Consumer complaint received 2016-10-21
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: IN
Product: Credit reporting
Issue: Credit monitoring or identity protection
Sub-issue: Billing dispute

Complaint:
I wish to file a complaint against XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Transunion, disputing a {$3.00} interest charge on a XXXX XXXX credit card account I had paid in full on XXXX XXXX, 2016. This $ XXXX interest charge was added to my account AFTER my payment in full was made, was done without my knowledge and for which I never received a bill. Obviously, I did not make a payment on a bill I did not receive! Because I subscribe to XXXX Credit Tracker, an alert made me aware on XXXX XXXX, 2016 that this account had been tagged as " more than 30 days '' overdue. I investigated on XXXX XXXX 's website and made payment immediately to not let the credit damage worsen. I then immediately disputed the negative notation on my account - not the that the payment was late by 2 days according to XXXX XXXX 's records, but that it was " late '' because XXXX XXXX had FAILED to make me aware of the charge. 

According to the FTC 's summary my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) -- https : XXXX : " Consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or UNVERIFIABLE [ emphasis mine ] information. Inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information must be removed or corrected, usually within 30 days. '' Credit reporting agencies MUST correct UNVERIFIABLE information on my credit history. Yet all three agencies have refused to do so even though XXXX XXXX CAN NOT VERIFY that I had knowledge of this {$3.00} interest charge, other than to say they mailed me a bill. But I dispute that I ever received such a bill! No credit agency has attempted an independent investigation. They simply accept XXXX XXXX 's UNVERIFIABLE claim when the VERIFIABLE evidence of my diligence in paying bills is reflected in the fact that I paid this charge IMMEDIATELY when I became aware of it! 

XXXX XXXX 's UNVERIFIABLE information should ALONE be reason enough for the reporting agencies to delete this negative notation from my credit history under the FCRA. But none of these parties will act on my disputes because they rely solely on XXXX XXXX for information, even though consumer reporting agencies " must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or UNVERIFIABLE information. '' This inflexibility over {$3.00} is all the more galling given XXXX XXXX 's recent {$180.00} XXXX fine by the Consumer Protection Bureau -- for FRAUD. Why is the fraudulent XXXX XXXX organization more trusted by the credit reporting agencies than me?! 

Moreover, for the major reporting agencies to make a negative notation over a mere {$3.00} that will affect my otherwise spotless credit history for the next 7 years is a penalty utterly disproportionate to the supposed infraction. A 7-year sentence on my credit history for a disputed {$3.00} payment it not merely unfair, it qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment! 

What is a lone consumer like me to do when up against the impersonal, bureaucratized inflexibility of a too-big-to-fail bank and automated credit reporting systems with default algorithms, enforced by " customer service '' automatons, that can not and will not take into account the simple human error of an undelivered piece of mail? My credit report NOW indicates I am " fair '' credit risk because XXXX XXXX did not send and I did not pay a XXXX payment. My behavior demonstrates that I am an excellent credit risk - and is that not what my FICO score should reflect? This disparity would be the very definition of an Unfair Credit Reporting Act. 

I have suggested to all parties that this is a simple misunderstanding over XXXX dollars, and that the negative notation be removed from my otherwise spotless credit history because it should not be there in the first place under the FCRA. Please advise me about the FTC can and will do about this situation. Thank you.

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