Consumer complaint received 2025-11-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Problem with personal statement of dispute
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: DE

Complaint narrative:
This is a XXXX XXXX complaint about TransUnions handling of my dispute regarding a XXXX XXXX credit card charge-off tradeline ( account ending in XXXX ). I previously submitted a CFPB complaint about TransUnions reporting of this same tradeline ( CFPB ID : XXXX ), and separate complaints about XXXX XXXX reporting and investigation ( CFPB XXXX : XXXX and XXXX ). Despite multiple disputes, TransUnion continues to report inaccurate and unverifiable information and has not properly explained how they verified this tradeline. 

On or about XX/XX/year> TransUnion sent me an Investigation Results letter stating that the XXXX account was verified as accurate and updated. The letter gives only generic language about what they might have done and does not clearly identify the method of verification, the documents reviewed, or the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) used to calculate the XXXX reporting period, as required under FCRA 611 and 605 ( c ). I specifically requested this information in my dispute and in my Method of Verification ( MOV ) letter, but TransUnion did not provide it. 

TransUnions own reporting, compared with the other bureaus, shows that the information can not be fully accurate or consistent : In my myFICO XXXX report, TransUnion lists the XXXX tradelines Worst Delinquency as None Reported, even though TransUnion is XXXX reporting the account as a charge-off with a derogatory status. At the same time, XXXX  shows Bad debt/collection and XXXX  shows Charge Off/Other Derogatory for the same account and balance. 

In the XXXX payment history, XXXX  and XXXX  show strings of CO ( charge-off ) and severe derogatory months throughout XXXX, while TransUnion shows NR ( Not Reported ) for most of those same months. The same XXXX account can not simultaneously have extensive charge-off history with XXXX bureaus and no reported delinquency with TransUnion. 

Under Older Derogatory Events, XXXX  and XXXX  list many months of 90-days late tied to this tradeline, while TransUnion shows no XXXX late history at all. These conflicts across bureaus and within XXXX own fields show that the data is not being maintained to the maximum possible accuracy required by FCRA 607 ( b ). 

TransUnion has still not disclosed any DOFD on my consumer-facing reports ( IdentityIQ and myFICO both show no DOFD value for this tradeline ), so I can not confirm that the 7-year reporting period is being calculated correctly under FCRA 605 ( c ). Without a clear DOFD, continued monthly reporting of this charged-off account is not transparent or verifiable. 

XXXX XXXX  previously filed a collection lawsuit against me in Delaware ( XXXX of the XXXX XXXX case XXXX ). The docket shows that service was returned not served and the case was closed on XX/XX/year> under XXXX XXXX. Despite XXXX dismissing its own case and never obtaining a judgment, TransUnion continues to furnish ongoing derogatory updates based solely on the furnishers say-so, while refusing to provide me with the underlying DOFD or method of verification. 

I believe TransUnion has not conducted a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611, has not maintained the account with maximum possible accuracy under 607 ( b ), and is continuing to report information that is incomplete and internally inconsistent across the XXXX bureaus.

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