Consumer complaint received 2025-11-13 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
In reviewing my recent credit reports from the national consumer reporting agencies, I discovered multiple accounts reported inaccurately, inconsistently, and without proper validation or substantiation. I am filing this complaint because the credit bureaus and furnishers involved appear to have failed to comply with the accuracy, reinvestigation, and documentation requirements set forth under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite attempts to request validation and clarification, I have not received original documentation proving the accuracy or legitimacy of the disputed accounts. This situation continues to cause significant harm to my creditworthiness, access to financial services, and overall consumer reputation. 

Background Summary The disputed accounts include a combination of revolving credit, installment loans, and collection accounts that appear across one or more of the major bureaus. The items in question contain errors regarding reporting status, delinquency history, balance, and ownership, and in some cases, they appear only on one bureauraising concerns about inconsistent data transmission or unverified furnishing practices. Additionally, several accounts show contradictory statuses such as paid yet also marked as derogatory or collection/charge-off, which is contradictory under FCRA 602As requirement of maximum possible accuracy.

The following accounts are specifically in dispute due to questionable validation or inconsistent reporting : A collection/charge-off entry reported under the furnisher name XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$360.00}. 

A derogatory tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX, closed XX/XX/XXXX, showing a balance of {$8300.00} on TransUnion only. 

A collection item reported by XXXX XXXX, with a past-due balance of {$2200.00}, appearing only on TransUnion. 

A closed XXXX XXXX revolving account that was fully paid yet continues to show 30- and 60-day late payments despite evidence of resolution. 

A closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, reported as Paid but with prior delinquencies inconsistent with payment history. 

A XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account closed in XXXX that continues to show a 30-day late marker well beyond the seven-year reporting period allowed by law. 

Chronological Summary of What Happened Over the past several months, I noticed derogatory reporting patterns affecting my credit file. I began by pulling updated credit reports from Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to compare entries. Upon review, I found multiple inconsistencies between the three bureaus regarding the same accountsdifferences in status, balance, and date of last activity. Some accounts appear only on one bureau, suggesting that data was never validated or uniformly transmitted. This disparity demonstrates a breakdown in accuracy procedures required by FCRA 607 ( B ), which obligates consumer reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of data in each file. 

I then filed formal written disputes with the credit bureaus, identifying each questionable account and requesting documentation to validate the information. Specifically, I asked for : The method of verification used to confirm accuracy. 

The original contracts or legal instruments authorizing the reporting. 

The data sources, system timestamps, and investigation notes supporting verification. 

Confirmation of whether each verification was conducted through e-Oscar, manual review, or third-party submission. 

Copies of communications between the bureau and the furnisher regarding my disputes. 

Despite those specific requests, I received only generic confirmation letters stating that the items were verified or remain. No detailed evidence, signed agreements, or verifiable audit trails were provided. This violates the intent of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which requires the bureau to disclose the method of verification when requested by a consumer after a reinvestigation. Without such transparency, there is no assurance that any true investigation occurred.

Impact of the Failures to Investigate and Verify The continuing publication of unverified or inconsistent data has negatively impacted my credit profile and creditworthiness. These inaccuracies affect my ability to qualify for favorable loan terms, access housing or auto financing, and maintain fair insurance rates. The damage is both reputational and financial. Moreover, by failing to provide documentation showing chain of custody, assignment, and ownership for debt-purchased accounts, the furnishers appear to be reporting without legal authority or validation, violating FDCPA 809 ( b ) and 807 ( 8 ), which prohibit communication of unverified or false credit information.

Detailed Account Analysis 1. XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item appears only on TransUnion and not on Experian or Equifax. The account is listed as a collection with a past-due balance of {$360.00} and a status of derogatory. There is no clear indication of the original creditor, and the absence of parallel reporting across bureaus indicates lack of validation. This may constitute reporting without verified documentation, violating FCRA 607 ( B ). Furthermore, the failure to provide evidence of a consumer contract or proof of assignment suggests possible data furnishing without permissible purpose. 

2. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) This item is labeled Derogatory with a balance of {$8300.00}. It appears only on TransUnion, not on Experian or Equifax. The reporting of an account on a single bureau more than six years after closure raises serious compliance concerns. The Fair Credit Reporting Act limits the reporting of negative information to seven years from the original delinquency date ( FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) ). Given the closure date, this entry may soon exceed the legal reporting period. The bureau has not supplied any proof that it verified this account through manual review or obtained any original contract from the creditor. 

3. XXXX XXXX ( Collection/Charge-off, Past Due {$2200.00} ) XXXX XXXX is a well-known debt buyer rather than an original creditor. Debt buyers are required under FDCPA 809 ( b ) to validate ownership and the full chain of assignment before collecting or furnishing data. The bureau has not produced any purchase agreement, assignment documentation, or chain-of-custody evidence showing that XXXX XXXX legally owns or controls the debt. Continued reporting of such unverifiable data constitutes deceptive practice under 807 ( 8 ) ( communicating credit information which is known or should be known to be false ). 

4. XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid, Late History Reported ) This account shows as paid yet reflects multiple late payments ( 30-day 2, 60-day 1 ). Such inconsistencies misrepresent the consumers payment behavior. No documentation proving that these late entries are accurate has been provided. If the bureau relies solely on automated furnisher responses through e-Oscar, that does not qualify as a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ). The continued presence of those delinquencies, despite the account being fully satisfied, creates a misleading and punitive record. 

5. XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Paid ) This account shows a XXXX balance but retains delinquency notations inconsistent with final payment records. It should either reflect paid as agreed or be removed altogether if no documentation can substantiate the late payments. This inconsistency may misrepresent repayment behavior and violates the principle of maximum accuracy under 607 ( B ). 

6. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) The reporting of a XXXX0-day late mark from XXXX appears to exceed the allowable reporting duration if based on a delinquency prior to that date. The bureaus have not produced the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), which is critical for compliance with FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ). If the DOFD precedes XXXX, this account should have already aged off the file. 

Discrepancies Between Bureaus The most alarming issue is the inconsistency of these accounts between bureaus. Some appear only on TransUnion, others on Experian or Equifax. The presence of certain accounts on one report but not another suggests unvalidated data exchange, incomplete communication, or improper furnishing under FCRA 623 ( a ). Bureaus are obligated to ensure that data supplied by furnishers is uniform, accurate, and reflective of verified records. These inconsistencies create a materially misleading representation of my credit history. 

Failure to Provide a Reasonable Reinvestigation The credit bureaus responses to prior disputes consisted of brief statements indicating that the accounts were verified or updated. None included documentation of the verification process, identity of the furnisher representative, or audit logs demonstrating that human review took place. This approach relies heavily on automated e-Oscar codes, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously flagged as inadequate for full compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ). A proper reinvestigation requires actual evidence, not an electronic confirmation code.

Audit Trail and Data Source Transparency I have repeatedly requested an audit trail showing how the disputed data was obtained, transmitted, and verified. This includes user IDs, timestamps, and system logs indicating when furnishers reported updates. None of this information has been supplied. The absence of a documented trail impairs accountability and violates FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ), which grants consumers the right to all information in their files and the sources of that information. 

Pattern of Procedural Negligence The lack of validation, incomplete reinvestigation, and inconsistent data maintenance demonstrate a systemic problem in the bureaus compliance procedures. The bureaus appear to rely on furnishers data without adequate oversight or verification of original documentation. Such practices undermine the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in consumer reporting. Each of these failures compounds harm to the consumer and perpetuates false narratives about creditworthiness.

Violations and Legal Provisions Implicated FCRA 602 ( A ) Failure to maintain fair and accurate reporting.

FCRA 607 ( B ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.

FCRA 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to disclose method of verification.

FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure of furnishers to report disputed information as disputed.

FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) Reporting negative information beyond the seven-year limit.

FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Communicating credit information known or should be known to be false.

FDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to validate debt prior to continued reporting.

Consumer Harm and Emotional Distress Due to these inaccuracies, I have faced credit denials, higher interest rates, and emotional distress caused by repeated rejections and fear of being viewed as a high-risk borrower. The persistence of these derogatory entries undermines the integrity of my financial profile and violates the trust consumers are entitled to under federal consumer protection laws. Repeated attempts to resolve the issue directly with the bureaus have proven futile due to generic automated responses and lack of transparency. 

Requested Resolution I am seeking the following corrective actions : A full, manual reinvestigation of each disputed account, conducted in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ), including contact with furnishers to obtain original documentation.

Written disclosure of the method of verification used for each account, including data sources, audit logs, and communications with furnishers.

Immediate removal or suppression of any account that can not be validated with original signed contracts or proof of ownership.

Written confirmation that the bureaus have notified all furnishers of the disputes and that unverifiable data will not be reinserted unless certified under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).

Updated copies of my credit reports reflecting all deletions or corrections within five business days of resolution.

Assurance that any account determined unverifiable will be deleted permanently and not re
-reported without certified validation.

Broader Implications and Need for Oversight This case reflects a broader issue within the credit reporting system, where consumers disputes are frequently handled through automated codes without genuine examination of original evidence. Such procedural shortcuts create systemic inaccuracy, leaving consumers with long-lasting harm. The FCRA and FDCPA were enacted precisely to prevent such negligence, yet their enforcement depends on oversight from agencies such as the CFPB.

By submitting this complaint, I am requesting CFPBs intervention to ensure compliance by both the credit bureaus and the data furnishers. I also request that the CFPB require the involved entities to supply proof that their reinvestigation procedures meet the legal standard of reasonableness and that they retain documentation for each verification claim.

Conclusion In summary, the disputed credit entries are unsupported by verified documentation and exhibit multiple compliance deficiencies under the FCRA and FDCPA. The bureaus reliance on automated verification and their failure to disclose evidence of validation constitute a breach of their statutory duties. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with the bureaus through written correspondence and have provided supporting documentation highlighting discrepancies. Nonetheless, these accounts remain on my credit reports without proper validation, causing ongoing financial and reputational harm. 

I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this complaint, compel the credit bureaus and furnishers to produce full validation documentation, and enforce appropriate corrective action to ensure compliance with all applicable sections of the FCRA and FDCPA. My ultimate goal is fair and accurate reporting based on verified facts, not assumptions or automated data transfers. I am seeking accountability, transparency, and full adherence to the laws designed to protect consumers like me.

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 non-monetary relief