Consumer complaint received 2025-11-12 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: MO

Complaint narrative:
Over the past several months, I have been working diligently to ensure that the information being reported on my consumer credit reports is complete, accurate, and verified in accordance with federal law. During this process, I discovered multiple inconsistencies and apparent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) involving two accounts that are currently being reported as derogatory by the major consumer reporting agencies. These accounts are listed as originating from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I initially became aware of the problem when I reviewed my full tri-merged credit report from the three nationwide credit bureaus. That review showed a generally positive payment history across numerous open and closed accounts. Most accounts were in good standing, reflecting timely payments, modest balances, and responsible credit utilization. However, two particular accounts stood out because they were being reported as derogatory or charged-off, even though I had never received adequate proof of their validity or ownership. 

The accounts in question were as follows : one from XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ) reported as a collection/charge-off closed on XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a past due balance of approximately {$17000.00}, and one from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ) reported as a collection/charge-off with a past due balance of approximately {$5700.00}. The first appears on more than one bureau, while the second appears primarily on XXXX file. No public records, bankruptcies, or judgments accompany these accounts, which suggests that they are isolated entries that should have been properly validated before being published. 

Immediately after noticing these entries, I began a series of formal disputes with each of the credit reporting agencies under FCRA 611 ( a ). My goal was simple : to verify that the data being furnished to my consumer file was accurate, verifiable, and reported by a legitimate data furnisher with legal standing. Under the law, I have the right to request a description of the method of verification used by a consumer reporting agency to verify disputed information. This means the bureau must identify the source of the data, the system used to verify it, and whether the verification was completed through e-OSCAR ( an electronic system used between furnishers and credit bureaus ), through manual review, or through some other method. 

Despite submitting clear and lawful written disputes, the responses I received from the credit reporting agencies were insufficient and failed to satisfy the statutory requirements. Each bureau responded with a standardized form letter indicating that the account had been verified as accurate, but none of them provided supporting evidence, copies of original signed contracts, billing statements, or assignment documentation from the alleged creditors. This lack of transparency undermines the very purpose of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires consumer reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation whenever a consumer disputes an item on their report. 

In addition to the absence of documentation, none of the credit bureaus explained what data sources were used to conduct their reinvestigation. They did not clarify whether the information was verified through automated systems, electronic responses, or actual human review. This omission is significant because FCRA 607 ( b ) mandates that credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. An automated or unverified confirmation from a furnisher does not meet the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation. 

Furthermore, under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), if a consumer requests the method of verification, the bureau is required to provide the name, address, and telephone number of the furnisher contacted, as well as a detailed explanation of the procedure used to verify the information. None of the bureaus complied with this requirement, leaving me without any understanding of how or why the disputed items continue to appear. 

The situation with XXXX XXXX XXXX is particularly troubling. I have never received any communication from this entity verifying the alleged debt, nor have I been provided a copy of an original signed agreement or any chain of title demonstrating lawful ownership or assignment. According to FDCPA 809 ( b ), when a consumer disputes a debt in writing and requests validation, the collector must cease all collection activity and provide verification before continuing to report the account. Yet, despite repeated written requests for validation and verification, the credit bureaus continue to publish this derogatory information based solely on data supplied by the furnisherwithout any proof of authenticity. 

The account from XXXX XXXX XXXX presents similar issues. It is unclear what this account is or how it originated. There has been no documentation, no proof of ownership, and no explanation as to why this debt is being attributed to my name. The amount listed appears arbitrary and inconsistent with my financial records. In addition, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided any legal contract, billing statement, or assignment documents verifying that I owe the alleged amount or that they have the legal right to report it. 

Over time, I also observed that these accounts appeared inconsistently across different credit bureau files. One account appeared on two bureaus, while the other was present only on TransUnion. This discrepancy indicates that at least one bureau either failed to receive the same data from the furnisher or rejected it for accuracy reasons, which should have triggered a broader review under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ). That section explicitly requires consumer reporting agencies to delete information that can not be verified. 

Throughout this process, I have made multiple good-faith efforts to resolve the issue directly with the reporting agencies. I have sent written disputes, requested validation, and asked for audit trails. I have even cited the relevant sections of the FCRA and FDCPA in each letter, including FCRA 602A, 607B, 609 ( a ), 611 ( a ), and 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), as well as FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and 809 ( b ). My intent was to give each bureau and furnisher every opportunity to correct or validate the disputed data before I escalated the issue further. However, none of the bureaus provided the documentation required under law, and the derogatory items remain in my file to this day. 

This has caused measurable harm. Because of these unverifiable derogatory entries, I have faced denials of credit and unfavorable terms on financial products that otherwise would have been approved based on my payment history and responsible credit usage. In addition, these inaccurate entries have affected my credit score, which is used by employers, landlords, insurers, and financial institutions. The emotional and financial impact of having false or unverified information on my credit report is significant and ongoing. 

To be clear, I am not refusing to pay any legitimate debt. My only request is that the credit reporting agencies and furnishers follow the law and provide verifiable proof of the accuracy and ownership of these accounts. If they can produce legally sufficient documentationsuch as the original signed contract, itemized billing statements, or legally binding assignment documentsI will review the materials and take appropriate action. However, if they can not produce such proof, the law requires them to delete or suppress the information immediately. 

The bureaus continued reliance on unverified electronic confirmation from furnishers constitutes procedural negligence. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously issued interpretive rules clarifying that the reinvestigation process can not be automated and must involve a reasonable review of underlying documentation. Simply marking a dispute as verified based on an e-OSCAR code response does not fulfill the FCRAs requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation. 

Moreover, the furnishers themselves have a duty under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) to mark accounts as disputed by consumer when notified of a dispute. If a furnisher fails to mark the account as disputed while continuing to report it, this constitutes a direct violation of the FCRA. I have reason to believe that neither XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX XXXX have appropriately marked these accounts as disputed, since they continue to appear as standard negative items without dispute notation on the latest copies of my reports. 

I have also requested the complete audit trail associated with these accounts, including timestamps, user IDs, and system logs showing who reported, updated, or verified the information. This is essential to determine whether the data furnishers had proper authorization and whether the reporting agencies followed their internal procedures for reinvestigation. To date, none of this information has been provided. 

In summary, the issues can be described as follows : Two derogatory accounts remain on my credit reports despite multiple disputes and requests for validation. 

The credit bureaus have failed to provide a clear description of the method of verification used to confirm the accuracy of the information. 

The furnishers, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, have failed to provide original documentation proving the validity and ownership of the alleged debts. 

The bureaus have not provided audit trails, timestamps, or records showing the procedural steps of reinvestigation. 

These failures constitute potential violations of FCRA 602A, 607B, 611 ( a ) and FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) and 809 ( b ). 

The continued publication of unverifiable data has caused financial and reputational harm. 

Because of these facts, I am requesting that this matter be escalated for regulatory review and enforcement. I ask that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate the actions of both the credit reporting agencies and the furnishers involved to determine whether they have complied with federal law. 

Specifically, I ask that each bureau be required to produce : A written statement identifying the furnisher contacted during the reinvestigation, the system used, and the nature of the verification. 

Certified copies of the original documents provided by the furnisher that prove the accuracy and ownership of the account. 

Copies of any data transmission, e-OSCAR messages, or internal communications exchanged between the bureaus and furnishers regarding these disputes. 

Confirmation that any unverifiable or unvalidated information has been deleted or suppressed in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). 

If the bureaus can not produce these materials, they should be directed to delete the disputed accounts immediately and confirm in writing that deletion to both me and the furnishers. Furthermore, if the furnishers have failed to maintain appropriate validation records, they should be prohibited from further reporting of this data under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).

The broader issue here is not simply about two tradelines but about the integrity of the entire credit reporting process. Consumers rely on the accuracy of their reports to obtain housing, employment, and financial services. When a credit bureau allows unverifiable or inaccurate data to persist, it undermines confidence in the system and causes direct harm to individuals. 

Throughout this process, I have acted in good faith, submitted all required documentation, and provided the agencies ample opportunity to correct their records. Yet, despite these efforts, the inaccurate and unverified information remains, demonstrating a systemic failure to uphold the consumer protections mandated by law. 

I am therefore requesting the CFPBs assistance in ensuring that my credit reports are corrected and that all parties involved are held accountable for their compliance obligations under the FCRA and FDCPA. I am also requesting that the agencies provide a written certification confirming deletion of any unverifiable or inaccurate information and a statement of the steps taken to prevent future reinsertion of these items. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this complaint is not about avoiding responsibility for any legitimate debts but about ensuring that only legally verified and properly validated information is reported. The presence of unverifiable data creates unnecessary harm, and the law clearly requires its removal. 

For these reasons, I am respectfully requesting that the CFPB investigate the matter, require full compliance with all statutory provisions, and ensure that my consumer file reflects only accurate, verified, and lawfully reported information.

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