Consumer complaint received 2025-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This is a formal dispute of inaccurate, inconsistent, and abusive credit reporting tied to the XXXX XXXX credit card account listed under my credit profile. 

Despite multiple disputes submitted since XX/XX/XXXX, the following violations remain unresolved : My {$95.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX was not applied toward the past due amount, and the account continues to show a 30-day delinquency. 
Multiple months ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX ) are marked OK despite no payments being made. 
Cross-bureau discrepancies exist between balances, status codes, and payment history for the same time periods. 
I was enrolled in XXXX XXXX and charged monthly for it, but it was never honored or appliedduring a time of financial hardship. 
I was never informed that I needed to notify the creditor in advance for the protection to apply. No documentation or instructions were provided. If such a clause exists, it was never disclosedmaking it invalid. 

The creditors behavior is unlawful and violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) & 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) FDCPA 807 TILA and UDAAP provisions Detailed Evidence Supporting My Dispute : 1. Payment Reporting Inaccuracy Example : A {$95.00} payment was made on XX/XX/XXXX, yet the account is still reported as 30 days late across Experian and TransUnion. 
Evidence : Transaction history ; XX/XX/XXXX billing statement ; account screenshots. 
2. Contradictory Delinquency Ratings Across Bureaus Example : XX/XX/XXXX shows no payment was made, but it is marked OK in Equifax and TransUnion, creating a conflict with XXXX delinquency claim. 
Evidence : Payment history grid ; Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reports. 
3. Stacking of Abusive Fees Example : In XX/XX/XXXXXXXX I was charged the following within a single cycle : {$41.00} Late Fee {$26.00} Interest {$14.00} Credit Protection Fee {$19.00} Monthly Fee {$49.00} Annual Fee ( charged XX/XX/XXXX ) Evidence : XX/XX/XXXX billing statement ( all charges itemized ). 
4. Failure to Apply Credit Protection Benefits Example : Although I was enrolled in and paying for XXXX XXXX, no benefits were ever appliedno fee waivers, no deferments, and no hardship relief. 
Evidence : XXXX XXXX billing charges ; lack of any disclosure agreement or claim process. 
5. Over-Limit Balance Misuse Example : My balance reached {$990.00} on a {$700.00} limit ( 142 % utilization ), with no breakdown of over-limit fees or justification. 
Evidence : XX/XX/XXXX statement showing balance and limit ; absence of itemized over-limit fees. 
6. Failure to Correct Disputed Data Example : I submitted disputes starting in XX/XX/XXXX, yet each bureau continues to report unresolved and inaccurate derogatory marks. 
Evidence : notations in bureau reports labeled dispute resolved by data furnisher with no correction made. 
XXXX. Predatory Billing Patterns Example : Despite making a {$140.00} payment in XXXX and {$95.00} in XXXX, my past due amount continued to grow due to fee stacking, interest, and improper application of payments. 
Evidence : Payment history log ; billing statements from XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. 
8. Lack of Disclosure on Hardship Requirements Example : At no point was I told, verbally or in writing, that I needed to notify the creditor in advance to use the Credit Protection plan I was being charged for. 
Evidence : Absence of terms and conditions ; no email, letter, or portal communication indicating this policy. 
9. Violations of Federal Law Statutes Violated : FCRA 607 ( b ) : Inaccurate and inconsistent bureau reporting FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Furnishing of false information FCRA 611 : Failure to correct disputed data FDCPA 807 : Misrepresentation of debt status TILA ( Reg Z ) : Failure to disclose billing practices and protection terms UDAAP ( Dodd-Frank ) : Predatory, deceptive, and abusive fee structures Cross-Bureau Discrepancies and Inaccuracies The following inconsistencies exist between Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, all of which contradict one another and fail to accurately reflect my account history : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Payment & Status Conflict Experian : Reports account 30 days late, {$56.00} past due. 
Equifax : Reports 30 days late, also lists {$56.00} past due.

TransUnion : Marks account as OK or 30 days late without consistently displaying past due amount. 
Reality : A {$95.00} payment was made on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXenough to cover the reported minimum due, yet not properly applied by any bureau. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Payment Omission vs. OK Status All Bureaus : List status as OK or current, despite no payment being made that month. 
Inconsistency : The absence of a payment should have triggered a 30-day late flag, or at minimum a past due remarknone of which appear consistently. 
XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Overpayment Ignored Payment Made : {$140.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Scheduled Payment : {$63.00}. 
Bureaus : Experian and Equifax both fail to reflect this surplus, and still report past due balances in subsequent months, indicating misallocation of overpayment. 
4. Derogatory Remarks During OK Periods Equifax and Experian : Apply DRG ( Derogatory ) status in months where the payment grid shows OK, including XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. 
TransUnion : Omits DRG remark but also fails to clearly indicate balance activity or accurate past due totals. 
5. Past Due Amount Discrepancies Experian & Equifax : Report {$56.00} past due for XX/XX/XXXX. 
Actual Statement ( XXXX ) : Shows {$110.00} past due. 
TransUnion : Displays either no past due amount or an unverified {$70.00} minimum due without matching it to payments made. 
XXXX. Utilization Not Reflected Properly Balance Across Bureaus : {$990.00} reported.

Credit Limit : {$700.00}. 
No Bureau Reports Over-the-Limit Status Clearly : None indicate utilization at 142 %, and no bureau flags the account for excessive revolving credit. 
XXXX. Dispute Resolution Status Misleading All Bureaus : State Account in dispute, resolved by data furnisher. 
Reality : Reporting remains inaccurate, and no documented resolution or reinvestigation results were provided to me. 


I demand that your office : 1. Reinvestigate this tradeline immediately 2. Correct all errors and remove all derogatory reporting 3. Require the data furnisher to recalculate my balance and remove improperly assessed fees 4. Remove the account entirely if validation can not be provided 5. Document and disclose the full results of your reinvestigation I have included supporting documentation that verifies these claims. If you fail to correct the reporting within the timeframe allowed by law, I am prepared to escalate this through legal and regulatory channels.

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