On XXXX XXXX 2017 I sent a notarized letter to TRANSUNION disputing several items ; it was received by TRANSUNION on XXXX XXXX 2017. In this correspondence I attached a police report for several education loans that are being reported on my credit file. I was very specific in my correspondence that this police report was for those specific items which would include XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX ; the police report was n't for every item I disputed in my correspondence. The police report was only for these specific items ( XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX/XXXX ) as stated in my correspondence dated XXXX XXXX 2017. TRANSUNION must not have had a living human being read the letter and may have just scanned my letter, because they sent a reply I received on XXXX XXXX 2017 stating that they will not be honoring my police report. I contacted TRANSUNION the same day on XXXX XXXX 2017 and spoke with XXXX in the Special Handling department. I inquired as to the reason why my police report is not being honored ; the reply was I ca n't give you that specific information. I advised XXXX that TRANSUNION mistakenly interpreted police report and applied the police report to all of the items I disputed instead of just the items mentioned in the police report which are the education loans listed on my credit file i.e XXXX, XXXX  AND XXXX/XXXX. If TRANSUNION actually had someone read my correspondence this would have been clear. So it appears that TRANSUNION has now sent the police report to all of the companies of the items I disputed, which is an error on the part of TRANSUNION, not an error of mine. According to FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ), 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. TRANSUNION has failed to follow this. Also, in regards to the items I have disputed that were not included in the police report need to be properly and lawfully verified, which I have requested from TRANSUNION several times, with no compliance on the part of TRANSUNION. I have requested their method of verification and TRANSUNION has not complied and has admitted through their agents XXXX in the Special Handling department and XXXX in the Special Handling department and others that the verification process is automated and electronic codes are sent between the credit bureau and alleged creditors and/or data furnishers, which is not properly or lawfully verifying any accounts/items. The definition of verify in a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is stated and defined as the following : To confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit ; to show to be true. Particularly used of making formal oath to accounts, petitions, pleadings, and other papers. The word " verified '' when used in statute, ordinarily imports a verity attested by the sanctity of an oath. It is used interchangeably with sworn. To prove to be true ; to confirm or establish the truth or truthfulness of ; to check or test the accuracy or exactness of ; to confirm or establish the authenticity of ; to authenticate ; to maintain ; to affirm ; to support ; second ; back as a friend. XXXX v. XXXX, 194 Ga. 802, 22 S.E2d 653, 654 TRANSUNION is admittedly not verifying items/accounts  according to this definition from a law dictionary. For an item to be properly, legally and lawfully verified ; the alleged creditor/data furnisher must " confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit ''. This does not occur by sending electronic codes between the credit bureau and alleged creditor/data furnisher.