Consumer complaint received 2025-12-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against [ Equifax/Experian/TransUnion ] for reporting an internally inconsistent and facially impossible tradeline for XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit report, and for failing to perform a real FCRA investigation when I disputed it. 

On my XXXX report XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, there is an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX secured credit-builder loan ( Account No. XXXX ). In the tradeline summary, the bureaus own data clearly shows : Account Status : Closed Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$0.00} High Balance : ~ {$74.00} {$120.00} on a {$1000.00} secured line Times XX/XX/XXXX Days Late : XXXX Current Payment Status : As Agreed Statement in the payment section : Youve made 100 % of payments for this account on time. 

XXXX XXXX credit pull XXXX However, in the payment-history grid for this same tradeline, the bureau is displaying a XXXX late in XX/XX/XXXX and a XXXX late in XX/XX/XXXX even though : The account is reported as closed with a {$0.00} balance ; Last activity is reported as XX/XX/XXXX ; and The summary section says I have XXXX lates and 100 % on-time history. 

XXXX XXXX credit pull XXXX These data points can not all be true at the same time. Either : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is furnishing late codes for dates after the account was closed and paid and after the last-activity date in the bureaus file ; or The bureaus own system is mis-coding, mis-mapping, or mis-displaying the payment history. 

In either case, the tradeline as published is inaccurate, incomplete, and materially misleading, because it tells lenders XXXX different stories at once : XXXX lates and 100 % on-time, but also 30 and 60 days past due almost XXXX years after the reported last-activity date. 

I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX  directly in good faith and requested a correction. Their written response was a generic statement that they are reporting accurate information and they refused to remove the late marks. They provided no documentation whatsoever of any actual late payment, and they did not explain how a closed, $ XXXX account with last activity in XXXX can have 30- and 60-day lates in XXXX. 

Despite this, [ Equifax/Experian/TransUnion ] continues to publish this contradictory tradeline. It appears that the bureau simply accepted the furnishers one-line response and parroted it back to me, instead of independently evaluating the obvious conflict in the data on the face of the report. 

This conduct violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) requires the bureau to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports. A tradeline that simultaneously shows XXXX lates and 100 % on-time history and 30/60-day lates in XXXX on a closed XXXX account is not maximum possible accuracy by any reasonable standard. 

15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) requires the bureau, after receiving my dispute, to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and delete or correct any information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified. A reasonable investigation does not mean simply sending an e-OSCAR form, accepting a one-word response from the furnisher ( verified/accurate ), and then ignoring the self-contradictory data in the bureaus own file. The bureau is required to evaluate for accuracy, not act as a mere mailbox for furnishers. 

15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) requires the bureau to provide the furnisher with all relevant information regarding my dispute. I dispute that this was done adequately because the furnisher clearly did not address the contradiction between the XXXX XXXX % on time language and the 30/60-day late codes in XXXX. 

15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) requires deletion of information that can not be verified. If XXXX XXXX can not produce actual records proving a delinquency in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX on this account, the bureau must remove those derogatory codes. 

15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) & ( b ) prohibit furnishers like XXXX XXXX XXXX  from reporting information they know or should know is inaccurate and require them to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct or delete information when they receive notice of a dispute from the bureau. Re-reporting accurate with no documentation while XXXX parts of the tradeline contradict each other is not a reasonable investigation. 

This inaccurate reporting is harming me right now. I am actively working to build personal and business credit and to qualify for legitimate financing, and these bogus 30/60-day lates on a tiny, paid-off credit-builder account are depressing my scores and making it harder and more expensive to access credit. The bureaus failure to correct an error that is obvious from its own file undermines the integrity of the entire reporting system. 

I am asking the CFPB to become involved because the bureaus current handling of my dispute appears to be nothing more than forwarding a generic furnisher response and closing the investigation, rather than actually testing the data for accuracy and consistency, as the FCRA requires.

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