Consumer complaint received 2021-12-18
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)

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received the results of a dispute I'd filed around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The results of the dispute stated the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, had verified the information they supplied to XXXX for a student loan were accurate. 

Included in the results was a payment history for the last two ( 2 ) years. For the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the data supplied to XXXX lists expected payment amounts of seventy-two ( XXXX ) dollars and records that no payments were received for either month. The dataset shows that no payments were due for the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX and that a payment was due for the months thereafter. 

Now, the date for which the first payment was allegedly due AFTER XX/XX/XXXX corresponds to the end of an in-school forbearance. The month for which student loan reapayments began is listed as XX/XX/XXXX. However, a letter from XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX states the student loans were in forbearance until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A letter from early in that yearXXXX XX/XX/XXXX lists the end-date for the in-school forbearance as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A first statement is then generated on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a current due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

For each subsequent statement, CFPB interpretation of Regulation Z requires the statement date to be the same date each month with no more than a four ( 4 ) variation from the date established per the first bill. Moreover, the minimum duration between the statement date is to be no less than twenty-one ( XXXX ) days under 12 CFR 1026.2 " Definitions and Rules. '' XXXX XXXX acknowledges this in some facet in a letter from research and remediation associate XXXX XXXX : " Please note that our office is only required to provide you at least a XXXX grace period between the statement notice and the due date of your monthly payment installments. '' The date of this letter is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In direct contrast to this knowledge, the duration of statement dates from time of repayment transfer to new loan servicer and/or charge-off was consistently less than XXXX ( XXXX ) days. Thus, XXXX XXXX consistently violated its own " policies '' and was habitually non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2. Moreover, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly made dubious claims of payment being required during priods for which a statement was NOT generated. This directly contradicts the terms of the MPN which requires staements to be provided even during periods of forbearance and/or deferment, which encompasses in-school forbearances, in-school deferments, disaster forbearances, etc. 

Any month in which XXXX XXXX furnished payment history data that is/was non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2, is non-reportable by a CRA and can not be included in a consumer file because it compels the CRA to report consumer history that violates my protections under 12 CFR Part 1026. As consequence the CRA would then be reporting data that is patently inaccurate resulting in CRA violations of the FCRA as amended and enforced under 12 CFR 1022, at minimum. Yet, XXXX continues to include this patently inaccurate data in my credit file, even when portions of that dataset for the same account/tradeline contradict other portions of the dataset for the same account/tradeline. Contradictory information is patently inaccurate and non-reportable by a CRA. Moreover, if supplied in whole ( or part ) as contradictory from a data-furnisher, it is patently unverifiable -- the data is patently false, thus violating 12 CFR Part 1022. 

Any payment history that results from inaccurate data is to be removed because that data is inaccurate and/or unverifiable. Documentation supplied by the consumer in a consumer complaint that demonstrates the data is inaccuarate, becuase it contradicts other pieces of data on which a data-furnisher 's assertion is made, necessitates removal without the consent of the data furnisher because it is patently inaccurate and continues to harm a consumer during a CRA " investigation ''. The threshold for such instances is supplying the CRAs with information generated by the data-furnisher, that directly contradicts the information the CRA has on-file per the account/tradeline of the data-furnisher. Typically data that refutes the data within a consumer file is provided as a statement on the data-furnisher 's letterhead. 

In examining the payment history data table supplied by XXXX itself there are a serious number of inaccuracies for which XXXX can not reasonably construe as " accurate '' given the documentation that I have supplied, documentation supplied, on the data-furnisher 's letterhead, that directly refutes other pieces of data within the data-set for the XXXX accounts/tradelines for the same periods. Additionally XXXX knows the data supplied by XXXX is inaccurate and unverifiable because they removed some of the offending data between reports generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Evidence of the rroneous data still propagating past XXXX XX/XX/XXXX include months showing payment history charge-off status codes, such as ( L ) or ( CO ), that can not possibly exist becuase XXXX has clearly registered " no data available '' in the corresponding history table. Alleged CO status periods are boxed by CO monthsfor which the CO status has corresponding " no data available ''. Conseuquentially the CO status indicators for months in-between ( and inclusive of ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are unverifiable because they have no identified action in the dataset that would warrant a CO action. Months for which accounts were in an in-school forbearance, acknowledged by XXXX XXXX as such in multiple letters, are recorded as having scheduled payment amounts while other months encompassing the same forbearance/deferment period show no scheduled payment amounts. One such case is the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, for which it has already been stated and corroborated by XXXX XXXX that the account was in an in-school forbearance status, but reflect in the XXXX dataset as a payment scheduled and owing, while periods XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX show none. Other examples include dates for which XXXX records show payments were made, most of which were in excess of the scheduled payment, but show zero ( 0 ) decrease or increase in balance : the balance for a subsequent month remains identical to that of the previous month. Finally newer months in the XXXX history have corresponding last payment dates that are older than that of prior months. For example the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, while the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a ldate of last payment of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Both of these stand in stark contast to XX/XX/XXXX that shows a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

At best the dataset housed by the CRAs for the XXXX accounts is incohate. Be it due to nascency or flat-out incoherence, the data can not possibly meet the reprting requirements under the FCRA as implemented in 12 CFR Part 1022.

I have filed nearly one-hundred ( 100 ) complaints with the CFPB regarding these issues, many of which have been transmitted to both the CRAs AND XXXX XXXX, thus satisfying my responsibilities to ensure factual accuracy of my credit files as permitted under the FCRA. Because many of these CFPB complaints have also been transmitted ( in writing ) to the data furnisher, I have also submitted 623 complaints directly to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX has received the documentation I've supplied to the CRA disputes, AND the CFPB complaints, yet has furnished the same erroneous data to the CRAs and susbsequently, or even simultaneously, submitted responses to the CFPB complaints that contradict, and in some cases directly refute, the information supplied in the dataset to the CRA. Therefore, XXXX XXXX knows, OR SHOULD KNOW there is a serious problem with their records and likely have refused to admit the failures for fear of consequences akin to those outlined in prior XXXX XXXX consent agreements they've previously enterd into with the CFPB for poor lending practics, poor billing practices, and non-compliance as a data furnisher when reporting consumer account statuses to the CRAs. Thus, despite receiving numerous XXXX  disputes, and FCRA disputes, XXXX XXXX has chosen not to fulfill its responsibilities as a data-furnisher under 12 CFR 1022.20 - 1022.43 " Duties of Furnishers of Information ''. 

Likewise, the CRAs have received my complaints and the obviously erroneous/inaccurate/unverifiable data is perpetuated due to the CRA reliance upon the data furnisher instead of independent review of consumer dipsute narrative and accompanying documentation. Thus, it would the CRAs continue to perpetuate patently inaccurate data within my credit file that harms me as a consumer with current and potential lenders for products ranging from education financing, automobile financing, housing, etc. The fact is, data generated by a data furnisher that is non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026 in general is not reportable as a part of a consumer file. Yet, the CRAs, in this case XXXX, continue to use the blanketed statement " the information was being reported as accurate '' becuase the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX, had verified its accuarcy. This clearly indicates XXXX has repeatedly failed in its responsibilities under FCRA to conuduct an investigation and repeatedly abridged my rights of due process under the FCRA by simply processing disputes, translating them into an eOSCAR code ( not necessarily reflecting the correct reason for the dispute ). The CRAs, here XXXX, has then submitted the dispute to the data-furnisher, to leave it to the data-furnisher ( or its computer system ) to verify the accuracy of the data. The woeful ignorance of the CRAs in even refusing to conduct a cursory examination of the documentation, or to take steps when the data-furnisher 's own statements contradict the information supplied by the data-furnisher, indicates the CRAs, in this case XXXX, knows OR SHOULD KNOW there is inaccurate information, and has thus knowingly and of their own volition chosen to abdicate their responsibilities as outlined in 12 CFR Part 1022 pursuant to the FCRA as amended. 

Precedent at the Federal level indicates that I have cause to file legitimate claims within Federal courts to obtain relief, for which I am allowed to seek damages from XXXX AND the CRAs for their roles, in what coloquially would be referred to as a s-show, in what constitues a willful abdication of responsibility, integrity, and adherence to law. I am therefore demanding the CRAs, here XXXX, remove the accounts/tradelines for both XXXX student loan accounts.