Consumer complaint received 2019-01-07
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: IL
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:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal which was accepted by the court ( see attachment # 2 ).

Transunion refused to provide a response to three ( 3 ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) previous complaints I forged against the credit reporting agency. In each response, Transunion cited " pending litigation '' as their reason for not providing a response ( attachment # 1 ). Although a copy of the Summons and Complaint was NEVER delivered to Transunion or its agent ; legally referred to as the " service of process. 

Considering all, I would like to understand the following : 1. How Transunion deemed it lawful to update the record of the account in question, as identified in the certified letters and in the complaint, although the account was pending litigation. In law, this action is considered spoliation. In a pending or legally foreseeable litigation, evidence must be preserved, not altered. I filed a complaint with the CPFB on XX/XX/XXXX and Transunion responded noting their inability to comment on the issue, citing pending litigation on XX/XX/XXXX ( attachment # 3 ). Conversely, between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Transunion updated to the public record referred to as pending litigation issues XXXX attachments # 4 and # 5 ). If Transunion is unable to respond to a complaint made on the CPFB platform, how is it permissible for their agency to manipulate potential evidence? It should be noted, Transunion made no changes to this public record between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, although the public record has been verified as accurate since XX/XX/XXXX ( see attachment # 6. ) Under what law did Transunion determine spoliation was appropriate? 
2. On XX/XX/XXXX, Transunion verified a public record on my consumer credit profile as accurate ( attachment # 7. ) In their investigation results, they list the court as CALIFORNIA FED COURT -XXXX ( attachment # 7 ) ; no such court exist. Adding insult to injury, Transunion currently reports the court for the same account as " U.S. Bankruptcy Court '' through XXXX  ( see attachment # 8 ). How can Transunion report two different courts for the same account after performing a complete and thorough investigation? 
3. Indicated in Transunion 's investigation the " verified results section '' has a XX/XX/XXXX " Date Updated '' entry ( attachment # 7 ). If this account was verified as accurate in XX/XX/XXXX, the Date Update section should reflect a date of XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX. Transunion failed to conduct a proper and through investigation. 
4. On XX/XX/XXXX's platform, Transunion 's " Liability '' section is blank, indicating I am still liable for some or all debts discharged in the petition ( attachment # 9 ). Again,  Transunion failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation and is currently reporting inaccurate information to my consumer profile. The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to report accurate, complete and verifiable information or it must be deleted. Transunion is in violation of 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 explanation