Consumer complaint received 2022-01-07
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MI
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: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
In the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response to CFPB complaint XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX insists that the misapplication of my payment didn't occur. That, in fact the application for the authorized payment, having been applied to XXXX was as, me the consumer intended. This is false. 

In fact, at approximatley XXXX hours on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX billing system emailed me. The e-mail is attached on p.26 of the accompanying documentation. That e-mail states the payment that was not successful ( returned NSF ) was in fact XXXX in the amount of 150 dollars. This contradicts XXXX assertions in the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter. IN fact, each subsequent re-presenting of the 150 dollar payment for XXXX to my financial services institution resulted in a notification by emal regarding the failed transfer. Those notifiactions are also supplied as pages 23 - 25 of the attached documents. 

The conclusion is then, that of the two ( 2 ) 150 dollar payments authorized on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, with posting date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, the payment for XXXX was successful and debited from my account on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. My financial services company notified me of the transfer on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

The contardiction is then in the transaction report supplied by WF with date on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In this case the internal transaction report that XXXX XXXX has supplied for XXXX shows the 150 dollar payment was not applied per my instruction and was instead applied to XXXX. This is evidenced examining the corresponding XXXX transaction report. Note tthe date of the reports this is nearly one ( 1 ) year AFTER XXXX own billing system notified me of processed and unsuccessful payments. That would give ANY company time to fix, manipulate, or hide data that would be material to demonstrating violations of the FCRA and CFPA -- were it not for the e-mail notifying me WHICH payment failed. t is therefore conceivable that XXXX enaged in a unfair and unlawful practices. 

It is the responsibility of the CRAs to remove factually inaccurate information from a consumer 's credit file, as to report to such information to potential lenders is a violation of the FCRA. XXXX XXXX has made clear that it will not correct the erroneous information, and has tried to identify the CRAs as the " culprit. '' The facts, and the evidence are quite clear : a misaaplication of a payment, mishandling of a retroactively applied forbearance, and subsequent deferment with no billing statements ( violation of the MPN ), led to the inaccuarte/unverifiable statuses for my XXXX EFS XXXX XXXX account XXXX and CO on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Any one of those issues alone would have placed my account in the same status, despite the actions I took to keep the account current as far back as the successful payments made on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

The law is clear in that misapplication of payments is illegal. Section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) of the CFPA prohibits unfair acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). 22.

An act or practice is unfair under the CFPA if it : ( a ) causes or is likely to cause consumers substantial injury ; ( b ) such injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers ; and ( c ) such injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ). 

XXXX XXXX was exiting the student loan market, and therefore, while ( a ) and ( b ) might be obvious, in light of this fact ( c ) also becomes obvious : there was and is no justification forWells XXXX to refuse to fix the error ( s ). However, it is consistent with CFPB consent order XXXX, which found XXXX to be engaging in unfair practices. 

Section 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) - ( B ) of the FCRA requires a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency about its transactions or experiences with any consumer to promptly notify the consumer reporting agency that the person has furnished information that it has determined is not complete or accurate, and to provide any corrections or additional information necessary to make the information provided by the person to the consumer reporting agency complete and accurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) - ( B ). 

XXXX XXXX reported to consumer reporting agencies that I was delinquent on XXXX when, in fact, the I had satisfied my obligations through multiple payments, and a disaster forbearance within the same billing cycle on XXXX XXXX did not aggregate or timely aggregate the 150 dollar payment in accordance with its internal policies and procedures. XXXX XXXX continues in its refusal to take corrective/restorative measures to make me whole. 

Therefore, XXXX XXXX violated section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) - ( B ) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) - ( B ) and continues to violation the aformentioned. 

To avoid liability in any litigation that ensues, it is now incumbent upon the consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) to promptly remove any and all derogatory information from XXXX in a timely fashion. Failure to do so makes the CRAs complicit in XXXX abhorrent behavior, and liable under the FCRA.

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