Consumer complaint received 2022-08-28
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MO
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:
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and Transunion have all violated my rights as a natural person, in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in regard to my closed account # XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Recently I looked into each of my credit scores and found that each credit bureau had a different version of my closed XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. They had differing days/months of closing, extra late payments, and wrong amount of days that it is delinquent. To my surprise, they resolved the dispute within a couple of days. Yet again with wrong information with all of them : XXXX XXXX took off all of the late payments and took off about 60 % of my payment history on XXXX ( they only had about 75 % of my credit history to begin with ), the transunion account was made to match my account on XXXX, and XXXX was marked correct. Two days after the resolution of my dispute, I noticed that XXXX XXXX updated my account, yet again, on all three bureaus. This time it said XXXX XXXX changed the month from being late XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX to being late XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX for my account on Transunion and reinserted the late payments to my XXXX account. XXXX XXXX reported to XXXX and Transunion that my late payments were 30 days late on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; 60 days late on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. On XXXX, XXXX XXXX inserted that I was late 60 days on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; 90 days late on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. My credit history on my XXXX XXXX account for all of the XXXX year, a couple of months at the beginning of XXXX, and XXXX of XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX was marked as current on XXXX ) marked as unknown for all bureaus after the update that was after the supposedly resolved dispute. My XXXX report before the dispute lacked all payment history until the supposed first late payment and showed my account as current after the supposed last late payment, however, Transunion and XXXX had my full payment history from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. After XXXX XXXX  updated my account after the dispute, I found that the Reinvestigation Info on my XXXX account still states This item remained unchanged from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX. When it had in fact been changed AFTER the dispute had been supposedly resolved. I also noticed that the address and phone number is different on XXXX than it is on Transunion and XXXX. The account XXXX lists the address as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and phone number as ( XXXX ) XXXX ; Transunion and XXXX have their address and phone number listed as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX. The date of my last payment/close date was fixed with the dispute to the correct date XX/XX/XXXX, but when XXXX XXXX updated my account after the supposed resolved dispute they updated that my last payment/close date is on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, XXXX XXXX XXXX isnt written out fully on my Transunion report. I dont understand how they could put effort into reinserting incorrect, deleted information with incorrect information, but not put effort into resolving my dispute accurately the first time. I wasnt even notified in writing of the reinsertion of the information within 5 days, I wasnt notified in writing at all. 
I will say, I was XXXX days delinquent in XXXX ( not XXXX ), but I paid my bill early in XXXX, I paid before 30 days in XXXX and XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX had reasonable cause to know that the information they twice inserted into my account since the original incorrect, insertion, if they had looked into my payment history, they could have accurately updated my account, and they were so negligent with the reinsertion of information after the dispute they didnt bother to check if it even matched the other reports with the incorrect information they updated the accounts of the other bureaus with. 

Now for Transunion, XXXX, and XXXX, they clearly failed to do a thorough investigation. The bureaus failed to recognise this company with a clear pattern of a company compromising accuracy and integrity, further so without doing a thorough investigation and allowing them to reinsert and update information that was incorrect on an account that has been closed for more than two years. Which should be suspicious and flagged by the bureaus being that they updated on a closed account, without another dispute being filed. The information should have been blocked from being updated after supposedly being updated with what they claimed to be correct information after they concluded their investigation into my dispute, but it wasnt, which has really caused me to lose trust in the credit system. From what Ive read from complaints on the cfpb, XXXX and through word of mouth is that XXXX XXXX XXXX does shady business, but yet they are still in business and still allowed to ruin consumers finances and credit. You would think the Credit Bureaus would be flagging companies like this and keeping an eye on them. Regardless of the idea of flagging these companies the Credit Bureaus are supposed to have systems in place that ensure the accuracy of the information nor reinsertation according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but they clearly dont if this is a recurring issue with many consumers. 

The specific Fair Credit Reporting Act laws that have been violated : 15 U.S. Code 1681i - 5 ( A ) ( i ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681i - 5 ( B ) ( i ) ( ii ) ( iii ) ( I ) ( II ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681i - 5 ( C ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681i - 5 ( D ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i ) ( ii ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ( i ) ( ii ) ( iii ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( E ) ( i ) ( ii ) ( iii ) ( iv ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681g ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i ) ( ii ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681e ( b ) ; 15 U.S. Code 1681e ( d ) Due to these inaccuracies I had to drive a car that kept breaking down for years, despite constant repairs, putting my life and others lives in danger, TWICE to the car lot because I was denied the first time due to my credit and because it wasnt enough to trade in on its own, I had to trade it in and put almost a XXXX dollar down payment to get my new car, because this company made it look like I was an unreliable consumer. When I was struggling last year to get by financially, I was unable to refinance my car which also put a hard inquiry on my account further damaging it with nothing to show for it. 

*Federal laws definitions are included in attachments, straight from the Fair Credit Report Act

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 non-monetary relief