Consumer complaint received 2025-11-26 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:
What happened is that multiple companies, furnishers, and credit reporting agencies have continued to report numerous derogatory, inaccurate, unverified, and incomplete accounts on my credit file despite my repeated attempts to dispute, correct, or obtain proper validation and documentation. I followed the appropriate dispute procedures and provided detailed notices requesting verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), but the companies either ignored the request, failed to provide legally required documentation, or conducted superficial reinvestigations that did not meet the standards of FCRA 602A, 607 ( b ), and 611 ( a ).

There are several derogatory accounts being reported, including charge-offs, collections, late-payment histories, and negative statuses from multiple furnishers. These include accounts allegedly belonging to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, student loan servicers, and other furnishers who continue reporting even though none of the entities have provided the required validation documents or proof of accuracy. 

The first problem is that the credit bureaus continue to accept and publish information that is unverified and unsupported by proper documentation. When I disputed the accounts, the credit bureaus used automated systems such as e-Oscar, which only facilitate automated XXXX  exchanges with the furnisher. This method does not satisfy the legal requirement for a reasonable reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), the bureaus are required to conduct an independent reinvestigation and verify each detail of the disputed information. Instead of reviewing original documentation, signed applications, promissory notes, or actual contracts, the bureaus simply relied on the furnishers electronic confirmation, even when the furnisher failed to provide legally required documentation.

The next issue arises from the furnishers themselves. Many of these companies are reporting derogatory accounts that include charge-off amounts, late-payment histories, collection balances, past-due statuses, and negative comments that are not supported by any physical contract or legal instrument. When a consumer disputes an account, furnishers are required under FCRA 623 to conduct their own investigation and verify the accuracy of the information before continuing to report it. Instead, most of the furnishers either ignored the dispute, responded with generic automated confirmations, or failed to provide any documentation showing the origin of the account, the nature of the debt, or proof that I agreed to the account. 

For example, certain accounts allegedly from XXXX XXXX XXXX  appear on my credit file, showing high late-payment histories, charge-offs, and closed statuses. However, when I disputed these accounts and requested original signed contracts, applications, or any proof of ownership, the furnisher did not provide any legally sufficient document. No signed application or evidence confirming that the account belongs to me was produced. Instead, the furnisher merely sent an electronic confirmation to the credit bureau through e-Oscar. The bureau then relied solely on that confirmation without further verification, which violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). 

Another example includes accounts associated with XXXX  or XXXX XXXX, which are reporting late-payment histories and derogatory statuses but have not provided any contract or proof validating the account. The reported {$27.00} delinquency and multiple late-payment entries were disputed, yet the furnisher did not supply any signed agreement or proof that the account was legitimate. Under the FCRA, a furnisher can not continue reporting an account that can not be verified. The continued reporting, without documentation, demonstrates a failure to follow federal law. 

XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection amount of approximately {$3000.00}, including 90-day late notations across multiple months. This information is highly damaging and appears inconsistent. When I disputed this account, I requested proof of the debt, chain of assignment documents, bill of sale, and verification showing how XXXX XXXX obtained the account. None of these documents were provided. The furnisher failed to demonstrate that it had legal ownership of the account, nor did it provide any proof showing the accuracy of the balance or the dates of delinquency. Without proper documentation, this account can not be verified and should not be reported. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is reporting a derogatory collection in the approximate amount of {$970.00}. This account includes nearly 29 notations of 90-day delinquency. Again, as with the other accounts, I requested documentation showing the origin of the account, chain of custody documents proving assignment or purchase, and validation of the balance. No documents were provided to confirm the accuracy of the reporting. Continuing to report inconsistent, unverified, or incomplete information violates FCRA 602A and 607 ( b ), which mandate that all reporting must be accurate and capable of being verified. 

Other furnishers such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reporting accounts that include charge-offs, late payments, and collection statuses. These accounts were disputed, and I specifically asked for original contracts, billing statements, records of transactions, and any documentation proving the existence of the alleged debt. None of the furnishers provided the requested documentation. The bureaus still marked the disputes as verified, which indicates that they did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by federal law. 

There is also reporting from a state agency foXXXX XXXX XXXX  with a derogatory balance of approximately {$730.00}. This type of reporting requires official court orders, payment histories, and proper legal documentation. When this information was requested, the furnisher did not provide any of the required records. Reporting government-related debts must be handled with accuracy and complete documentation. Reporting incomplete or unverified data is a severe violation of 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, which requires maximum possible accuracy.

Additionally, student loan servicers, including DeptEd, XXXX, and XXXX, are reporting late payments or negative statuses that appear inconsistent with the payment history. I requested the master promissory note, transfer documents, and payment history records. These records were not provided, and the reporting continues despite a lack of verification. Continued reporting of student loan accounts without providing required legal documentation violates federal law. 

Each of these accounts contains inaccuracies, incomplete data, or missing documentation. Despite disputes, no furnisher or bureau has provided the information required to verify them. 

The next issue involves the reinvestigation process. The disputes were handled improperly because the credit bureaus used automated systems instead of performing a real investigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ), when a consumer disputes an account, the bureau must conduct an independent reinvestigation. However, the bureaus rely exclusively on the e-Oscar system, which only gives the furnisher a short code or reason and allows them to respond with a generic electronic code. No original documentation is exchanged. No evidence is reviewed. No contract, application, promissory note, or billing statement is analyzed. The bureaus essentially defer the investigation to the furnisher, which is not allowed under the statute.

When I requested a Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), none of the bureaus provided a legally sufficient explanation. Instead, they provided generic statements claiming they verified the account with the furnisher, which is not an acceptable response. The law requires disclosure of the exact method, including the person contacted, the records reviewed, and the system used. The bureaus failed to provide this.

I also requested an audit trail for each account, including timestamps, user IDs, system logs, and records of every update or verification. These records were not provided, even though they are necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal law.

Many of the derogatory accounts remain on my report even though the companies did not validate them. Some accounts contain information that is internally inconsistent such as : conflicting dates duplicate entries varying balances inconsistent delinquency history accounts marked closed but with ongoing derogatory reporting collection balances that do not match the original creditors amounts These inconsistencies alone demonstrate that the accounts have not been properly verified.

Some furnishers appear to have violated FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) because they failed to mark the account as disputed by consumer after being notified. This is a clear violation and creates misleading impressions to lenders.

In many cases, the bureaus closed my disputes prematurely or did not provide any explanation of how the reinvestigation was conducted. This failure to provide transparency violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). In addition, the bureaus did not justify why the accounts continued to be reported despite not providing the requested documentation.

In summary, all of the following problems occurred : Furnishers continued reporting information without verifying accuracy.

The credit bureaus conducted incomplete, automated, and unreasonable reinvestigations.

The bureaus did not provide a proper Method of Verification when requested.

No original signed contracts, agreements, or legal documents were supplied to validate the accounts.

No chain-of-custody documentation was provided for collection accounts.

No audit trails or system logs were provided.

Disputed accounts were not always marked as disputed.

Several accounts contain inconsistent, outdated, inaccurate, or conflicting information.

The bureaus continued reporting information that violates the FCRA 's accuracy and completeness requirements.

Some furnishers failed to respond to disputes at all, yet the bureaus did not delete the unverifiable accounts.

I am seeking assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because I have exhausted all reasonable efforts to work directly with the companies involved. The accounts remain unverified, incomplete, and inaccurately reported. Under FCRA 602A, consumers deserve accurate, fair, and privacy-respecting credit reporting. The companies involved have not fulfilled these obligations, and their actions have negatively affected my creditworthiness, reputation, and ability to obtain fair credit opportunities.

I am requesting that the CFPB intervene and require the companies to : provide full documentation proving the accuracy of each disputed account, including original contracts and legal agreements provide detailed verification methods correct or delete any information that can not be legally verified conduct a lawful, thorough, and independent reinvestigation update all credit bureaus with corrected or deleted data ensure that all furnishers comply with federal law and furnish complete, accurate, and verifiable data Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this matter and ensuring that the companies involved comply with federal consumer protection laws.

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