Consumer complaint received 2024-06-17 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
To prove that TransUnion did not conduct a proper investigation in response to XXXX XXXX XXXX 's complaint, we need to identify specific shortcomings or failures in their process. Here are several points that can be raised : 1. **Failure to Verify Permissible Purpose** : - TransUnion 's response indicates that inquiries remain on the credit report for two years and that they are made for permissible purposes. However, they do not provide any evidence that they verified whether each inquiry listed on XXXX XXXX XXXX 's credit report was indeed for a permissible purpose. 
- By merely stating the permissible purposes without verifying or providing evidence that each inquiry met these criteria, TransUnion shows a lack of thorough investigation. 

2. **No Contact with Creditor** : - TransUnion suggests that XXXX XXXX XXXX should contact the creditor directly if he believes an inquiry was made without permissible purpose. This shifts the responsibility to the consumer, whereas under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the credit bureau is obligated to conduct a reasonable investigation itself. 
- The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to investigate disputed information. TransUnion should have contacted the creditors to confirm the legitimacy of the inquiries rather than advising the consumer to do so. 

3. **Lack of Detailed Findings** : - The response lacks specific details about the steps TransUnion took to investigate the complaint. A proper investigation should include a clear outline of the actions taken, such as contacting creditors, reviewing account history, and verifying the legitimacy of inquiries. 
- The absence of detailed findings or evidence of communication with the creditors suggests that TransUnion 's investigation was inadequate. 

4. **Consumer 's Right to Dispute** : - While TransUnion provides instructions for disputing information in the future, they fail to address whether they properly handled the current dispute. The FCRA requires that disputes be investigated promptly and that consumers be informed of the results in a timely manner. 
- There is no indication that TransUnion provided XXXX XXXX XXXX with documentation or evidence supporting the legitimacy of the inquiries, which is necessary for transparency and compliance with the FCRA. 

5. **Misleading Information on Permissible Purposes** : - TransUnion 's statement that a consumer 's specific consent is not necessary for a permissible purpose can be misleading. While it is true that certain permissible purposes do not require explicit consent, it is crucial that TransUnion verify that each inquiry indeed falls under a legitimate category without assuming compliance. 

6. **No Evidence of Remedial Action** : - There is no mention of any corrective steps taken if any discrepancies or illegitimate inquiries were found. A proper investigation would include steps to correct any inaccuracies found in the credit report. 

Based on these points, it can be argued that TransUnion did not conduct a thorough or proper investigation into XXXX XXXX XXXX 's complaint, thereby failing to comply with their obligations under the FCRA.

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 explanation