Consumer complaint received 2020-12-23
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MA
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:
I XXXX XXXX, on behalf of myself and my husband XXXX XXXX are filing this complaint that hopefully will make its way to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission. You will see from my research that the FDIC Act applies, simply based on facts that XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX-A may be private investment procurers, but they had to piggy-back off of an FCIC insured nationally chartered bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the structuring lead manager of said trust. Our rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are in violation, and the XXXX XXXX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXis in the wrong for not reporting truthfully what transpired and how Regulation 5000 FDIC Act is being ignored. The connection to FDIC Regulation 5000 applies based on XXXX XXXX XXXX being a major part of a securitization that our debt ended being part of. We will seek legal counsel for damages if necessary. The loan my husband and I signed for was originally {$13000.00}. The timeshare was foreclosed upon for non-payment in XXXX, nearly two years after signing for the original debt service. The foreclosure and ultimate resale of the timeshare easily should have erased the entire debt service, and if there was an offset shortfall, that shortfall is to be valued as a charge-off status. XXXX XXXX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX still shows the original balance plus accrues penalties and interest. This is a complete fabrication. The debt is a charge off status with XXXX  offset. 
5000 - Statements of Policy UNIFORM RETAIL CREDIT CLASSIFICATION AND ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT POLICY 1 One- to four-family residential real estate loans and home-equity loans that are past due 90 days or more with loan-to-value ratios greater than 60 percent should be classified Substandard. Properly secured residential real estate loans with loan-to-value ratios equal to or less than 60 percent are generally not classified based solely on delinquency status. Home-equity loans to the same borrower at the same institution as the senior mortgage loan with a combined loan-to-value ratio equal to or less than 60 percent need not be classified. However, home equity loans where the institution does not hold the senior mortgage, that are past due 90 days or more should be classified Substandard, even if the loan-to-value ratio is equal to, or less than, 60 percent. 
For open- and closed-end loans secured by residential real estate, a current assessment of value should be made no later than 180 days past due. Any outstanding loan balance in excess of the value of the property, less cost to sell, should be classified Loss and charged off. 

The following is factual FDIC Rule 5000 on charge off status applies, and a value of foreclosure sale or resale of timeshare is mandatory. 
The Securities and Exchange Act applies as XXXX XXXX XXXX must comply with all securities guidelines, and once the receivable went into a 180-day charge off status, the security reverts back to the procurer, and is no longer considered a value to the security trust. Any financial consideration after the foreclosure must be adjusted to Trust XXXX A. 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 13-4689 ________________ SELENA A. SCOTT, Appellant v. BANK OF AMERICA ; BANK OF AMERICA CONSUMER CREDIT ; BANK OF AMERICA FUNDING, LLC ; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC ; JOHN DOES 1-100 ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the XX/XX/XXXXDistrict of Pennsylvania ( D.C. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00987 ) District Judge : Honorable XX/XX/XXXX ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1 ( a ) October 20, 2014 In addition, once Scotts account fell into default, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement provides that ownership of these Ineligible Receivables automatically reverts to XXXX XXXX XXXX. See J.A. 160-61 ( Pooling & Servicing Agr. 2.04 ( d ) ( ii ) ( iii ) ). At that pointand regardless whether as a general matter ownership of a credit card account can be divorced from ownership of the accounts receivablesthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement placed ownership of the receivables squarely back in XXXX XXXX XXXX hands. For these reasons, we affirm. 
Any foreclosure redemption had to be placed back in the trust after necessary adjustments. However, my issue runs even deeper as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX has been applying the original balance plus accrued penalties and interest against my personal credit report with XXXX, XXXX  and Trans Union respectfully. This is a true violation of the participation agreement made by XXXX XXXX and each credit reporting agency, causing both me and my husband considerable financial hardships. 
I demand the permanent deletion of my information from all respective credit reporting agencies immediately, and a letter of apology from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. Multiple federal laws are being broken violating my constitutional rights, and this matter must be given full consideration. All information in the files of myself and husband must be purged. There should be no exceptions. 
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