Consumer complaint received 2025-12-29 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns TransUnions failure to ensure accurate credit reporting and to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation regarding information that TransUnion is publishing on my consumer report under the name XXXX XXXX. According to TransUnions own dispute results dated XX/XX/XXXX, File Identification Number XXXX, TransUnion states that disputed information updated and other information updated and acknowledges making changes to specific fields, including Date Updated, Original Charge-Off, Maximum Delinquency, and Historical Trended Data. Despite these admitted updates, the information continues to be presented as charged off on a recurring monthly basis through at least XX/XX/XXXX. 

The information presented reflects that the account was closed in or around XX/XX/XXXX. A charge-off is a single historical accounting event and can not lawfully recur on a monthly basis after an account has been closed. No new activity, payment obligation, or post-closure event is reflected that would justify recurring monthly adverse reporting after XX/XX/XXXX. Reporting the information in this manner creates the false appearance of ongoing delinquency and materially misrepresents the status of the information being reported. 

I am not admitting ownership of, responsibility for, or liability for this account. I am acknowledging only what TransUnion is currently presenting on my consumer report and disputing the accuracy, completeness, and manner in which this information is being reported. 

I disputed this reporting with TransUnion. TransUnions response confirms that it altered certain background data fields but failed to correct the core inaccuracy. The information continues to appear as newly charged off each month. Updating peripheral or cosmetic data elements while allowing the primary misrepresentation to persist does not satisfy TransUnions statutory obligations and does not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation. 

The inaccuracy is apparent from the face of TransUnions own report, which simultaneously reflects a closed status in XXXX while presenting a newly charged-off status on a recurring monthly basis for more than five years. This internal inconsistency exists independent of any furnisher response and should have been identified and corrected through reasonable procedures. 

This reporting is particularly harmful because third parties who rely on consumer reports use monthly status indicators to assess current credit risk. When TransUnion reports a charge-off on a recurring monthly basis for information associated with a closed account, lenders, insurers, landlords, and employers may reasonably interpret this as ongoing nonpayment rather than a single historical event. This falsely signals continued delinquency and elevated risk where no new activity is occurring. 

The manner in which this information is reported also adversely affects automated credit scoring systems that rely on monthly account status and delinquency indicators. When an account is presented as charged off on a recurring basis, automated scoring systems reasonably interpret this as continuing serious delinquency rather than a one-time historical event. This results in repeated negative weighting during each reporting cycle, compounding the harm over time and materially increasing perceived credit risk for users who rely on automated scores. 

By continuing to publish this information in its current form after notice of dispute, TransUnion is disseminating information that is inaccurate and misleading to users of consumer reports. This practice effectively re-ages the account and unlawfully prolongs the negative impact of a single historical event. Such reporting fails to meet TransUnions obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).

TransUnion also failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ). A reasonable reinvestigation requires more than accepting or repeating furnisher data when the reporting is internally inconsistent or facially inaccurate. Information can not accurately reflect a closed status in XXXX while simultaneously presenting a new charge-off every month for more than XXXX years. Allowing this reporting to continue after dispute demonstrates an unreasonable reinvestigation and continued dissemination of inaccurate information. 

TransUnion has not disclosed the method of verification used to conclude that this information is accurate. I am requesting identification of the specific procedures, data sources, and steps relied upon in this reinvestigation, as contemplated by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ). 

Any verification of this information must be based on competent and reliable documentation sufficient to establish the accuracy of the reporting. Such documentation would include, at a minimum, records demonstrating the actual date of charge-off, confirmation that the charge-off occurred as a single historical event, and documentation showing that no post-closure activity exists that would justify recurring monthly adverse reporting after XX/XX/XXXX. Merely restating previously furnished data, relying on automated confirmations, or repeating information that is internally inconsistent does not constitute verification capable of withstanding regulatory or judicial scrutiny. 

TransUnions continued publication of this information after notice of dispute increases the risk of harm and demonstrates continued dissemination of information that is known, or should be known, to be inaccurate. 

This conduct further violates Washington law. Under RCW 19.182.020 and RCW 19.182.060, consumer reporting agencies must ensure that consumer report information is accurate, complete, and not misleading. Reporting a single historical charge-off as a recurring monthly event misrepresents the nature, status, and credit significance of the information being reported. Continued publication of this information after notice of dispute constitutes negligent or willful noncompliance with these statutory obligations. 

I am requesting that TransUnion immediately delete this tradeline or fully correct it so that it reflects, at most, a single historical charge-off with no ongoing monthly delinquency reporting. If TransUnion can not verify the accuracy of this information in compliance with federal and Washington law, it must be removed from my consumer report. 

This complaint is submitted in good faith for the sole purpose of ensuring accurate credit reporting. It does not acknowledge ownership of, responsibility for, or liability for any alleged account or debt, and no rights are waived by submitting this complaint.

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