Consumer complaint received 2025-07-11 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: MI

Complaint narrative:
This complaint challenges the investigation and credit reporting of my XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  credit card account ( ending in XXXX ), as reflected on my TransUnion credit file. I am not disputing that I made payments on the account, but I am challenging the false and contradictory treatment of the charge-off, payment history, and final account status. Both XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion have furnished data that contradicts their own records and violates FCRA accuracy standards, consumer notification requirements, and Metro 2 formatting rules.

I have disputed the accuracy of this tradeline with TransUnion, and in its XX/XX/XXXX response, the bureau stated the account was verified as accurate and no changes were made. However, that outcome does not address several major factual inconsistencies outlined below each of which demonstrates the account is inaccurate and unverifiable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).

1. Charge-Off Reported on Same Day Billing Statement Was Issued TransUnion lists the charge-off date as XX/XX/XXXX. However, on that same day, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  sent me a billing statement notification showing the account was still active with a past due balance. 

Supporting Facts : The XX/XX/XXXX billing email from XXXX XXXX references a new statement available for review not closure or charge-off. 
There was no disclosure that the account had been written off or reported negatively. 

Why This is a contradiction A charge-off can not be valid if, on the same day, the creditor was still billing me as though the account were active. This creates a false credit event, with derogatory impact, despite no formal notice, closure, or suspension. 

2. No Charge-Off Notice Provided Prior to Full Payment I paid the entire past due balance of {$370.00} by phone on XX/XX/XXXX, directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The payment confirmation email I received makes no mention that I was paying a charged-off or closed account. 

Supporting Facts : Payment confirmation received from XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. 
No indication that I was paying a charged-off debt or that the account had been closed or transferred.

The payment was made based on ongoing account activity and statements, not in response to any collection action or write-off notice.

Why This is a contradiction TransUnions record states the account was charged off, yet the creditor accepted a full payment from me without any mention of charge-off status. This confirms I was paying on what I understood to be a past due account not a written-off or closed one.

3. Account Paid in Full but Reported as Charge-Off Without Clarification TransUnions tradeline states : Account paid in full ; was a charge-off. 

This status is misleading because it implies I knowingly paid off a charged-off account which is untrue. The full payment was made directly to XXXX XXXX before any charge-off disclosure, and I was not contacted by any third party. All communications from the creditor treated the account as internally serviced and active. 

Supporting Facts : XX/XX/XXXX payment email confirms standard phone payment. 
No language indicated charge-off or collection status. 
I received no closure or write-off notice before or after payment. 

Why This Matters : Consumers have the right to resolve a past due balance before a derogatory charge-off is reported. Applying a charge-off after full payment, without transparency, is deceptive and harmful. It falsely implies I failed to resolve the account in time. 

XXXX. Inconsistent Delinquency Reporting Invalid XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, states the account became delinquent in XX/XX/XXXX. 

However, TransUnions payment history ( as reflected in dispute results and prior reporting ) shows XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX as paid, with no indication of missed payment until later months. 

Supporting Facts : XXXX XXXX claims delinquency began in XX/XX/XXXX. 
TransUnions payment history contradicts this, showing no missed payment in XXXX. 

Why This Matters : The Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) is a critical component of accurate credit reporting it determines when the 7-year clock starts and when a charge-off can legally occur. A mismatch between the DOFD and account activity undermines the entire reporting structure, making it unverifiable. 

XXXX. TransUnions Reinvestigation Failed to Address Contradictions In its XX/XX/XXXX response, TransUnion stated : We have completed our investigation of the item ( s ) you disputed with the creditor. The creditor has verified to TransUnion that the current status is being reported correctly. Therefore, TransUnion will be making no changes to the information at this time. 

Supporting Facts : TransUnion failed to acknowledge the XX/XX/XXXX payment evidence, the conflicting DOFD, or the XX/XX/XXXX billing statement. 
No documentation was provided to justify verification of the charge-off or first delinquency date. 

Why This Matters : The response fails to meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611. If verification relies on data that itself is contradictory or ignores consumer-provided documentation then the investigation is either incomplete or flawed. This further confirms that the charge-off and delinquency reporting are inaccurate and unverifiable. 

XXXX. Request for Method of Verification and DOFD Validation Given the conflicting dates provided by XXXX XXXX and TransUnions failure to address them, I am formally requesting the following under the FCRA : What method was used to verify this accounts current reporting status? 
What documentation was reviewed to confirm the Date of First Delinquency? 
Was the XX/XX/XXXX letter from First PREMIER reviewed during the reinvestigation? 
If the DOFD was inaccurately reported or unverifiable, how did TransUnion validate the charge-off reporting as accurate? 

Supporting Facts : The reported DOFD does not align with either First PREMIERs letter or TransUnions payment records.

If TransUnion did not review or reconcile these contradictions, then the reinvestigation is not valid under FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 reporting standards.

Violation of Reinvestigation and Verification Rights under the FCRA TransUnion In accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA XXXX ), I have the right to a full and reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed credit reporting information, including a description of how that reinvestigation was conducted and what documentation was relied upon to verify the disputed information.

TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX reinvestigation response states : We have completed our investigation of the item ( s ) you disputed with the creditor. The creditor has verified to TransUnion that the current status is being reported correctly. Therefore, TransUnion will be making no changes to the information at this time.

Despite this, TransUnion has continued to report the account as verified while ignoring several material contradictions including : The XX/XX/XXXX payment which was made in full but not acknowledged in payment history, The XX/XX/XXXX billing statement that contradicts the reported charge-off date, And the XX/XX/XXXX letter from XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX  that conflicts with TransUnions recorded Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). 

TransUnion has not disclosed : What method was used to verify the accuracy of the tradeline, What documentation XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX provided during the investigation, Or how it validated the reported DOFD given that it contradicts both the creditors written statements and TransUnions own payment history. 

This lack of transparency and failure to address the contradictions outlined in my dispute show that the reinvestigation process was either incomplete or flawed. The FCRA requires a reasonable reinvestigation, not a passive confirmation based solely on the furnishers word especially when the furnishers documentation directly conflicts with what is being reported. 

As such, the account must be considered unverifiable and inaccurate, and should be corrected or permanently deleted in compliance with FCRA 611 and Metro 2 reporting standards.

Right to Dispute Repeatedly Until Information is Accurate and Complete As a consumer, I have the legal right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) to dispute any information on my credit report as many times as necessary until the data is accurate, complete, and verifiable. The law does not place a limit on how often I may dispute inaccurate reporting, especially when I continue to provide new or clarifying documentation with each challenge. 

No credit reporting agency including TransUnion may legally dismiss my dispute by claiming that my evidence is insufficient, or by refusing to reinvestigate simply because they previously marked the information as verified. When a consumer provides documented, material contradictions such as : Proof of final payment in XX/XX/XXXX, Evidence that a billing statement was issued the same day a charge-off is reported, and Written statements from the creditor that contradict the reported delinquency date, A reasonable reinvestigation must be conducted, and a boilerplate denial is not compliant with the FCRA.

In this case, TransUnions response on XX/XX/XXXX failed to address any of these contradictions and made no changes to the reporting despite clear evidence that the tradeline was inaccurately reported and internally inconsistent. This confirms that the reinvestigation either : Relied solely on unverifiable or inconsistent data from the furnisher, Or was not properly conducted at all.

Until the information on my credit report is corrected to reflect the full payment, accurate dates, and status history or is removed entirely I will continue exercising my rights under the law to dispute this account. TransUnion is required to investigate each claim and can not legally disregard documented evidence that contradicts the information being furnished.

Requested Relief 1. Immediate deletion or correction of the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  tradeline from my TransUnion credit file. 
XXXX. If retained, the tradeline must : Reflect accurate payment history including XX/XX/XXXX payment, Remove charge-off reporting unless First PREMIER can provide documented, pre-notified charge-off status, Accurately reflect the correct Date of First Delinquency as validated by documentation not assumptions. 
XXXX. Disclosure of the method of verification used during the XX/XX/XXXX reinvestigation. 
XXXX. Copies of all documentation provided by XXXX XXXX  to support their claims. 
XXXX. Assurance that no further derogatory updates will be made based on unverified or retroactively applied statuses. 

Supporting Documentation XX/XX/XXXX billing statement email XX/XX/XXXX payment confirmation XX/XX/XXXX letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX TransUnion dispute results Payment history showing conflicting DOFD

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