Consumer complaint received 2023-08-14
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: NC
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/ I submitted proof under 15 USC 1681c-2 regarding identity theft being furnishXXXXd on my credit report to Transunion, and the complaint was recieved as of  XXXX  at XXXX EST. The companies identified in my identity theft report were promptly notified of this request. 

15 USC 1681c-2 reads as follows : ( a ) Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer. 

All of the above requested information was furnished to both Transunion and the identified parties involved in the reporting of this information. 

15 USC 1681c-2 also states the following : ( c ) Authority to decline or rescind.

( 1 ) In general. A consumer reporting agency may decline to block, or may rescind any block, of information relating to a consumer under this section, if the consumer reporting agency reasonably determines that ( A ) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error ; ( B ) the information was blocked, or a block was requested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block ; or ( C ) the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. 

In my letter, I rebutted every reason Transunion would have to decline my request to block the identified transactions and made clear that my request to block this reported information is not being made in error, is not being made on the basis of material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block, and Transunion has not reasonably determined by due process of investigation that I personally have obtained possession of any goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions. 

Federal Law states the following : ( 2 ) Notification to consumer. If a block of information is declined or rescinded under this subsection, the affected consumer shall be notified promptly, in the same manner as consumers are notified of the reinsertion of information under section 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) of this title. 

I have recieved notice directly from Transunion stating that my request to block this information was declined due to missing information. I spoke with a Supervisor identifying himself as XXXX representing Transunion on XXXX and was made aware of the decision, to which he promptly informed me he realized was made in error because I included every piece of documentation required in my request. I then informed him that as of XXXX Transunion has exceeded the required time frame of resolution outlined within federal law by 2 business days, and that the removal of the information I've identified as identity theft was required under federal law to be removed no later than XX/XX/. I verbally requested that he uphold the laws he is obligated to be governed by, and conduct himself in a manner that is both fair and equitable to me as the consumer. 
I was told that he needed to further look into Transunions guidelines regarding this matter, and will give me a call back the following business day, on XXXX  I let him know that not resolving this matter is impeding federal law and he can be held personally responsible for doing so. He said that he understood, and needed to reference the guidelines Transunion has before making a decsion. 

I received his call on XX/XX/ at XXXX EST. He said that Transunion guidelines will not allow him to remove the identified transactions being reported. To which I asked what guidelines is he referencing. He mentioned that I did not provide an address in the report I submitted, which is not true because I included a copy of my driver 's license as required by federal law. He said that it wasn't because of the address, and I asked which guidelines Transunion has that are above federal law. He said none, but the accounts are currently in dispute with the identified companies. I let him know that is good because these transactions should be thoroughly investigated, however, federal law states that these items are required to be removed no later than 4 business days of the date my request was received, regardless of if there is an investigation being done or not. Whether the block is rescinded upon the completion of their investigation because they have reasonably determined by due process of investigation that the transactions are in fact accurate, is a different story, upon which I should be promptly notified of such information, and given the opportunity to rebut those findings. XXXX then said that their guidelines will not allow the identified transactions to be blocked. I again asked which guidelines he was referencing because they are not the guidelines that were sent to me as the reason to decline my request. He could not tell me. 

So my question now is, if the federal government felt that it was absolutely necessary to outline consumer protection laws, but none of these companies that have assumed authority of furnishing a consumer report are held liable for impeding federal law - who is held responsible for the detrimental effects the consumer has to live with when it comes to being the victim of identity theft? Are federal laws beneath a companies guidelines? Are the not required and obligated to do what is fair and equitable to the consumer? 

It is my understanding that Transunion, XXXX, and XXXX are NOT government appointed entities. At best, they are LLCs operating under the law of assumption. Once the assumption is revoked by the consumer, they are then subject to being held responsible under federal law. These reported transactions that I have identified as a result of identity theft are in violation to my right of privacy, protection, and is a defamation of character, as well as additional federal laws that protect me as a consumer.

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