Consumer complaint received 2025-11-18 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Over the past several months, I have been carefully reviewing my consumer credit reports across all three major credit reporting agencies. During this process, I discovered multiple items that appear inaccurate, unverified, or lacking any legitimate documentation supporting their continued reporting. Specifically, I identified an account reported by a company identified asXX/XX/XXXX and a series of auto-related credit inquiries that I do not recall authorizing individually. The circumstances surrounding both the account and the inquiries raise substantial questions about accuracy, verification processes, permissible purpose, and procedural compliance under federal consumer protection laws. Because these issues affect the overall accuracy and fairness of my credit profile, I am bringing this matter to the attention of the CFPB and the companies involved. 

SECTION 1 DISCOVERY OF THE DISPUTED ACCOUNT The first issue concerns a derogatory account that appears on my consumer credit report. This account is reported as a charged-off or collection-type account by a company identified on my file asXX/XX/XXXX. According to the information on the credit report, the account was allegedly closed in the yearXX/XX/XXXXand it reflects a substantial outstanding balance. The reporting also categorizes the account in a manner that significantly impacts my creditworthiness, suggesting serious delinquency or nonpayment. 

My initial concern arose because I have no recollection of ever entering into a financial agreement, credit arrangement, loan, service contract, or purchase plan with any company by this name. I am familiar with the vast majority of creditors, lenders, service providers, merchants, and financial institutions with whom I have engaged in the past. However, XX/XX/XXXXis not familiar to me in any personal, business, financial, or transactional context. 

When I saw this account being reported, I conducted a thorough review of my personal files, including contracts, receipts, emails, billing statements, loan documents, and financial agreements. After reviewing all available information, I confirmed that I had never received billing statements, never received a notice of debt, never received any service notification, and never received any correspondence indicating that I owed money to an entity using the nameXX/XX/XXXXAt no point did I receive a letter informing me of an account opening, an approval, a decline, an extension of credit, or the assignment of a debt connected with this company. 

Because credit accounts do not appear out of nowhere, the absence of any documentation or recollection raises significant concerns regarding whether the account is : the result of a reporting error, a case of mixed credit files, an account belonging to another consumer, a misattribution due to a similar name, an improperly transferred or purchased debt, a system or furnisher error, or, in the worst case, a sign of identity misuse or unauthorized activity. 

Given these concerns, I reached out through formal dispute channels to the credit reporting agency involved. I requested that they conduct a reinvestigation consistent with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). I requested that they obtain documentation establishing : who opened the account, how the account was verified, what specific documents show that I am legally responsible, whether any contract or application bears my signature, and whether the furnisher possessed any original documentation at all. 

Despite this request, I have not received any direct evidence demonstrating that this account legitimately belongs to me. I have not been provided with a copy of any signed contract, application, purchase agreement, or service authorization. Nor have I received an itemized transaction history, a billing ledger, or proof that any goods or services were provided to me under this account. 

When a company reports a consumer as owing a debt, especially one carrying a large balance and marked as derogatory, it should be able to produce original source documentation. Without such documentation, there is no accurate basis for the negative reporting. Yet the information still appears on my credit file, causing harm to my creditworthiness. 

SECTION 2 ISSUES WITH VERIFICATION AND ACCURACY After disputing the item, the credit reporting agency stated that the furnisher of the information " verified '' the account. This raises additional concerns because verification can mean several different things in practice, many of which do not involve reviewing any actual documentation. In many cases, credit reporting agencies rely on automated systems ( such as e-Oscar ) where the furnisher simply responds with a pre-set code instead of providing supporting documentation. This means the furnisher may not have reviewed anything beyond an internal database entry, which would not constitute a legally sufficient verification of accuracy. 

For a debt of this type and size, proper verification should include : A signed contract, credit application, or financing agreement, Documents showing the creation of the account, Records showing the transfer or sale of the account, if applicable, An itemized billing history showing how the balance originated, Evidence that notices were sent to the correct consumer, and Validation that any reporting complies with the FCRA. 

Because I have never received such documentation, there is no way to determine whether the furnishers claim is accurate or whether a clerical or system error has occurred. Without documentation, the continued reporting of this account appears improper. 

SECTION 3 DISCOVERY OF MULTIPLE AUTO-RELATED HARD INQUIRIES Beyond the disputed account, I also discovered multiple hard credit inquiries related to auto dealerships and lenders. These inquiries appear to have been made on the same day or close in time. Some inquiries appear tied to auto dealerships or partner lenders, but they do not reflect discrete, individual authorizations from me. 

The inquiries include : An inquiry from a major auto manufacturers credit division, An inquiry from an auto dealership, Additional related inquiries, And inquiries from multiple auto lenders that appear to have been triggered on the same date. 

In reviewing the timeline, I identified that the inquiries were associated with an auto dealerships act of sending my personal information out to multiple lenders in a manner that I did not clearly understand, authorize, or consent to in a detailed manner. In many cases, auto dealerships use electronic platforms that transmit consumer information to numerous lenders simultaneously. They may label this as trying to get you the best rate, but they often fail to explain that each transmission triggers a separate hard inquiry. 

I do not recall signing a document that clearly disclosed that multiple lenders would perform hard pulls. I also do not recall being given the option to limit the lenders contacted. Typically, a dealer must present a credit application that specifically explains which lenders will be accessing credit reports. In many transactions, consumers are told verbally that their credit will be checked once, yet the dealerships software sends it to many lenders. 

This appears to be what happened in my case. I believe there may have been : A failure to properly disclose the nature and scope of the credit pulls, A lack of clear consent for multiple inquiries, Excessive inquiries beyond what was reasonably expected, And possible violations of permissible-purpose standards under the FCRA. 

In addition, some of the inquiries appear unrelated to any specific application I knowingly made. Because the inquiries were performed without explicit authorization or clear disclosure, I am disputing them as unauthorized or inaccurately reported. 

SECTION 4 IMPACT OF THE REPORTING ERRORS The combination of the disputed account and the excessive inquiries has significantly impacted my overall credit profile. These items affect credit scores, lending decisions, insurance rates, rental opportunities, interest rates, and even potential employment screening outcomes. A single derogatory account of this size can cause substantial harm, and multiple hard inquiriesespecially those not individually authorizedcreate the appearance of credit-seeking behavior that did not actually occur. 

These inaccuracies have caused : Difficulty securing credit at reasonable terms, Denied applications due to credit score reduction, Emotional distress resulting from the uncertainty of identity misuse, And ongoing frustration regarding the inability to obtain verification or removal. 

Consumers rely heavily on the accuracy of their credit reports. When derogatory information is reported without proper documentation or when inquiries appear without clear authorization, it undermines the transparency and fairness of the credit reporting system. 

SECTION 5 ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES To address the problem, I followed the dispute process outlined by the credit reporting agency. I submitted formal disputes, requesting that the agency investigate, reinvestigate, and verify the accuracy of the items in question. I also requested that, if the items could not be fully verified through documentation, they should be removed under applicable federal law. 

Despite my efforts, the credit reporting agency did not provide me with any documentary proof or copies of agreements. Instead, I received a standard response indicating that the items had been verified, but without any supporting documents. No contract, application, or billing record has been produced. The agency did not provide a clear explanation of how the furnisher verified the information, what method was used, or what documents were reviewed. 

Because the account continues to appear, and because the hard inquiries remain on file despite my questioning of their validity, I am escalating this matter for proper review. I am requesting that the companies involved be required to : Provide actual supporting documents, Clarify permissible purpose, Demonstrate proper authorization, Or remove any information that can not be fully validated. 

SECTION 6 WHY I AM FILING THIS COMPLAINT I am filing this complaint because the disputed account and inquiries continue to appear on my credit report despite my lack of knowledge, lack of documentation, and lack of clear authorization. I am not refusing any legitimate obligation. I simply want : Accurate reporting, Full validation, Proper documentation, Compliance with federal law, And the removal of any unverifiable or unauthorized information. 

The companies involved have not provided the documents necessary to validate the account or the inquiries. Because of this, I am requesting the assistance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help ensure that the investigation is properly handled and that the companies are held accountable for providing accurate information and proper documentation. 

SECTION 7 WHAT I AM REQUESTING I respectfully request the following : A full review of the disputed account. 

Documentary proof establishing that the account belongs to me. 

Removal of the account if such proof can not be provided. 

A full review of each disputed hard inquiry. 

Proof of permissible purpose for each inquiry. 

Removal of any inquiry made without my direct authorization. 

A corrected copy of my credit report reflecting accurate information. 

SECTION 8 SUMMARY In summary, a company is reporting a derogatory account that I do not recognize and can not validate. Additionally, multiple lenders appear to have accessed my credit file as part of an auto-related transaction, but I did not clearly authorize each inquiry individually, nor was it explained that multiple lenders would pull my credit. My requests for verification have not resulted in actual documentation being provided. Because of this, these items appear inaccurate, unverified, or improperly authorized, and they continue to cause harm. 

I am requesting the CFPBs help to ensure that the credit reporting agency and the companies involved provide proper documentation or remove the disputed information if it can not be validated.

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