Consumer complaint received 2025-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I am escalating this issue because XXXX investigation and continued furnishing confirm violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, and Metro 2 reporting standards.

XXXX own letter admits the loan was sold on XX/XX/XXXX, yet the XXXX continued to report as an active charge-off from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX with a {$0.00} balance and the remark purchased by another lender. If the account has already been charged o, and no further delinquency is occurring meaning no active/open billing cycle exists, the repeated CO implies new defaults that are artificially depressing my score. This misrepresents the debts legal and financial status and violates FDCPA 1692e, which prohibits false or misleading representations regarding the debt. Reporting it as both charged off and purchased by another lender while updating the status monthly constitutes re-aging, is misleading, and violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). 

XXXX own policy as stated in their previous CFPB response, ( charge-off at 121 days past due ) mirrors FFIECs 120-day standard. Yet XXXX and TransUnion display a charge-off at 90 days, while XXXX  reflects 120 days. No bankruptcy or special uncollectible event exists to justify early charge-off. This inconsistency violates FCRA 1681e ( b ) s requirement of maximum possible accuracy and fails Metro 2 reporting standards. By reporting three different charge-off dates across CRAs, including premature treatment, XXXX is furnishing data that is both inconsistent and unlawful. 

Further, XXXX confirms the account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX. However, the CRAs display materially conflicting date of last activity entries : TransUnion XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. These irreconcilable dates can not all be accurate, rendering the data unreliable by definition. Furnishing conflicting payment history and activity dates across bureaus suggests a lack of proper verification or diligence in XXXX reporting violating the TILA 1666 provisions concerning billing errors.

Under FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) and FCRA 1681e ( b ), furnishers must ensure information is maximally accurate, complete, uniformed, and consistent. 

By verifying this tradeline without correcting these contradictions, XXXX and the CRAs are violating XXXX11 ( a ) s duty to conduct a reasonable investigation. Producing a promissory note does not verify the accuracy of how the tradeline is furnished. Verification under the FCRA requires consistency, accuracy, and a non-misleading presentation, none of which exist here. 

As the furnisher of this data, despite the sale of this account, XXXX bears the responsibility for its validity. Under FCRA 611, any information that can not be verified must be deleted. Since receiving several of my complaints and disputes, you have had sucient time to investigate and verify this account and its details. Your continued refusal to address these inaccuracies, provide adequate documentation, or resolve the discrepancies highlights your willful negligence and intentional noncompliance with federal law. 

Because the account has been sold, carries a {$0.00} balance, and is reported with conflicting dates, misleading charge-off updates, and noncompliant coding, the XXXX  can not be corrected without continuing to violate federal law. Pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), the only lawful resolution is outright deletion from XXXX XXXX, and TransUnion.

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