Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns the continued reporting and verification of the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy identified as Ref : XXXX, which appears in the public records section of my consumer credit reports. The purpose of this complaint is to document the inaccuracies, verification failures, and unlawful reporting practices surrounding this bankruptcy record, and to request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene to ensure compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

I am not disputing the historical fact that a Chapter XXXX case maXXXX have existed. Instead, I am disputing the accuracy, verification, source, timing, and procedural compliance of how this particular bankruptcy record is appearing on my credit reports. Because the credit bureaus failed to verify the information with the original bankruptcy court, relied on unauthorized third-party vendors, and refused to provide the required method-of-verification documentation during reinvestigation, the reporting of this record violates multiple provisions of federal law. 

This narrative provides a complete, detailed, and lawful description of what occurred and why this bankruptcy is being reported improperly. 

XXXX. How I Discovered the Reporting Problem While reviewing my credit reports, I noticed that a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy labeled Ref : XXXX was listed. Immediately, issues were apparent : The date formatting was unusual and did not resemble standard federal bankruptcy docket formatting. 

The reference number included codes ( XXXX ) that did not match official XXXX court documentation. 

Different credit bureaus displayed the record differently. 

Details such as the court location, chapter, docket number, and disposition were incomplete. 

The status of the case was inconsistent across bureaus. 

Because bankruptcy information must be precise and match the official court record, these irregularities raised questions about whether the listing was accurate, up-to-date, or verified properly. 

XXXX. Bankruptcy Courts Do NOT Furnish or Verify Information for Credit Reports XXXX of the most important facts is this : Federal bankruptcy courts do not : Furnish consumer data to credit bureaus Verify bankruptcy information for private companies Communicate with credit bureaus XXXX reinvestigation Participate in consumer reporting Authorize third-party vendors to transmit bankruptcy records This means that any claim by a credit bureau that this bankruptcy was verified did not come from the court. Instead, the verification originated from third-party public-record vendors, which are not original, legal sources of bankruptcy information. 

XXXX. The Reporting Uses a Non-Court Reference Number A true bankruptcy reference must match the official docket format, such as : YY-NNNNN YY-NNNN-BK District identifiers ( XXXX, MO-W ) However, the reference XXXX is not consistent with : XXXX  docket formatting CM/ECF formatting XXXX Bankruptcy Court indexing Clerk of Court dispositions Standard case numbering found in federal filings This strongly suggests the information is not based on court records but on automated OCR scraping or vendor indexing, which is prone to errors. 

XXXX. I Filed Disputes with All Three Bureaus Upon discovering inconsistencies, I exercised my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and disputed the bankruptcy with all three major bureaus. In each dispute, I requested : The method of verification Identification of the source of the information Copies of any documents reviewed The name of the furnisher A detailed description of procedures used The public record as obtained from the court These are rights guaranteed under FCRA 609 and 611. 

XXXX. Bureaus Returned Generic Verified as Accurate Responses All bureaus responded with nearly identical automated letters stating that the bankruptcy had been verified and would remain. However : No bureau provided the method of verification No bureau named a furnisher No documentation was provided No court records were shown No detailed procedures were disclosed No evidence was produced showing original record review This confirms that : The reinvestigation was automated, not meaningful. 
XXXX. The Reinvestigation Was Unreasonable The FCRA requires a reasonable reinvestigation. For a public record like bankruptcy, reasonableness requires : Reviewing the original docket Confirming filing and dismissal dates Verifying the case disposition Matching the reference number Confirming the bankruptcy chapter Ensuring reporting matches the official court record But the bureaus did : No contact with the XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX No XXXX review No comparison to official documents No document examination No human involvement Instead, they relied solely on automated responses from a vendor such as XXXX or another public-record scraper. 

XXXX. XXXX-Party Vendors Are NOT an Acceptable Source of Truth Under FCRA The FCRA requires that public records be verified using accurate, reliable, court-sourced information. 

However, credit bureaus rely on : XXXX XXXX CoreLogic Data-harvesting companies Public-record scrapers Automated XXXX systems These companies : Are not original sources Do not certify accuracy Do not verify court data Are prone to errors Are not authorized by courts Because this bankruptcy record depends entirely on third-party vendor data, it can not be considered verified. 

XXXX. Inconsistencies Across Bureaus Prove the Data Is Inaccurate For a bankruptcy to be accurate, all bureaus must report : The same dates The same reference The same court location The same status The same disposition However, the reporting for XXXX contains significant inconsistencies : Dates differ across bureaus Status ( dismissed versus open versus verified ) varies Reference numbers differ Update timestamps do not match Case details differ Under FCRA 607 ( b ), bureaus must ensure maximum possible accuracy. The inconsistencies demonstrate non-compliance. 

XXXX. Bankruptcy Reporting Windows May Be Incorrect A Chapter XXXX bankruptcy may remain on a credit report for : XXXX  years from the date of filing, not dismissal. 

If the XXXX portion of the reference corresponds to XX/XX/year>, then : The record may have been misdated The filing date may not match court records The dismissal/verification date ( XXXX ) may not be legally relevant If the wrong date is used, the bankruptcy may already be : Outside the legal reporting window Reported for too long Reported prematurely Reported with incorrect dates All of this violates the FCRA. 

XXXX. Failure to Provide the Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), when a consumer asks how an entry was verified, the bureau must provide : The method The procedures The documentation The source of the information None of the bureaus complied. 

This failure alone makes the bankruptcy legally unverifiable, requiring deletion under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). 

XXXX. The Bankruptcy Record Was Not Verified Using the Original Court Docket I obtained official bankruptcy documents from the federal court system and compared them to the reporting. Those documents included : The petition filing The docket sheet Case disposition XXXX records XXXX  notices Dismissal order These official documents do not match the way the credit bureaus report the record. The formatting, numbers, and dates differ. 

This proves the bureaus did not review : XXXX  documents CM/ECF filings XXXX of XXXX entries Thus, the verification is illegitimate. 

XXXX. The Reporting Is Incomplete and Misleading For bankruptcy, bureaus must report : Correct filing date Correct status Correct docket number Correct court Correct chapter Correct disposition Accurate timestamps However, the entry labeled XXXX is XXXX Incomplete Misformatted Not court-standard Missing the precise court identifier Missing core docket information Not identical to official records Incomplete public records violate the XXXX accuracy mandate. 

XXXX. The Bankruptcy May Have Been Reported Based on a Misindexed Case Third-party vendors often : Misread docket entries Pull incomplete data Merge unrelated cases Apply non-court reference numbers Assign internal indexing codes Misrepresent dates The XXXX reference strongly suggests : A vendor indexing code Not an actual bankruptcy court file Therefore, the reporting is likely based on : Misindexed data A misread case Inaccurate vendor interpretation Credit bureaus can not legally maintain vendor-generated errors. 

XXXX. Harm Caused by the Improper Reporting The inaccurate and unverifiable reporting of this bankruptcy has caused : Lower credit scores Higher interest rates Denied credit applications Loss of financial opportunities Difficulty obtaining housing Employment barriers Insurance impacts Emotional distress Difficulty rebuilding credit A bankruptcy is XXXX of the most damaging items on a credit report. When reported inaccurately, the harm is compounded. 

XXXX. The Bureaus Violated Multiple FCRA Sections The reporting of this bankruptcy violates : 607 ( b ) Accuracy requirement 611 ( a ) Failure to reinvestigate reasonably 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide method of verification 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to delete unverifiable information 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide the source of information 623 Furnisher accuracy obligations The bankruptcy is therefore unlawfully reported. 

Conclusion The Chapter XXXX bankruptcy Ref : XXXX is being reported inaccurately, without proper verification, using unauthorized XXXX-party vendor data, and without adherence to FCRA procedures. The credit bureaus did not verify the information with the bankruptcy court, did not provide method-of-verification details, did not review original court documents, and did not maintain maximum possible accuracy. 

Because the bankruptcy is unverified, inaccurate, incomplete, and improperly sourced, it is unlawful for it to remain on my credit file. 

I request immediate CFPB intervention to ensure that the credit bureaus comply with federal law.

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