Consumer complaint received 2025-12-16 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Was not notified of investigation status or results
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Failure to reasonably reinvestigate and to provide method of verification for disputed 30-day late XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX 

I am filing this complaint regarding Trans Union and their handling of a disputed 30-day late payment on my XXXX XXXX XXXX account . I have had this XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account for over 12 years with a perfect payment history, except for a single 30-day late payment reported for XX/XX/year>, which I dispute as inaccurate and/or incomplete. 

Trans Union is well past the 30-day window and never responded to my Method of Verification request and has not provided to me the legally required method of verification. Thats a clear FCRA violation under 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). 

What happened : XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written dispute to Trans Union challenging the accuracy of the XX/XX/year> XXXX late on my XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX. I provided supporting documentation and requested a reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, the bureau responded that the late payment had been verified as accurate but did not provide any meaningful explanation or documentation supporting that conclusion. 

XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, I sent a follow-up letter specifically requesting, under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information, including the furnishers name, address, and phone number. 

XXXX. As of XX/XX/year>, I have only received a generic boilerplate statement that did not actually describe the procedure used, the records reviewed, or the basis for the verification. Why this is a problem Under the FCRA : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes the accuracy of information. Simply accepting an automated verified response from the furnisher without reviewing underlying records ( such as statements and payment histories ) does not appear to meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation. 

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) requires that, upon request, the consumer reporting agency must provide a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, including the business name, address, and telephone number of any furnisher contacted. The bureau has failed to provide an adequate description of that procedure.

FCRA 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) requires the bureau to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports. Continuing to report a disputed 30-day late payment without demonstrating a reasonable reinvestigation or providing the required procedural description may violate this obligation.

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