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: MO

Complaint narrative:
Over the past several months, I have been closely monitoring my consumer credit reports through all three nationwide consumer reporting agenciesEquifax, Experian, and TransUnionto ensure that the information reported about my accounts remains accurate, complete, and verifiable. During this review, I noticed a derogatory collection account appearing on my credit file, reported by a third-party furnisher identified as FCO ( Fair Collections & Outsourcing ). The listing reflected an alleged past due balance of {$340.00}, coded as Collection/Charge-Off and labeled Derogatory. The account is identified internally as FCO 469158 * on the Experian and TransUnion files, and its reporting status has continued to remain unchanged despite prior requests for verification and validation.

My concern began when I noticed that this alleged collection account did not correspond to any debt I recognized, and there was no prior notice, validation letter, or supporting documentation provided before or after its appearance. I have never received any correspondence, billing statement, or written validation from the collection agency that would establish the origin, ownership, or legitimacy of this debt. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 809 ( b ), a consumer has the right to request full validation of a debt before a collector can continue collection or report to credit bureaus. To date, no such validation has been provided.

Upon identifying this discrepancy, I initiated a dispute process under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611 ( a ), which requires credit reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days of receiving a dispute. I filed formal disputes with Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, clearly explaining that the FCO account appeared to be unverifiable, inaccurately reported, and potentially the result of erroneous data submission or identity confusion. I specifically requested the agencies to verify the source of the data, identify the furnisher, and provide the method of verification used to confirm the accuracy of this derogatory item. Unfortunately, instead of receiving a complete Method of Verification report, I only received automated dispute outcome summaries indicating that the account was verified as accurate, with no documentary evidence or detailed explanation.

This type of response raises serious compliance concerns under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) and 607 ( b ). These sections require credit reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report, and to provide consumers with the method used to verify disputed information. In this case, I was never informed of whether the account was verified through the e-Oscar electronic system, by manual review, or through third-party data resubmission. Without that transparency, it is impossible to assess whether the reinvestigation was reasonable or merely a perfunctory verification based on unverified automated data exchanges.

The pattern of correspondence suggests that the investigation was conducted electronically through the e-Oscar platform, a system known for limited data exchange that often fails to transmit original documentation. If the credit bureaus relied on e-Oscar codes or automated confirmations from the furnisher without reviewing the original signed contract, billing statements, or debt assignment agreements, then the reinvestigation can not be considered compliant with the FCRA. My right under 611 ( a ) includes obtaining the actual method and documentation used to verify the accuracy, yet this information was never supplied despite multiple written requests.

In addition to the lack of validation from the furnisher, the reporting bureau has continued to display this account as Derogatory, affecting my credit standing and overall score. This ongoing publication of unverifiable information constitutes a violation of FCRA 602A, which mandates fairness, impartiality, and respect for consumer privacy in the reporting of credit information. Furthermore, 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) requires furnishers to mark disputed accounts as disputed by consumer while the matter is under investigation. Yet, despite my dispute notifications, the credit bureaus have continued to show the account without such notation. This omission creates the misleading impression that the account is undisputed and fully verified.

My concern deepens because, under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ), it is unlawful for a debt collector to communicate false credit information, including failing to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. By continuing to furnish this information to credit bureaus without full validation or dispute notation, both the furnisher and the bureaus may be participating in deceptive or negligent reporting practices. These actions not only misrepresent the validity of the debt but also damage my credit reputation and hinder my ability to obtain fair credit terms, housing, and employment opportunities.

Beyond the legal technicalities, the procedural fairness of this process has been deeply flawed. I have provided written documentation, evidence of lack of contractual obligation, and repeated requests for reinvestigation, yet no party has fulfilled their legal obligation to verify the authenticity of the debt using original source documentation. I am particularly concerned that the bureaus reliance on electronic dispute verification systems prioritizes speed and cost over compliance with consumer protection laws. A genuine reinvestigation, as intended by Congress in FCRA 611, requires more than a cursory database matchit requires obtaining and reviewing the actual documents from the original creditor or verified assignee.

Given that the FCO account allegedly pertains to a collection, it is also essential that the collection agency demonstrate lawful ownership or assignment of the debt. Under the chain-of-assignment principle, a debt collector must show that it has legal standing to collect by producing a purchase agreement, forward flow contract, or assignment letter from the original creditor. No such documentation has been provided, and I have serious doubts about whether this collector has any legal right to report this account to the credit bureaus. Without proof of assignment or ownership, the reporting of this collection account constitutes an unauthorized and unlawful act under both the FCRA and FDCPA.

The lack of transparency extends to the audit trail of the accounts reporting. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), once a disputed item is deleted for lack of verification, it can not be reinserted unless the furnisher certifies its accuracy and the consumer is notified in writing. I have not received any certification or reinsertion notice, yet the account remains. This inconsistency suggests that the furnisher and credit bureaus have not maintained adequate procedural safeguards to prevent inaccurate reinsertion, contrary to federal law.

Another aspect that concerns me is the accuracy and timeliness of reporting updates. The account continues to reflect a status of Derogatory without any changes in response to my dispute submissions. This suggests that either the furnisher has failed to respond to the bureaus Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) request, or the bureau accepted an incomplete response without further verification. Either scenario violates the maximum possible accuracy standard required under FCRA 607 ( b ). The persistence of inaccurate data despite multiple dispute efforts shows systemic negligence and procedural inadequacy.

In contrast, all of my other open and closed accountssuch as those with XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXXare reporting accurate payment histories, with balances, limits, and statuses consistent across bureaus. This further confirms that the FCO collection account is an anomaly and likely an error in reporting or data transfer. My legitimate accounts show clear and verifiable payment activity, but this collection account appears as an isolated derogatory item without any connected primary creditor or substantiating record. This kind of unsupported negative listing distorts my entire credit profile and undermines the fairness principle embedded in FCRA 602A.

In addition, I have reason to believe that the account may have been reported through a third-party data aggregator or indirectly via a debt buyer. If so, this introduces an additional layer of uncertainty concerning the chain of custody of my personal credit data. Under FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) and 609 ( a ) ( 3 ), I am entitled to know the sources of the information in my credit file, including any third-party vendors, data furnishers, or systems that contributed to the reporting. However, none of the credit bureaus have disclosed these details in their dispute responses, thereby denying me my statutory right to a full accounting of the datas origin.

My request for procedural investigation is therefore twofold. First, I am demanding that the credit bureaus provide the method of verification used to confirm this accounts accuracy, including whether the reinvestigation was conducted manually or electronically, what documentation was reviewed, and what sources were used to verify ownership and validity. Second, I am requesting a complete audit trail showing the sequence of reporting events : when the account was first added, who furnished it, what internal correspondence occurred during each verification, and what actions were taken after I submitted disputes. This information is necessary to evaluate whether the bureaus and furnishers have complied with their procedural obligations under FCRA 611 ( a ) and 623 ( b ).

Furthermore, the continuing presence of this account raises the question of authorization and consent. I never provided any authorization for FCO or its affiliates to access, report, or publish any information about me to credit reporting agencies. Without a valid consumer credit agreement, original contract, or signed authorization, the furnisher lacks a lawful basis under both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and FCRA 604 to share consumer information. Therefore, I request that the CFPB investigate whether this furnisher has violated data privacy provisions by transmitting consumer data without explicit authorization.

The consequences of this unresolved reporting error are substantial. My credit score has been negatively impacted by this unverified derogatory listing, which has influenced my credit utilization ratios, overall payment history scoring, and perceived creditworthiness. I have faced higher interest rate offers, credit denials, and reputational harm due to the presence of this derogatory account. This has caused significant stress and inconvenience, as I have had to spend time and resources contacting each bureau, submitting written disputes, maintaining documentation, and following up repeatedly to no avail.

I have also reviewed the credit reporting industrys reliance on Automated Data Furnishing Systems ( ADF ) and the limited scope of human oversight in dispute processing. Numerous CFPB and FTC reports have criticized the e-Oscar system for its failure to transmit consumer evidence or attachments during disputes. If my dispute was processed through that system, it is likely that my supporting documents were not even reviewed by the furnisher, which would explain the superficial verified outcome. This practice directly undermines the intent of the FCRA and constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) 1031.

I have made multiple attempts to resolve this matter amicably and directly with the reporting agencies and the furnisher. However, my efforts have not been met with transparency or meaningful investigation. Therefore, I am escalating this issue to the CFPB to request a formal regulatory review of the furnishers data integrity practices and the credit bureaus dispute-handling procedures. I ask that the CFPB compel the credit reporting agencies to provide : The specific method of verification used for this account.

Documentation proving ownership, authorization, and data source.

Confirmation of whether the reinvestigation was manual or automated.

Disclosure of all internal correspondence and timestamps related to the account.

Written certification from the furnisher confirming the accuracy and completeness of the data being reported.

If these items can not be produced, I respectfully request that the FCO collection account be deleted in its entirety from my consumer credit reports across all bureaus, as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). The ongoing reporting of unverifiable data is unlawful, and continued publication without validation perpetuates harm to the consumer.

In closing, I wish to emphasize that I am not refusing to pay a legitimate debt ; rather, I am asserting my federally protected right to accurate and fully validated credit reporting. Every consumer deserves a fair and transparent process when their creditworthiness is being evaluated. The current situation demonstrates a lack of accountability in how credit information is furnished, verified, and maintained. The FCRA and FDCPA were enacted precisely to prevent this kind of systemic indifference to consumer accuracy and procedural fairness. I trust that the CFPB will take appropriate steps to enforce compliance, ensure transparency, and restore integrity to my consumer credit file.

Until this account can be validated with original source documentation, I respectfully request immediate suppression or removal of the derogatory listing. The law is clear that unverifiable data must not remain on a consumers file. I have provided all the details within my knowledge and documentation available to me. I now rely on your office to compel the companies involved to provide a lawful response, uphold due process, and protect consumers from the long-term harm caused by negligent credit reporting.

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