On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent notarized, certified letter to TransUnion requesting a copy of the information they relied upon per the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( a ) ),  and are required tp have on file for the following account listed on my credit report : California Fed Court XXXX XXXX, Account # XXXX The letter was received by TransUnion on XX/XX/XXXX ( see Exhibits # 1A-1C ).

On XX/XX/XXXX, instead of receiving the information requested, I received detailed investigation results for File # XXXX verifying the account as accurate ( see exhibits # 1D - # 1G ). 
XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a notarized, certified letter to TransUnion a Method of Verification Request for the above stated account. I outlined detailed specifics in the request to understand their process of verifying the account listed on my credit report as required by the FCRA. The letter was received and signed for on XX/XX/XXXX. ( see exhibits # 3A - # 3D ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter advising TransUnion was providing a copy of my credit report as something did not seem right to you. I never requested this information ( see exhibits # 2A - # 2D ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Transunion. The first half of the letter was titled Re : Investigation Procedure. In the letter, they suggest I contact the original creditor directly with any questions I had regarding the validity of the account. The second part of the letter titled Re : Dispute Status suggested they were unable to determine the nature of the request or the request was illegible. If you read the original request I sent to TransUnion and accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, I clear and succinct in what I was requesting ( see exhibits # 1A - # 1C ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a Second Method of Verification request, as TransUnion employed a deny and delay tactic after receiving the first request. The second MOV was also notarized and sent certified mail. TransUnion received the second request on ( see exhibits # 4A - # 4E ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received correspondence from TransUnion providing definitions for public records and another confirmation the account in question was verified as accurate. See exhibits ( # 5A 5E ). This response is TransUnions second violation of the FCRA. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a final request and a notice of my intent to sure, as TransUnion to date had not filled their obligation to provide a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information reported by the bureau, ( per section 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) of the FCRA ). The letter was sent certified mail and was accepted by Transunion on XX/XX/XXXX ( USPS Tracking XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received correspondence from TransUnion advising I needed to contact the creditor directly with any questions regarding the results of the recent investigation ( see exhibits # 7A - # 7B ) Also on XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion sent correspondence stating my proof of address was unacceptable for reasons # 2 and 4. Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have provided the same information and now the information was unacceptable? Again, another deny and delay tactic as they confinue to ignore my request and violate the tenets of the FCRA. 
On XX/XX/XXXX. TransUnion sends investigation results although two days prior it was deemed my proof of address was unacceptable. If that was the case, why did I receive a notice confirming the validation of the account in question? ( see exhibits # 9A # 9F ).