Consumer complaint received 2025-04-22 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
b'In reviewing the attached credit report investigation results provided by Transunion and XXXX, I have identified multiple discrepancies and conflicting data points, which I have detailed aboveXXXX. Conflicting Account Status Information\n\t\tStatus shows both Transferred and Charged-Off: This is contradictory. An account cannot be both charged off and transferred in the same context. The credit report should reflect either:XXXX charge-off, which implies a loss to the lender and closure, or\XXXX transfer, meaning the debt was sold or assignedXXXX. Payment Inconsistencies\n\t\tPayment Received: XXXX  and Last Payment Made: 08/30/2024 ($0): If a $0 payment was received, how can that be listed as a payment date?\n\t\tThis indicates an entry for payment that didnt actually occur, possibly to re-age the account or create misleading XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX yet charged off: If the account was charged off, there should be a remaining balance or charge-off amount, yet the Balance is now $0 with a charge-off showing.\n\t\tThis needs explanation: Did the consumer settle? Was the balance paid? If paid, why is it still listed as charged offXXXX Contradictory Closure and Transfer Timeline\n\t\tAccount closed dateXXXX XXXX XXXX Account Sale Info: Sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and remark Transferred to another lendeXXXX  unclear when the account was transferred or sold and if the transfer was the cause of closure. The timeline is vague and suspicious.XXXX Delinquency History Is Incomplete and Possibly Manipulated\n\t\tThe report shows delinquencies (30, 60, CO  Charge-Off), but:\n\t\tThere is no clear progression showing exactly when these began or if the delinquencies were consecutivXXXX  shown for months just before delinquencies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX may indicate manipulated reporting or delayed updates, especially if user already disputed the tradeline.\n\n\n\n6. Date Updated Is AFTER the Report Date\n\t\tDate Updated: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This may indicate the report was issued before the furnisher had time to fully respond, or that Experian preemptively marked it verified without a full reinvestigationXXXX Missing Key Information\n\t\tNo mention of settlement terms, dispute notation, or proof of validation: The dispute outcome is vague and lacks supporting documentation, especially important given the account is derogatory and has been challenged.\n\n\n\n8. Maximum Delinquency Listed as 60 Days\n\t\tYet the account was charged off (CO) and closed: Typically a charge-off reflects 120180+ days past due, not just 60. This could suggest an attempt to minimize derogatory impact while still punishing the consumer.\n\n\n\nIn addition to those inconsistencies, I am formally requesting a full and itemized explanation of what was used to validate the accuracy of this tradeline. Specifically:\n\t1.\tWhat documentation was relied on to verify the information as accurate?\n\t\tWas a full billing history provided?\n\t\tWas a copy of the original signed agreement included?\n\t\tWere payment records, charge-off documents, or communication records reviewed?\n\t2.\tWhat method of verification was used by the credit bureau?\n\t\tDid the bureau merely accept the furnishers word without requiring documentation?\n\t\tUnder FCRA  611(a)(7), I am entitled to a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information.\n\t3.\tWhy was this account marked as verified despite multiple conflicting elements, including:\n\t\tDual status as Transferred and Charged-OffXXXX XXXX last payment recorded as an actual payment event\n\t\tA 60-day maximum delinquency but reported as charged ofXXXX XXXX balance while still labeled derogatory with an original balance of XXXXMissing evidence of whether the account was paid, settled, or satisfied\n\nUnless you can provide actual documentation used during the verification process, I assert that this account has not been properly investigated or validated under the requirements of the FCRA. If the furnisher cannot provide chain of title, payment history, and settlement details, this tradeline must be immediately removed from all credit reports.'

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