Consumer complaint received 2025-11-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
Subject : XX/XX/XXXX and TransUnion Reused the SAME Invalid XX/XX/XXXX Packet for Verification and Now Claim They Need 60 Days to Respond to XX/XX/XXXX To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am filing this new complaint becauseXX/XX/XXXX TransUnion, and XX/XX/XXXX are now engaging in a pattern of repeated, fraudulent verification using the same exact packet of documents and then illegally delaying my Method of Verification ( MOV ) request by claiming they need 60 days, which is not allowed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

XXXX. XXXX entered the same validation packet into every system The packet XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX uses as proof or validation is the exact same, word-for-word, page-for-page, recycled packet they : filed in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX uploaded to CFPB in their first response uploaded again to CFPB in their second response sent to XX/XX/XXXX sent to TransUnion sent to me directly used in multiple disputes used to maintain the tradeline used to verify the account It is literally the same packet, reused every single time, even when I provide new evidence or request a reinvestigation. 

2. Because they reused the same packet, no reinvestigation ever took place Under FCRA 611, each dispute requires : a reasonable reinvestigation a fresh review verification based on actual underlying records But instead, every time :XX/XX/XXXXreused the same packet as verification. 
TransUnion reused the same packet as verification. 
XXXX reused the same packet as validation. 

There is no variation. No updates. No new information. No original creditor proof. 
Just the same recycled documents that do not contain : a real contract a chain of title a DOFD statements hardship program records original creditor data authentication account numbers tied to me Because of this, no legal verification has ever occurred. 

3. If they already had the packet, they could verify TODAY not in 60 days This is the key issue.

If XX/XX/XXXX and TransUnion claimed they already verified my account using the SAME packet before Then : why do they now need 60 days? 
why cant they just verify from the same packet immediately? 
why would they need ANY time at all? 
why is the timeline suddenly longer than the law even allows? 

The answer is obvious : They reused a bad packet and now can not legally justify their reinvestigation. 

They can not produce a real MOV because no real verification ever occurred. 

They need 60 days because XXXX never had valid records to begin with. 

This is obstruction and a direct violation of the FCRA.

4. There is no 60-day rule anywhere in the FCRA The FCRA allows XXXX 30 days for reinvestigation 45 days only if I provide additional evidence 15 days to answer a Method of Verification request There is no situation where : 60 days extra time extended research is legally permitted. 

A 60-day delay is a violation by itself.

5. I believeXX/XX/XXXX and TransUnion are delaying to avoid exposingXX/XX/XXXX false verification This behavior is consistent with : bureaus stalling bureaus protecting a furnisher bureaus avoiding deletion bureaus covering inconsistencies XXXX fabricating or reconstructing records failure to obtain Avant data failure to match charge-off dates re-aging inaccurate DOFD contradictory packet versions A 60-day stall is a hallmark of furnisher fraud and bureau non-compliance.

6. Request for CFPB Enforcement Review I am formally requesting that CFPB : 1. Investigate why XX/XX/XXXXand TransUnion are using the same exact packet for every dispute and treating it as verification.

2. Investigate why a legally impermissible 60-day delay was issued after my MOV request.

3. Investigate whether XX/XX/XXXXmisrepresented their records or provided contradictory information. 
4. Determine whether the bureaus and furnisher are engaged in a pattern of willful FCRA 611 violations.

5. Require deletion of the inaccurate tradeline due to repeated failed verification.

6. Evaluate this for potenti
al enforcement action, due to repeated, systemic violations.

I will attach supporting screenshots from the CFPB portal, XX/XX/XXXX and TransUnion showing the IDENTICAL packet used every time. 

Thank you. 

Submitted by : XXXX XXXX Date :XX/XX/XXXXP.s the verification packet at hand is also whaXX/XX/XXXX used in court as evidence in wrong forum so again. Why do bureaus need 60 unlawful days pls investigate or turn over Attorney General.XX/XX/XXXX

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