Consumer complaint received 2016-01-25
Product: Credit reporting — 
Issue: Credit reporting company's investigation — Problem with statement of dispute
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC. (NC)

On three separate occasions, the dates being XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I disputed the following accounts with Transunion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I informed Transunion that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681g I have the right to demand that they disclose to me all of the documents they have recorded and retained in their file at the time of these requests concerning the accounts that they are reporting in my credit report and requested copies of the documents they used to verify the accuracy of the disputed accounts. 

I informed Transunion that if they do not have any documentation in their files that verify the accuracy of these disputed accounts that under Section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( i ) they are required to delete them immediately. I also referenced FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681i, which states that all unverified accounts must be promptly deleted. 

Transunion responded by stating that the data furnisher verified that the disputed information was accurate as reported. I then disputed these accounts directly with XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, which claims to service these accounts for XXXX XXXX, responded but failed to provide the validation I requested pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ). I sent a follow up dispute on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

Resurgent Capital Services, in a response dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX to CFPB Case # XXXX, stated : " Resurgent did not provide validation of debt in response to your XXXX XXXX, XXXX request for accounts ending in XXXX and XXXX due to the fact that your letter requested that we cease contact with you. Accordingly, these accounts were placed in a cease status, which resulted in no further contact, written or otherwise, from XXXX ''. My letters to XXXX ( XXXX ) stated : " Please limit all future communication with me to writing only ''. 

In a response dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX to CFPB XXXX # XXXX, XXXX admitted that they could not validate XXXX of the debts when they stated : " XXXX is in receipt of additional supporting documentation for XXXX accounts referenced in your dispute. '' This proves they did not have the validation when it was requested, which also proves that Transunion failed to properly investigate these accounts when I originally disputed them. 

Since XXXX XXXX could not validate the accounts, Transunion could not have conducted a reasonable reinvestigation to verify the accuracy of the disputed information. The FCRA clearly states that a credit reporting agency must " verify '' that these items are being " reported correctly ''. I asked for proof of verification but Transunion relied solely on hearsay information from the information source and shifted the burden back to me to contact the original creditor to verify these accounts, which is clearly in violation of 1681 ( a ) ( 4 ). 

XXXX v. Trans Union Corp., XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) states that the FCRA requires a credit reporting agency to go beyond its original sources of credit information when reinvestigating inaccuracies in a credit report after the consumer informs the agency of those inaccuracies. Transunion did not do this. Since the CFPB is the enforcement arm of the FCRA and FDCPA, I request you investigate this matter and compel Transunion to obey the law.