Consumer complaint received 2023-06-27
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: CA
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Information is missing that should be on the report

Complaint:
This Complaint concerns my complaint that XXXX XXXX XXXX improperly assessed interest and late fees on the subject card account, as well as submitted negative account information to the credit reporting agencies for non-payment. I was unaware of the bank 's actions until last XXXX when I was warned about the bank 's negative reporting by a FICO credit score app. Before any discussion with the bank, I paid the full bill immediately, including the interest and late fees. A statement indicating that billing and payment history is available on request. In any event, the subject transactions were some auto renewed magazines that renewed without any affirmative action on my part. I would have caught the renewal anyway, but for the fact that we were receiving paper statements on that card at the time, and that statement was returned to the bank as undeliverable. A bank chat transcript acknowledging receipt by the bank of the undeliverable statement is also available for review. 

Summary of the Complaint. I should begin this Summary by acknowledging that after previous discussions with bank personnel by telephone, the bank agreed to and did refund by way of account credit all of the late fees and interest associated with the subject transaction. What remains, however, is my request that XXXX XXXX XXXX submit a correcting comment to the credit reporting agencies to which it had previously sent incorrect negative information, or to cause removal of that negative late payment entry from those agencies reports. This case is, therefore, not resolved as the bank has erroneously indicated in its most recent correspondence. Copies of that correspondence and by most recent written communication with the bank are also available for review. 

First, the bank 's view that the undeliverable state of the statement was the fault of the post office, rather than the bank, misses the point. During the relevant period, we were possessed of a reasonable expectation of receipt of a paper statement before it took the action complained of. The bank was aware of the undeliverable status of the statement before it submitted the negative comment to the credit reporting agencies. 

Second, according to the FICO score criteria used by the bank, non-payment comprises about 35 % of a credit score. it is not surprising, therefore, that my FICO score of about 850 before the bank 's negative reporting dropped precipitously to XXXX. While we had also secured a significant loan during that period for roof repair, such a transaction would only account for about 10 % of a FICO score under those same criteria. My credit rating was clearly impacted by the Bank 's negative reporting to the credit agencies. 

Third, to the extent that this agency, or XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may not view the impacts complained of as significant, since my credit scores- even after the Bank 's negative comments- remain relatively high, any review of our payment history will disclose that we have labored mightily to manage our accounts so as to maintain our exceptional credit history. We do not miss payments. Further, what adds to the egregiousness of the Bank 's conduct is that it possessed notice that the paper statement was returned as undeliverable before it submitted the negative credit information complained of. Despite that notice of non-deliverability, the bank 's only action was to submit a likely computerized notice of non-payment without any other attempt to notify the customer of this unique circumstance. 

The Bank 's correspondence in this matter bears out this last point. With the exception of a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX asking for information, to which I responded on XX/XX/XXXX, each of the Bank 's communications appear to be form letters sent without intelligent review. Each of the bank 's letters is available for review. The fourth letter is the most disturbing. It was dated XX/XX/XXXX, just four days after XX/XX/XXXX, and received on XX/XX/XXXX in the middle of the preparation of my written response. As was the case with the Bank 's other letters, the latest letter did not include any explanation as to its basis, only that the Bank was unable to complete my request. Once again, as directed, I called the number provided in the letter for an explanation as to its reasoning. The person to whom I spoke could not identify any basis for the letter, other than the letter itself. She did suggest that I complete my response to the XX/XX/XXXX letter, so that it may produce a complete and accurate record of my complaint. This Complaint emulates my written response to the Bank 's letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

Finally, I did previously indicate that I would wait until XX/XX/XXXX before taking further action. However, I discovered this morning that the FICO score application utilized by the Bank indicated that my FICO score han fallen by XXXX points without any transaction basis. In fact, each of the credit scoring agencies, XXXX, XXXX and TransUnion utilized by the Bank, show only the negative comment by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Therefore, I have determined that this Complaint should not wait any longer. I will, of course, provide any additional information that you require to adjudicate this Complaint.

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