Consumer complaint received 2025-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against TransUnion because it failed to properly reinvestigate my disputes and continues to report inaccurate and unverified negative information more than 60 days after my disputes were received. I disputed the following negative tradelines : XXXX XXXX ( Acct # XXXX late codes and differing balances/dates from other bureaus ), XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct ending in XXXX prior delinquencies but currently coded as current while still carrying derogatory history ), XXXX ( Acct # XXXX reported as a collection/charge-off with inconsistent dates of last activity and closed dates versus the other bureaus ), XXXX XXXX ( collection Acct # XXXX reported as open on TransUnion but closed on the other bureaus, XXXX different dates of last activity and reporting ), and XXXX ( Acct # XXXX a closed rental account showing a XXXX late history that has never been properly documented or validated ). 

For late payments, I asked TransUnion to obtain : Proof of each bills due date, The exact date my payment was received/posted, and Evidence that the account was actually XXXX days late, not simply coded that way in their system. 
Under the FCRA and Metro-2 , a late payment should only be reported when the account is truly XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc. days past due based on the contractual due date. TransUnion provided no such proof and instead left the derogatory late-payment codes in place. 
For collections, I reminded TransUnion that a collection tradeline should only remain if the collector has provided FDCPA-level validation, meaning : Original signed contract with the original creditor, Full itemized balance and transaction history, Chain of title or assignment proving the collector actually owns or has been assigned the debt, DOFD documentation, and Consistent, accurate reporting under Metro-2. 
For charge-offs like the XXXX account, a valid charge-off must have : A correct DOFD, A legitimate charge-off date, Accurate and consistent balance/high balance, No re-aging or changing of dates to keep the account reporting longer, and Alignment of core facts across XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion. 
Instead of providing any of this, TransUnion responded with the same pattern as the other bureaussending me a copy of my credit report and treating my disputes as if they were fraud or coming from a third-party credit repair company. I am the consumer, and I am disputing directly. Labeling my disputes as fraud/third-party is a stall tactic that does not relieve TransUnion of its obligations under FCRA 1681i ( a ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, nor does it allow TransUnion to keep publishing data it can not verify. Because TransUnion has not provided contracts, itemized statements, DOFD proof, or validation from any collector or creditor, and because there are clear inconsistencies in dates, balances, and statuses between the XXXX bureaus, TransUnion is violating FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), and Metro-2 accuracy standards. Continuing to publish unvalidated negative information also supports illegal collection practices on any accounts that involve a collector, tying into FDCPA 1692g ( b ).

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