Consumer complaint received 2025-10-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Problem with personal statement of dispute
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to rebut the responses provided by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX Card, XXXX XXXX Bank, and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX accounts ) regarding my recent CFPB complaint. The responses from these companies are unsatisfactory and fail to address my core concerns or comply with federal law. In particular, the companies have not verified the debts, have engaged in harassing collection practices, and continue to report unverified information to credit bureaus. I am therefore submitting this rebuttal to reiterate the violations of my rights under the FDCPA and FCRA and to demand appropriate relief as detailed below. 

Lack of Proper Debt Verification ( FDCPA 1692g ) None of the companies have provided valid verification or proof of the alleged debts, despite my requests. Not a single creditor produced a signed contract, original account agreement, or any documentation proving that I am liable for these debts. Instead, their responses lacked the proper validation required by law. This is unacceptable and violates my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : XXXX XXXX Did not provide any signed agreement or documentation evidencing my obligation for the alleged debt. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to produce a copy of any contract or account opening documents with my signature to validate the debt. 
XXXX XXXX No original account agreement, statement of account, or other proof of debt was included in the response. 
XXXX XXXX Bank Provided no verification of the debt, such as a contract or itemized account statement, to substantiate the claim. 
XXXX XXXXXXXX ( both accounts ) Neither account response contained any proof of my liability ( e.g. original signed application or billing statements ) ; no contract or judgment was provided for either account. 

Under FDCPA 809 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt in writing, the debt collector must cease all collection efforts until it provides verification of the debt. The above creditors have failed to furnish any such verification. By not providing the required validation of the debts ( e.g. a copy of a judgment or the original creditors documentation ), the companies are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g. My complaint clearly requested proof of the debts, yet the responses did not meet the FDCPAs debt validation standard. 

Harassing XXXX Practices ( FDCPA 1692c, 1692d ) In my original complaint, I reported that these companies ( or their collection agents ) engaged in repeated late-night phone calls and other harassing communications in an attempt to collect the debts. The responses from the companies did not adequately address or refute these serious allegations of harassment. I want to reiterate that such conduct is explicitly prohibited by the FDCPA : Calls at Inconvenient Times : FDCPA 805 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692c ) prohibits contacting consumers at unusual or inconvenient times, specifically defining calls before XXXXXXXX XXXX. or after XXXXXXXX XXXX. as improper. I documented that representatives of these creditors repeatedly called me late at night, often well after XXXX XXXX. local time, which is a clear violation of this provision. The companies have no lawful excuse for contacting me during forbidden hours, and their failure to cease such calls after my complaints exacerbates the violation. 
Repeated Harassing Calls : FDCPA 806 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ) forbids a debt collector from engaging in behavior the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in debt collection. This includes causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy or harass. I continue to assert that I received numerous relentless calls, often in rapid succession and at odd hours, from these creditors or their agents. Such tactics are clearly intended to pressure and intimidate me, and they violate 15 U.S.C. 1692d. The companies responses did not provide any evidence to contradict my claims of repeated calls or to show they took steps to prevent further harassment. 

The FDCPA exists to protect consumers from exactly these kinds of abusive practices. By ignoring my cease-contact requests and persisting with late-night, repetitive calls, the companies have breached federal law and my rights. I expect the CFPB to hold them accountable for these violations of 1692c ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1692d ( 5 ).

Unverifiable Accounts Still Reported ( FCRA 1681i, 1681e ) Figure : Excerpt from my TransUnion credit report ( XX/XX/year> ) showing the disputed accounts XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX accounts still being reported. Each account is listed as Closed but with a recent Reported date ( as recent as XX/XX/year> ), indicating that the furnishers continue to update and verify these debts to the credit bureau despite my disputes. This demonstrates that the accounts remain on my credit file and have not been removed or corrected. 

All XXXX disputed accounts remain on my credit reports as of the latest reporting cycles, even though they have not been verified with any supporting documentation. The companies are continuing to report these debts to the credit bureaus ( as evidenced by recent last reported dates in XXXX ), thereby damaging my credit with information that is unverified and possibly inaccurate. This ongoing reporting of unvalidated debts violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Failure to Delete Unverified Information ( FCRA 611 ; 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : I have disputed these accounts, yet they remain on my credit report. Under FCRA 611, credit reporting agencies must reinvestigate disputed information and delete it if it can not be verified within the statutory period. In other words, if the furnishers ( the companies in question ) are unable to confirm that the information is accurate, they are required by law to instruct the credit bureaus to remove the information. The CFPB itself has recently reaffirmed that furnishers must tell credit reporting companies to remove information that can not be verified after a consumer identifies it as wrong. The continued presence of these accounts indicates that no proper verification was made ( since the companies have provided me nothing to substantiate the debts ), yet the items have not been removed as required. This suggests a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which was designed to prevent exactly this scenario unverified, disputed debts lingering on consumer credit reports.

Inaccurate Reporting Lack of Maximum Possible Accuracy ( FCRA 607 ( b ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : The FCRA also mandates that consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information in credit reports. By extension, furnishers of information should only report data that is accurate and verifiable. Allowing unverified debts to stay on my reports undermines the accuracy of my credit file. The fact that these accounts are still being updated and reported ( as recent as XXXX 2025 ) without verification means both the credit bureaus and the furnishing creditors are failing to ensure maximum accuracy. Continuing to report information that has not been confirmed ( or that XXXX be inaccurate ) is a direct violation of the spirit of 1681e ( b ). Essentially, the bureaus should not be reporting these accounts at all given the lack of verification, and the creditors should not be verifying or updating the data if they can not prove its validity. 

In summary, the ongoing reporting of these disputed, unvalidated accounts is unlawful under the FCRA. The companies have no legal basis to continue furnishing data on debts they have not verified. This harms me by keeping potentially inaccurate and unverifiable information on my credit record, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 15 U.S.C. 1681e.

Demand for Deletion and Notice of Intent to Escalate Given the above points lack of debt validation, evidence of harassment, and continued reporting of unverified information I find the companies responses to my complaint to be wholly inadequate. I am therefore demanding immediate relief as follows : Immediate Deletion of the Accounts : I insist that all the above-listed accounts be permanently deleted from my credit reports with all consumer reporting agencies. This is the only acceptable resolution since the debts can not be verified and their reporting is not compliant with the FCRA. Merely marking them as disputed or updating them is not sufficient they must be removed in full to prevent further harm to my credit profile. I expect each company to promptly notify the credit bureaus to delete these trade lines in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1681i, as they are unverifiable.

Cease Harassment and FDCPA Compliance : I also require that each company cease any and all collection activities that violate the FDCPA, including phone calls outside of allowable times or any form of harassment. They should confirm in writing that no further inappropriate contact will be made, in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1692c and 1692d. My communication preferences and rights must be respected going forward. 
Provision of Documentation ( if any exists ) : If any of these companies believe the debts are valid, they should have already provided competent evidence. I remain willing to review any actual proof of my liability ( such as a signed contract or original account documents ) that was not provided initially. However, absent such proof, they have no grounds to continue reporting or collecting these debts. 

If these issues are not fully resolved to my satisfaction, I intend to escalate this matter. I put the companies on notice that I am prepared to file formal complaints with the State Attorney Generals office for consumer protection violations and to seek legal counsel about filing a lawsuit for violations of the FDCPA and FCRA. Under the FDCPA, consumers can sue for statutory damages and attorneys fees for non-compliance ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and under the FCRA, willful or negligent non-compliance can also lead to liability ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ). I sincerely hope it will not come to that, and that the companies will take this rebuttal seriously and correct their course immediately. 

In conclusion, the lack of proper debt verification, the documented harassment, and the continued reporting of unverified accounts are unlawful and unacceptable. I urge the CFPB to hold these companies accountable and ensure that they delete the offending accounts from my credit reports and cease all improper collection activities. I have asserted my rights under the FDCPA and FCRA, and I expect full compliance. If a timely resolution is not achieved through this rebuttal, I will have no choice but to pursue further action through state regulators or the courts to protect my rights. 

Thank you for your attention to these serious issues. I trust that the CFPB will facilitate a just outcome and that the companies will remediate these violations without delay. 

Requested Resolution : Complete deletion of the XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX and XXXX  XXXX account entries from all credit reports, and an end to all collection harassment, as detailed above. If this is not accomplished, I am prepared to escalate the matter as described.

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