Consumer complaint received 2025-12-01 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: SC

Complaint narrative:
I am contacting your bureaus because I recently discovered several charge-off accounts being reported in ways that are inaccurate, incomplete, and harmful, and the details do not reflect the true circumstances surrounding these accounts. The two XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts XXXX XXXX showing balances of {$130.00} and {$700.00}, appear across all three bureaus, yet I only maintained one XXXX XXXX  XXXX. When I spoke with XXXX in the past, they informed me that my account had been duplicated in their system after a card reissue and that these two numbers actually reference the same original credit line, meaning the presence of two derogatory accounts is an error. Their records never reflected a second account or a second unpaid balance. My XXXX account, listed with a {$200.00} balance, is also inaccurately presented, because automatic micro-payments were processed monthly and never once did I receive a delinquency notice or system email stating that I had missed a payment. XXXX acknowledged that at one point their reporting cycle had technical delays, which caused certain accounts to appear unpaid even when they were not. Finally, the most concerning entry is the XXXX XXXX charge-off reported as {$25000.00}, an amount that has been under dispute for years due to improper deficiency calculations. The lender admitted the original balance reflected post-sale fees that I never authorized, and I filed multiple disputes with them while attempting to obtain a corrected balance. Under FCRA 607 ( b ) your bureaus must ensure maximum possible accuracy, and under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) you are required to reinvestigate any disputed information. Unless each charge-off can be verified with full, original statements, payment histories, and documentation proving accuracy, I am requesting they be deleted immediately from all three of my reports. 
As I moved through my report, I also found several collection accounts that do not accurately reflect what occurred or that appear inconsistently across the bureaus, which is a clear violation of FCRA standards. The collection from XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX for {$2600.00} was the result of a lease dispute in which management repeatedly lost documentation, including move-out records and maintenance reports. They applied charges that contradicted the final walk-through results, and during my attempts to dispute these charges directly with the apartment company, they were unable to produce a complete and itemized statement. Despite their inability to validate the amount they claimed I owed, this debt is still being reported as verified across all three bureaus. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account for {$1700.00} appears in all three bureaus, yet the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account with the same balance appears everywhere except Equifax, which proves that the reporting between bureaus is inconsistent and unreliable. Debt collectors are legally required under FCRA 623 ( a ) and FDCPA 809 ( b ) to maintain complete, accurate records when furnishing data to consumer reporting agencies ; however, it is clear that these accounts contain conflicting identifiers, mismatched reporting dates, and missing documentation. Because Equifax does not even carry one of the accounts, that inconsistency alone makes the data unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ).

Therefore, I am requesting the immediate reinvestigation and removal of these collection accounts unless the bureaus can obtain original, itemized statements, the original contracts, and full documentation validating every charge.

Finally, I found several hard inquiries that were never authorized by me and that appear on some bureaus but not others, which is another red flag for inaccurate reporting. The inquiries from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were never individually authorized by me. A number of these occurred during a single auto-shopping event, where dealerships sometimes submit applications to multiple lenders without permission, a practice that violates FCRA 604 ( a ), which requires permissible purpose for every pull. Furthermore, the fact that these inquiries appear on some bureaus but not all, particularly missing entirely from Equifax and TransUnion, demonstrates that the reporting is incomplete, inconsistent, and can not be deemed accurate under the standards required by FCRA 607 ( b ). Inquiries that can not be shown to have clear, direct authorization from me must be deleted. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) I am requesting a full reinvestigation of each inquiry, and if lenders can not prove that I provided explicit authorization, they are required by law to instruct you to remove them.

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