Consumer complaint received 05/21/2017 about Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports (Credit reporting) with TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC. (WA).
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account information incorrect

Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX has filed a false debt collection against me, which has appeared on my credit reports. The facts are : On X/XX/2017, I applied for a lease at XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Washington. I gave them check number XXXX in the amount of {$190.00}. That same day, they were also given check number XXXX in the amount of {$40.00}, to replace check number XXXX, per our agreement. The agreement had been : I gave the initial check ( number XXXX ) for {$190.00}, and if I was not approved for the lease, my check would be returned to me and I would give them a new check in the amount of {$40.00}, to cover the application fee, and that my previous check would be returned to me. Then later that same day, I was contacted by the female employee at XXXX XXXX XXXX, and informed that I had not been approved for the lease. I informed the employee that I would be up before days end to give her a new check, in the amount of {$40.00}, and retrieve my other check, per our spoken agreement earlier that day. The employee informed me that she could just cash the check I had already given her, and that I would eventually be reimbursed by check, for the difference of {$150.00} that I 'd be owed, however I politely informed her that that was not acceptable to me and that per our previous agreement, I would return within a few hours, before end of business day to give her a new check and take back the previous check. The employee stated that she would prefer to just cash the first check I had given her and reimburse me the difference some weeks later, however I was again, very clear in informing her that She did not have my permission to do so, and that I would be there by close of business to collect check number XXXX that I had previously given her, and would give her a new check, check number XXXX in the amount of {$40.00} to cover only the monies owed. I tried to arrange a mutually satisfactory time to meet with her and do the check exchange,  however the employee disconnected the phone on me rather than answer. Later that same day, I returned to XXXX XXXX but the office was locked, even though it was still business hours. I left check number XXXX in the amount of {$40.00} in the apartment dropbox, including a note asking the employee to please mail me back check XXXX, in the amount of {$190.00}. I called the apartment again later that same day, and spoke to the same employee to verify she had received my check and my note. Unfortunately, she was argumentative. She responded to my questions, by stating that she was busy and had already cashed the first check that I had given her, in complete disregard of our agreement.
She would not acknowledge or verify the second check I had left for her in the amount of {$40.00}. She again claimed the first check had already been cashed. I asked to speak to a manager, or someone who could take responsibility but the call was then disconnected. Naturally I was suspicious at this point, and rather than go back up to the apartment complex and deal with the employee who seemed to lack integrity I called my bank and explain the situation to them. They advised that they would put a stop payment on the first check, check XXXX, however The bank stated that if it had already been cashed, or even been deposited online already, as the employee stated ( which was her apparent reason for refusing to return my check to me XXXX then the stop payment would not be able to go through. The stop payment could only go through if the first check had not been deposited yet, which would obviously contradict what I was told by the employee, and would mean the employee was still in possession of both checks, and had been lying to me when she stated she could not return my check because it had already been cashed. The fact that a stop payment ever went through on check number XXXX, means the employee at XXXX XXXX had not cashed the check already and she had lied and intentionally deceived me, and has now committed slander and libel on top of that.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation