Consumer complaint received 2021-04-09
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL
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:
A recent investigation of Acct Number # XXXX Creditor : XXXX XXXX  XXXX did not remove the unverified negative account from my credit report, reporting in collections. 

Under the FCRA XXXX, XXXX  and Transunion are required to have a copy of the original creditors documentation on file to verify that this information is mine and is correct. In results of their investigation they did not send me provided me a copy of ANY original documentation ( a consumer contract with my signature on it ) as required under Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Furthermore they have failed to provide the method of verification as required under Section 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) In addition, in the case of Spears Vs. Brennan ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0003-CV-169 ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). On November 12, 1996, nineteen days after the date of Brennans debt collection letter, Spears counsel Shepard sent Brennan a letter declaring that Spears disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof. Record at 21. As such, Brennan should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, Brennan proceeded to obtain a default judgment against Spears on the debt collection claim before he had mailed Spears the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).

Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent adequate verification of the debt [ to Spears ] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim. Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). We can not agree.

The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears loan, including a 17.99 % annual interest rate and the original loan amount of {$2500.00}. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least {$350.00} more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears. We reverse the trial courts entry of summary judgment in favor of Brennan on this issue.

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