Consumer complaint received 2025-11-12 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this statement to report inaccurate and unvalidated information that continues to appear on my credit report despite repeated efforts to obtain verification. The account in question is a collection account reported by XXXX, listed as a charge-off or collection in the approximate amount of {$880.00}. This account is appearing as a derogatory item on my credit reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. I believe its reporting and continued verification violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The following explains the full background, chronology of events, actions I have taken, the responses I have received, and the ongoing harm caused by the companies failure to comply with federal law. 

1. Discovery of the Problem During a routine credit review in late XXXX, I obtained updated copies of my credit reports from all three major credit bureaus. In those reports I observed a negative account reported by XXXX. It appeared as a third-party collection or charge-off, allegedly derived from an account originally owed to another creditor. The entry did not include a contract, account-opening date, or original creditor information that would allow me to confirm its authenticity. 

Because I maintain careful financial records and have no knowledge of owing any outstanding balance to XXXX or its alleged predecessor, I immediately grew concerned about the accuracy of this entry. Beyond the absence of supporting data, the account also displayed inconsistencies between the bureaus : balances differed, date opened fields were incomplete, and some agencies listed the status as collection while another listed it as charge-off. These inconsistencies suggested that the data furnished might be incomplete, outdated, or entirely unverified. 

2. Initial Actions Taken To resolve the matter lawfully, I exercised my consumer rights. In XX/XX/XXXX, I sent written disputes by certified mail to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, clearly identifying the XXXX account and specifying that I was requesting a full validation and procedural investigation. In each letter I requested that the bureau : Identify the specific method of verification used to confirm the XXXX account ; Provide copies of the original documents supplied by the furnisher to authorize the reporting ; State the date, system, or data source relied upon for verification ; Clarify whether the information was verified through e-OSCAR, manual review, or third-party exchange ; Provide any documentation proving data transfer, validation source, and chain of custody ; and Explain the legal authority under which they continue reporting an account not supported by original documentation. 

Each dispute letter cited my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and requested removal of unverifiable information within the 30-day statutory period. Every letter was mailed certified with return receipt. Delivery confirmations show all three bureaus received the disputes within one week of mailing. 

Simultaneously, I sent a separate debt validation request directly to XXXX under FDCPA 809 ( b ). That letter explicitly stated that this was not a refusal to pay, but a lawful demand for validation. I requested : The name and address of the original creditor ; An itemized statement of all amounts claimed ; A copy of the signed agreement creating the obligation ; and Documentation proving that XXXX has legal ownership or assignment rights to collect and report the debt. 

I requested that all collection and reporting activities cease until the debt was validated as required by federal law. 

3. Responses Received Within approximately three weeks, each credit bureau responded with form letters. Each letter stated in nearly identical language that the disputed information has been verified as accurate and will remain on your credit file. None of the responses explained how the verification was conducted, who performed it, or what documentation was reviewed. In short, they failed to provide the procedural description guaranteed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). 

I later learned that most disputes are processed through an automated system known as e-OSCAR. If that system was used in my case, my detailed written dispute was likely reduced to a numeric code transmitted electronically to XXXX. The furnisher then would have electronically confirmed the data without ever producing documentation. This process, by design, can not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation because it does not involve actual review of the underlying records. 

As for XXXX, the company never produced a single piece of documentation validating the alleged debt. I received no copy of a contract, billing statement, or assignment of ownership. The company did not even acknowledge receipt of my validation request. Nevertheless, it continued to report the account monthly to the credit bureaus, in direct violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ).

4. Violations of Federal Law The actions ( and inactions ) described above violate multiple sections of federal law designed to protect consumers. Specifically : FCRA 607 ( b ) requires credit bureaus to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. Continuing to publish unverified data is inconsistent with that duty. 

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) obligates a bureau to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation once a dispute is received. Simply echoing the furnishers response without review of documentation fails that standard.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) grants the consumer the right to a detailed description of the reinvestigation procedure. No bureau complied.

FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) requires furnishers to investigate disputed information and correct or delete it if inaccurate or unverifiable. XXXX did neither. 

FDCPA 809 ( b ) states that a debt collector must cease all collection activityincluding credit reportinguntil it mails the requested validation to the consumer. XXXX continued reporting regardless. 

By failing to validate or delete the information, both the bureaus and XXXX have violated these statutory requirements. 

5. Impact on Me as a Consumer The continued presence of this derogatory entry has caused significant and measurable harm. Modern scoring models treat collections as major derogatory events, so this account has depressed my credit scores across all bureaus. Because of it, I have faced higher interest rates and less favorable terms on credit products. Beyond quantifiable losses, there is also reputational damage and emotional distress from being unfairly represented as delinquent. 

I take my credit obligations seriously and maintain a record of timely payment. Having an invalid collection reported undermines years of responsible financial behavior. It has forced me to spend time, effort, and expense sending letters, tracking certified mail receipts, and researching consumer law to defend my rightsall to correct an error that should never have persisted if the parties had complied with the law. 

6. Continued Non-Compliance Months after the initial disputes, the XXXX account continues to appear. It remains coded as collection/charge-off with a balance around {$880.00}. Each month it updates as a current derogatory item, signaling active delinquency to lenders. The bureaus have ignored subsequent follow-up letters and have refused to remove the information. 

Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted within the 30-day investigation period. Yet, despite no proof being produced, the item remains. This demonstrates a systemic failure of the reinvestigation process. 

XXXX. Broader Concerns About Verification Practices This situation exposes a broader issue affecting millions of consumers. Automated systems such as e-OSCAR prioritize speed and cost over accuracy. When a consumer provides detailed documentary evidence, those specifics are often reduced to a simple dispute code like 001 not his/hers. The furnisher then merely checks a box affirming the accounts accuracy, and the bureau deems the matter verified. No one reviews contracts, statements, or communications. This process undermines Congresss intent in enacting the FCRAthat consumers be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge inaccurate data. 

My experience exemplifies this systemic flaw. Despite a legitimate and specific request for documentation, I received only automated responses. The companies rely on technology to process human rights, and the result is predictable : accuracy suffers and consumers are left defenseless. 

8. Why the Account Is Likely Unverifiable Beyond the lack of documentation, several indicators suggest that the XXXX account can not be legitimately verified : No Original Creditor Information : None of the bureaus list the origin of the debt or the date the account was created. 

No Payment History : There are no records showing missed payments or charge-off activity typical of valid accounts. 

Inconsistent Data Across Bureaus : Differences in reported balances and dates show that each bureau received conflicting information.

Age of the Debt : Based on other records, any alleged obligation would now be beyond the statute of limitations for collection in my state.

Absence of Consumer Contact : I have never received billing statements, notices, or correspondence from XXXX prior to this reporting. 

These facts collectively suggest that the account is either erroneous or based on incomplete data purchased from another entity without supporting documents. 

9. Ongoing Efforts to Resolve the Issue Since the initial disputes, I have continued to act in good faith. I have retained all correspondence, return receipts, and credit report copies showing the progression of events. I also made follow-up requests for the method of verification as allowed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). None were honored. Each company has had ample opportunity to comply yet failed to do so. 

My intention has never been to avoid a legitimate debt but to ensure that what appears on my credit file is accurate, complete, and verifiable. Accuracy is the foundation of the credit reporting system, and consumers should not bear the burden of proving a negative when furnishers can not prove a positive. 

10. The Harm of Inaccurate Reporting The practical consequences of inaccurate data are profound. Credit reports influence nearly every aspect of modern lifefrom interest rates and insurance premiums to employment opportunities and housing approvals. When unverified information is allowed to persist, it creates a false financial identity that follows the consumer indefinitely. It undermines the integrity of the credit reporting industry itself.

In my case, lenders have specifically cited collection account reported as a reason for adverse action. This means the continued reporting of this unvalidated debt directly translates into tangible financial harm. The law recognizes this harm, which is why FCRA 602 ( a ) explicitly states that unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. 

11. My Requested Corrective Actions I have requested, and continue to request, that the following corrective actions be taken : Full procedural description of the method used to verify the account ; Copies of original documents proving the debts validity and assignment ; Immediate deletion of the account if documentation can not be produced ; Written confirmation from each bureau showing the correction ; and Notification to any third parties that received the inaccurate data. 

To date, none of these have been provided. 

12. Why CFPB Intervention Is Needed Individual consumers lack the leverage to compel large data companies to comply voluntarily. The CFPB exists precisely to oversee such compliance. My case illustrates how the system can fail an ordinary consumer even when they follow every correct procedure. Intervention by the Bureau can ensure that the laws requirements are observed and that the bureaus and furnishers are held accountable for negligent verification practices. 

The issue extends beyond my individual situation. When one consumers dispute is ignored, it signals to data furnishers that expediency outweighs accuracy. Enforcement and oversight are therefore essential not only for personal redress but also for systemic reform. 

13. Documentation Available I possess copies of : My dispute and validation letters ; Certified mail receipts and delivery confirmations ; The credit reports showing the disputed account ; and The boilerplate responses from each bureau. 

These documents substantiate my claims and show clear procedural non-compliance. I am prepared to provide them to CFPB investigators upon request. 

14. Legal Basis for Deletion Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted from the consumers file. Verification means confirmation based on reasonable evidence, not mere repetition of data from the same furnisher. Without documentary proofsuch as a signed contract, payment records, or assignmentthere is nothing to verify. 

Similarly, FDCPA 809 ( b ) requires that if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days, the collector must cease collection activity until it mails validation. Reporting to a credit bureau is a form of collection activity because it exerts pressure on the consumer to pay. Therefore, continuing to report after a validation request but before providing proof constitutes a continuing violation of law. 

The only legally compliant remedy for unverified information is deletion. This outcome would align with the intent of Congress and the purpose of both statutesto ensure that consumers are not harmed by inaccurate or unsupported data. 

15. Desired Outcome Ultimately, I seek restoration of accuracy and fairness to my credit history. Specifically, I request : Deletion of the XXXX account from all credit bureaus unless full original documentation is provided ; Written explanation from each bureau describing the reinvestigation process ; Confirmation that XXXX has ceased reporting until validation is completed ; Assurance that the deleted information will not be reinserted without proper certification ; and Monitoring by the CFPB to ensure compliance. 

These are reasonable requests consistent with federal consumer protection law. 

16. Broader Significance While this complaint concerns a single account, it reflects a systemic issue affecting the integrity of consumer credit reporting. Many consumers experience similar problems but lack the knowledge or resources to pursue them. If a company can report data without proof and maintain it after a lawful dispute, the entire framework of consumer credit loses reliability. 

Addressing my case would therefore contribute to a fairer system for everyone. Requiring furnishers to maintain documentation, and requiring bureaus to conduct genuine investigations, would uphold the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure accuracy, fairness, and privacy in credit reporting. 

17. Conclusion To summarize, I discovered an inaccurate XXXX collection account on my credit reports. I lawfully disputed the item and requested validation and procedural investigation. The credit bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher provided no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the credit reporting system. 

I am therefore requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene to enforce compliance, compel production of documentation, and ensure deletion of unverifiable information. I ask that the companies involved be required to adopt improved procedures, provide written confirmation of corrective action, and be held accountable for violations of law. 

My intent is not to evade a legitimate obligation but to ensure that every entry on my credit file is supported by verifiable evidence. Accuracy and transparency are fundamental to fair credit reporting. I have fulfilled my duties as a consumer by disputing properly and providing documentation ; the responsibility to maintain lawful reporting now rests with the companies that profit from the exchange of my personal financial information. 

Thank you for your consideration and for taking the time to review this matter. I trust that the CFPB will act to ensure compliance, protect consumer rights, and uphold the fairness and integrity of the credit reporting system.

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