Consumer complaint received 2020-05-22
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: NY
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account information incorrect

Complaint:
I XXXX XXXX, have no choice but to submit a complaint against a nationally known vehicle finance company known as XXXX XXXX XXXX. My argument is based upon the implementation of two separate federal laws, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. My argument is against an abusive derogatory placed on not only mine but my wifes credit report, with each respective credit reporting agencies, XXXX, rans Union and XXXX  respectively. I have had an impeccable payment history with XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXX, as he attached credit reports shows Account Number XXXX opened XX/XX/XXXX, a perfect payment history until the vehicle was traded in for a new lease in XX/XX/XXXX. That loan payment history was perfect Account XXXX XXXX. As you can see from the attached two credit histories of the same account, on XX/XX/XXXX the account shows PAID. CLOSED/NEVER LATE as of the lease close out XX/XX/XXXX. At that time my wife XXXX took a new lease with XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Is was not until a month later when both me and my wife received a notice by mail that there was an additional charge on vehicle maintenance. I made the necessary arrangement to pay the additional lease charge that had absolutely nothing to do with any payment history. XXXX XXXX XXXX can not mingle payment histories with any substantive collection issue after the fac. This is in fact not only a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation but a violation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act : Amended consumer rights Fair Credit Reporting Act Public Law 15 U.S.C. 1681 : XXXX : XXXX Fair Debt Collection Practices Act : XXXX : XXXX If XXXX XXXX XXXX had a financial issue with the lease, then after the payoff the only remedy would be through the FDCPA. FCRA does not apply..period. Accordingly, XXXX XXXX XXXX has applied a separate but highly illegal interpretation in its collection criteria by abusing the FCRA along with its tightly controlled subscriber agreement with each respective credit reporting agencies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the super-ceding authority on the implementation of FCRA, and I believe that the XXXX  XXXX XXXX company should be investigated including a full legal review of its contractual agreements with the general public. Sanctions are of necessity on this issue. I demand the late payment back-dated to XX/XX/XXXX be deleted, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX issue a policy change to the American public through the CFPB. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX is 100 % wrong on this back-dated latte payment, as once the lease was paid off by initiating a new vehicle lease for XXXX XXXX, FCRA was out of the equation and only collection remedies were in play through the FDCPA. 

XXXX XXXX

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