Consumer complaint received 2025-05-23 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: MI

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Formal Follow-Up Regarding Ongoing FCRA and FDCPA Violations Unverifiable Debt and Inaccurate Credit Reporting and Demand for removal of account from all credit reporting.

This serves a formal follow-up to my original disputes, CFPB complaints, and direct communications regarding the inaccurate and unlawful reporting of the XXXX XXXX  account currently reflected on my XXXX  and TransUnion credit reports. 


I am writing to summarize the facts that have already been proven by the creditors own documentation, point out clear violations of federal law, and issue final demands prior to escalation toward consumer protection litigation.

1. I Have Never Disputed Ownership Only the Legality of Reporting and Collection.

To be clear : I have never denied opening this account. My dispute isand has always beenbased on : 1. Inaccurate and contradictory credit reporting ; Absence of legally sufficient debt validation ; Unproven authority to furnish or collect under FDCPA and FCRA ; Multiple, conflicting ownership claims with no chain of title ever produced. 

XXXX XXXX Conflicting Ownership Claims Prove My Case XX/XX/XXXX Email from XXXX : XXXX debt was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX CFPB Response from XXXX : Contradictorily claims debt was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Neither response provides proof of sale, assignment, or legal transfer. 

These contradictory statements undermine the validity of all subsequent collections and credit reporting. You can not sell a debt to XXXX different parties simultaneously and then continue to report or assign collection authority without producing a chain of title. 

No XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, nor Asset Recoveryhas provided this proof. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and FDCPA Violations XXXX XXXX XXXX : Asset Recovery issued collection demands, stating it was collecting on behalf of XXXX XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX : In its CFPB response, XXXX XXXX claimed it was returning the account to XXXX XXXX and closing it. 

This sequence : Violates FDCPA 1692e by misrepresenting collection authority ; Violates 1692g by failing to provide validation before continuing collection ; Shows XXXX XXXX had no legal standing and improperly pursued payment. 

XXXX. TransUnion and XXXX  Failed to Conduct Reasonable Investigations Despite my submission of : The XX/XX/XXXX letter naming XXXX XXXX as the buyer, The XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response naming XXXX as the buyer, Contradictions in balance and status reporting through early XXXX, TransUnion and XXXX falsely marked the account as verified and accurate. 
No documentation has ever been provided showing what was used to verify the account. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( a ) ( 5 ), if accuracy can not be verified, the information must be deleted. Failure to do so makes both bureaus complicit in the ongoing harm caused by this misreporting. 

5. Improper Re-Aging and Failure to Close Account in Violation of FCRA and Metro 2 My credit reports show : Last payment in XX/XX/XXXX ; Account marked 30 days late in XXXX XXXX, 60 days in XX/XX/XXXX ; Account listed as Collection from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; Account sold or transferred in XX/XX/XXXX, but continued updates followed. 

Once an account is in collection or sold, it must : Be reported as closed ; List a {$0.00} balance by the original creditor ; Stop showing delinquency progressions.

The ongoing monthly updates constitute illegal re-aging and violate Metro 2 reporting standards and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ).

6. No Valid Assignment or Legal Transfer Documents Ever Provided Bill of Sale : Neither XXXX nor XXXX XXXX has provided a bill of sale or purchase agreement proving the debt was lawfully assigned. 
Account-Level Documentation : Even if a generic portfolio sale exists, no account-level assignment shows your specific account was transferred with legal authority.

Legal Requirement : Under both the FDCPA and case law, debt collectors must prove ownership with specific documentation, not just blanket statements or generic letters. 

XXXX. Multiple and Contradictory Owners = No Clear Standing At least three entities ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) have been named as the current ownerthis disqualifies all of them unless one provides a verifiable, unbroken chain of title.

Contradictions undermine legal standing to collect, report, or pursue arbitration. 

XXXX. Creditors Are Continuing to Furnish Data Post-Sale Unlawful XXXX and/or XXXXXXXX XXXX reported updates in XX/XX/XXXX despite claiming they no longer own or service the account.

FCRA and Metro 2 require a {$0.00} balance and Closed Sold status once an account is transferred.

Updating after sale is not only inaccurateit is unauthorized furnishing of information, violating FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ).

You have had months to correct this. The documentation you each submitted has confirmed that the account is unverifiable and unlawfully reported. Your refusal to resolve these issues outside of court leaves me no choice but to seek formal legal recourse. 

Why XXXX  and TransUnion Can not Legally Verify the XXXX Account as Accurate Grounds for Full Removal The XXXX XXXX account currently appearing on my credit reports under XXXX  and TransUnion is inaccurately reported, improperly verified, and must be removed in full based on established violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 credit reporting standards.

Despite multiple disputes, both XXXX and TransUnion have verified the tradeline as accurate or updated. This is a legally invalid determination for the following reasons : 1. Inconsistent and Conflicting Furnisher Data Reporting Can not Be Verified If It Is Contradictory The tradeline appears under XXXX, yet XXXX stated in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, that the account was sold to XXXX XXXX. 
Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded to my CFPB complaint and claimed the debt was actually sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX, not XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, another collector, issued collection demands on behalf of XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, and later retracted their claim of ownership in a XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response. 

These ownership contradictions are clear evidence that no party can lawfully validate this account, and the bureaus can not verify what even the data furnishers themselves have failed to establish with consistency or documentation. 

XXXX. Reporting Conflicts with Metro 2 Guidelines Post-Sale Reporting by XXXX Is Invalid XXXX comments state the account was sold, yet it continues to report as an active collection tradeline under XXXX. 
Per XXXX XXXX guidelines, once an account is sold : The original creditor ( XXXX ) must report a {$0.00} balance, Must cease updating the tradeline as if they still own it, And must accurately reflect the transfer of ownership. 

XXXX and TransUnion are displaying conflicting statuses : One bureau reports Paid Collection with a {$0.00} balance ; The other reflects continued activity and balance updates through early XXXX ; Neither reflect who currently owns the debt ; And no party has provided the chain of title to prove current ownership. 

Therefore, the reporting does not comply with Metro 2 standards and is materially misleading under the FCRA.

XXXX XXXX and TransUnion Failed to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation FCRA 1681i Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), credit bureaus must : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation upon consumer dispute ; Review all relevant information provided by the consumer ; And delete or correct any information found to be inaccurate, unverifiable, or incomplete.

In my case : I submitted documentation showing direct contradictions between XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. 
No party has provided legal validation, ownership documents, or the original agreement. 
Yet both bureaus have verified the account based solely on unverifiable furnisher claimswhich is not sufficient under the FCRA. 

The FCRA requires that if the information can not be verified, it must be deleted. This standard has clearly been met. 

Conclusion and Legal Demand Given the documented contradictions, broken chain of title, lack of validation, and failures by both XXXX and its collectors to substantiate ownership : Neither XXXX nor TransUnion can legally continue to verify or report this account as accurate. Under FCRA 1681i and Metro 2 standards, this account is unverifiable and must be permanently removed.

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