Consumer complaint received 2025-12-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
TransUnion is in continued violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 reporting standards. I submitted formal disputes requesting lawful verification of multiple negative accounts being reported on my credit file. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), TransUnion is required to conduct a reasonable investigation, and under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) they are required to provide the method of verification, including the name and contact information of the furnisher, how the verification was performed, and what documentation was reviewed. 
Instead of complying, TransUnion issued a generic stall response claiming they contacted the furnisher without providing any of the legally required verification details or documentation. Simply contacting a furnisher and accepting their word DOES NOT meet the legal definition of verification under the FCRA and has been ruled repeatedly insufficient by federal courts. TransUnion failed to provide any supporting evidence such as original signed contracts, itemized payment history, chain of assignment, proof of my liability, or any documentation required by Metro 2 compliance standards to validate the reporting of these accounts. 
Additionally, TransUnion mishandled my fraud dispute under FCRA 605B by failing to properly block fraudulent accounts within the mandatory four ( 4 ) business-day period. Instead, they improperly reinvestigated the accounts rather than blocking them as required by law and then claimed that my submitted documentation was unacceptable without identifying any actual deficiencies or providing legally required notice specifying what was missing or how to cure the alleged defects. 
TransUnions conduct constitutes multiple federal compliance violations including, but not limited to : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide the method of verification FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) Reinvestigating fraud claims instead of blocking them FCRA 605B Reporting unverified data that lacks documentary substantiation in violation of FCRA accuracy requirements FCRA 623 ( a ) Violations of Metro 2 reporting standards, including failure to verify : Ownership and assignment of debt Accurate dates of delinquency Itemized balances Original contracts or consumer signatures Chain-of-custody documentation Legal authority of furnishers to collect or report Despite these failures, TransUnion improperly marked my original CFPB complaint Closed with non-monetary relief even though verification was never provided, fraud blocking was not performed, and disputed accounts remain inaccurately reported. This falsely represents compliance to a federal regulatory agency and constitutes bad-faith handling of a consumer complaint. 
The deletion of one account ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and removal of an inquiry confirm that the investigation process itself was flawed and that previously reported information was inaccurate, further proving that reasonable investigation and lawful verification were not conducted properly across all disputed items.

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