Consumer complaint received 2025-11-03 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am filing this complaint because Equifax Experian and TransUnion failed to reasonably investigate and correct multiple inaccuracies I disputed in writing. All three bureaus received my disputes on XX/XX/XXXX with itemized errors and requests for validation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Metro Two standards. Despite that notice they continue to publish conflicting unverifiable and re aged data that harms my credit standing and exposes me to identity risk. 

PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS THAT DO NOT BELONG TO ME All three bureaus are publishing identifiers that are not mine including an incorrect version of my name XXXX XXXX several wrong addresses and employer entries. I provided my correct identity and address and asked for the removal of mixed or stale data. These items remain or are inconsistently handled which violates the duty to assure maximum possible accuracy and to promptly correct or delete disputed personal data. Examples in the bureau files include the wrong name entries the XXXX XXXX address and the XXXX address that is not deliverable to me. These problems are documented in the materials each bureau received on XX/XX/XXXX. 

ACCOUNT ONE XXXX XXXX XXXX ENDING XXXX I disputed this collection because the core dates do not match between bureaus and therefore the account can not be accurately aged. Equifax and Experian show a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX while TransUnion shows XX/XX/XXXX. The last reported dates are also different and the date last active is inconsistent across all three. These conflicts are classic markers of re aging which is prohibited and they prevent any reliable calculation of the obsolescence period. The file also shows language such as placed for collection without furnishing proof of a lawful assignment or ownership. No chain of title no contract and no itemized statement were produced after my validation request. The combination of mismatched dates and missing validation means the data is neither accurate nor verifiable and should be deleted not updated. 

ACCOUNT TWO XXXX XXXX XXXX  ENDING XXXX I disputed this charge off because key fields conflict across bureaus. Equifax shows the account opened XX/XX/XXXX while TransUnion shows XX/XX/XXXX. Equifax shows a high credit of XXXX while TransUnion shows XXXX. The last payment dates also differ by months. An account can not lawfully have two different credit amounts or two different delinquency clocks at the same time. The file also codes the account as charged off while a collectible balance is still reported which is misleading. No original contract no chain of title and no complete payment history were provided despite my written request. Because the account fails accuracy and verifiability standards it should be permanently deleted. 

ACCOUNT THREE XXXX XXXX ENDING XXXX I disputed this account because the bureaus are publishing three different versions of the same data. The high credit appears as XXXX at Equifax XXXX at Experian and XXXX at TransUnion. Credit limits and dates last active are also inconsistent. The tradeline is coded both as a secured revolving product and as a collection or charge off which is contradictory and misleading. The report language includes profit and loss writeoff while also showing a current past due amount which falsely suggests a collectible balance after charge off. No contract no itemized history and no validation of status coding were produced. This account is not being reported in a complete consistent and verifiable Metro Two structure and should be deleted rather than corrected. 

ACCOUNT FOUR XXXX XXXX ENDING XXXX I disputed this item because it is being coded and described like a consumer collection or charge off rather than as a government obligation. The three files disagree on account type and status with one listing open account another listing installment and two listing collection or charge off. Monthly payment fields also conflict. This coding misleads lenders about the nature of the obligation and depresses my score. No documentation was provided to justify the consumer credit coding or the inconsistent fields. Because the tradeline is misclassified and inconsistent it should be removed from consumer credit reporting. 

WHAT I ASKED THE BUREAUS TO PROVIDE AND WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN With each dispute I requested copies of the original contracts or applications bearing my signature a full account level transaction history the legal assignment or ownership records and certification that all fields are reported in a consistent Metro Two format. None of the bureaus produced the above. Instead they continued to verify the same conflicting information. That failure to reasonably reinvestigate and to provide the documents used to verify constitutes noncompliance and leaves me with ongoing damage such as score suppression credit denials and increased cost of credit. 

HARM AND IMPACT The presence of mixed identifiers increases my identity theft exposure and causes automated matching errors. The conflicting dates and balances suppress my payment history points inflate derogatory factors and extend the time negative data remains on file. Because lenders rely on automated decision tools these inaccuracies materially affected my access to affordable credit and caused emotional distress and time loss while attempting to correct the record. 

RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE CFPB Require Equifax Experian and TransUnion to delete in full the four accounts identified above because they are not reported in a consistent complete and verifiable manner. Require the removal of all inaccurate names addresses and employer entries that are not deliverable to me or not mine. Direct the bureaus to provide me with copies of every document they relied upon to previously verify these items or confirm deletion. Require written confirmation that future furnishing on these items will cease unless and until complete primary source documentation exists and all Metro Two fields align across files.

SUMMARY JUSTIFICATION WITH LEGAL AND METRO TWO POINTS Failure to assure maximum possible accuracy violates FCRA 1681e b. Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and to delete or correct disputed data violates FCRA 611 and 1681i. Furnishing or continuing to report information with actual knowledge of errors violates FCRA 623 and 623 b. Using conflicting open dates last active dates and last reported dates evidences re aging which violates the seven year obsolescence rules in 1681c. Publishing a charged off account while showing a current collectible balance and coding a secured revolving product as a collection is deceptive and conflicts with FDCPA accuracy principles when a collector is involved. Metro Two and the CDIA guide require consistent field level reporting and any deviation jeopardizes data integrity. My files show multiple field conflicts across bureaus in the date opened date last active last reported high credit credit limit payment status and monthly payment fields which are all core Metro Two elements that must align to be certifiably accurate.

RECOMMENDATION Push for full deletion of the four accounts and removal of all inaccurate identifiers. Because the bureaus previously verified without producing validation escalate to the CFPB as requested here and copy the state attorney general if noncompliance continues. Deletion not update produces the most immediate FICO improvement by removing actively suppressive derogatory coding and clearing mixed file identifiers

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