Consumer complaint received 2023-07-07
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC. (MI)

I filed CFPB complaint XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with Transunion regarding an account/tradeline with XXXX XXXX. The complaint itself highlighted the lack of reasonable investigation in response to CFPB complaint XXXX filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Transunion was provided with over 200 pages of documentation in the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX complaint, and additional documentation in the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX showing how the invalid/inaccurate information for the referenced account/tradeline was causing me harm. The only steps Transunion has taken to-date is to claim non-monetary relief provided with the description of relief an an update of information. However, as explained and thoroughly supported by the documentation provided, the information furnished by XXXX XXXX to Transunion was the result of Billing Errors that XXXX XXXX failed to correct after multiple attempts. For example, XXXX XXXX stopped generating statements in late XXXX, and failed to mail bills over the majority of that year. XXXX XXXX acknowledges being notified of the statement issue as early as XX/XX/XXXX, but failed to conduct any billing error investigations. Moreover, by XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX provided incorrect instructions to obtain account status information online, for which I filed at least one ( 1 ) additional billing error notice on or around XX/XX/XXXX. 

The extent of consumer law and banking law violations claimed is as follows : billing errors, trouble receiving statement of account, limited payment options, web payment portal issues and discrimination in XXXX XXXX lending and credit practices against at least two ( 2 ) protected classes, referencing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act/ECOA 12 CFR Part 1002 and Regulation B, and the Americans with Disabilities Act/ADA respectively ; Violations ofof 12 CFR Part 1006 FDCPA ( Regulation F ), 12 CFR Part 1022 FCRA ( Regulation V ), and 12 CFR Part 1026 TILA ( Reg. Z ) ; No investigation into the alleged billing error with the notification you placed with XXXX XXXX, here inferring XXXX XXXX actions to be unfair or deceptive -referencing CFPA 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) / 12 U.S.C . 5536 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( B ) and unlawful -referencing 12 CFR 1026.13 ; Not receiving accounts statements and thus unable to view or inspect my account ; Reporting of delinquency statuses on my account to the credit bureaus on a routine basis is damaging your credit-worthiness with other current or potential creditors ; and thus I have suffered injury as a result of XXXX XXXX unfair acts or practices ; my account placed for collection by XXXX XXXX after your complaint was filed with the CFPB within the sixty ( 60 ) day period allowed for billing error notices to be filed preceding the charge-off, making the delay in addressing my complaint against XXXX not valid ; purporting that such retaliation by XXXX XXXX is unlawful. 

While I was never notified of the results of the billing error investigations, It was only after XXXX XXXX collections agent returned the account in XX/XX/XXXX, that XXXX XXXX attempted to resolve billing error issues, yet charged-off the account BEFORE conducting the billing error investigations. XXXX XXXX chose instead to re-age my account on at least two ( 2 ) occasions over XXXX. However, those attempts resulted in re-aging of alleged debt that was brought current and then randomly reported as past-due months later, the last instance beginning at the end of XXXX and continuing to be advanced thirty ( 30 ) days late until reaching the 180 day threshold in XX/XX/XXXX. The effect has been a misrepresentation of payment history that implies a pattern in which the account was brought current and paid for a period of four ( 4 ) to six ( 6 ) months, followed by a period of one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) to one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days over which no payments have been made. Moreover, the status reported also leads potential creditors to believe the account is perpetually one-hundred eighty ( 180 ) days past-due but remains in a receivable status instead of being reported in a charge-off status. Federal banking laws require XXXX XXXX to charge-off the account not more than 180 days past-due. While XXXX XXXX insists the account was placed in a charge-off status on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX continues to report the account as a receivable that is alleged to be seriously past-due. The misrepresentation in that status alone has caused me to be refused rental housing, and the sum of the inaccurate/unverifiable/misleading reporting continues to impact my ability to obtain suitable housing and gain access to credit. The precedent established within my Federal district makes clear that reporting of false/misleading information violates 15 U.S. Code 1681e. In this context, the information reported need not even be " false '' but may equally be " correct '' information that gives a materially misleading impression ( see : Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr , Inc. , 954 F.3d 938, 943 ( 6th Cir. 2020 ) ). At this point Transunion knows, or should know, the information furnished by XXXX XXXX is false and/or misleading, and that the subsequent reporting of such false/misleading information causes me harm or is likely to cause me harm as a consumer. Transunion has received multiple CFPB complaints regarding their persistence of this information and have been asked to remove it. Yet, as described in the opening paragraph of this complaint, Transunion has neither conducted a reasonable investigation, nor taken action to remove the derogatory information, even when the information furnished by XXXX XXXX has been contradicted by XXXX own statements those statements, having been included as a part of my previous complaints to Transunion.