due as they are attempting to claim, then the total amount due would have reflected as {$1300.00}. It does not say that, and no matter how much they want to, they can't change or modify what the picture says. As my XXXX payment would not have a due date of XX/XX/XXXX, it is clear that per my original dispute, the screenshot is showing that the only current payment due that the screenshot is indicating is for the following month for XXXX which is as of XX/XX/XXXX ( evidenced at the top of the picture ). This is irrefutable. 

Attachments : Please not the inaccurate pay history as indicated in my XXXX credit report for XXXX, as it relates to the dates of payments deducted from my checking account. 
FTC Fraudulent Report Example of difference between 1/current month only payment due and multiple payments due account status.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief