Consumer complaint received 2025-06-22 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: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Dear TransUnion Dispute Department, I am writing As of XX/XX/year>, to formally challenge and reject the results of your investigations into my disputes submitted through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Portal under Complaint # XXXX and Complaint # XXXX. Your failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within the federally mandated 30-day period, as required by Section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ), constitutes a clear violation of my rights. As of today, XX/XX/year>, the investigation time has lapsed, and I will not tolerate any further delays beyond the statutory maximum. I demand immediate correction of the inaccurate information on my credit report and a revised response compliant with federal law. 

XXXX. Lapse of Reasonable Investigation Time for Complaint # XXXX My dispute under Complaint # XXXX was submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/year>, establishing a XXXX investigation deadline of XX/XX/year>, per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). Your response states, After careful review, we have determined the information submitted in the portal included a dispute of information appearing on your credit report. Based on your request, we sent you a letter to inform you we were unable to locate a credit report for you and included a list of acceptable documentation and instructions on where to send them if you would like for us to re-check our records. This response, received well after the deadline, is inadequate. Section 611 mandates that TransUnion conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days, which includes verifying the existence of my credit report and disputed data, not shifting the burden to me to resubmit documentation. Your failure to locate my report within this timeframe, without initiating a proactive inquiry or forwarding the dispute to furnishers, violates the FCRAs requirement for a timely and thorough investigation.

2. Conflict with Prior Response in Complaint # XXXX Your response to Complaint # XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/year>, and responded to on XX/XX/year>, states, After careful review, we have determined the information submitted in the portal included a dispute of information appearing on your credit report. In response to your dispute regarding the inquiries appearing on your report, we sent you a letter to explain inquiries remain on your report for XXXX years and if you believe it was made without permissible purpose, you may wish to contact the company directly. This directly conflicts with your statement in Complaint # XXXX, where you claim inability to locate my credit report. The acknowledgment of a credit report with inquiries in the earlier complaint contradicts your later assertion of not finding one, exposing a lack of consistency and diligence in your record-keeping and investigation process. This discrepancy suggests either negligence in maintaining accurate consumer files or a deliberate tactic to evade responsibility, both of which undermine the FCRAs intent.

3.Explanation of FCRA Section 611 Violations Section 611 of the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) imposes a strict 30-day deadline for reinvestigation, extendable to 45 days only if I provide additional relevant information during the initial perioda condition not met here. Subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) requires TransUnion to conduct a reasonable investigation, including reviewing all relevant information, contacting furnishers, and either verifying or deleting disputed data. Your response to Complaint # XXXX, by failing to confirm my reports existence or investigate the disputed information within 30 days, falls short of this standard. The suggestion to resubmit documentation shifts the burden to me, contravening the agencys duty to act proactively. Similarly, your XX/XX/year>, response to Complaint # XXXX, while timely, deflects responsibility to the furnisher without evidence of a reasonable inquiry, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) - ( 5 ). These tacticsdelaying investigation, inconsistent reporting, and burden-shiftingviolate my right to a prompt and accurate resolution, causing concrete harm such as potential credit denials or increased rates.

I will not do any such thing as resubmit documentation or contact furnishers directly, as your investigation was insufficient. The FCRA places the onus on you to resolve disputes, not on me to remedy your procedural failures. Your approach appears designed to prolong the process beyond the 30-day federal maximum, which I reject outright as of XX/XX/year>, XXXX  days past the XX/XX/year>, submission for Complaint # XXXX and well beyond the reasonable timeframe for both complaints.

4. Demand for Corrective Action I demand the following immediate actions : A revised investigation conducted in full compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681i, completed within a extension a new XXXX period starting from the receipt of this letter for a reasonable investigation, Lapse of Reasonable Investigation Time has expired for Complaint # XXXX # XXXX Deletion of the disputed late payment and inquiry notations if they can not be verified with specific evidence, including permissible purpose for inquiries and due dates/notices for late payments.

A detailed written response within 15 days, outlining the specific steps taken, evidence reviewed, and communication with furnishers, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ).

5. Consequences of Noncompliance Failure to comply will result in an escalated complaint to the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and all data brokers.

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