Consumer complaint received 2020-09-23 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Account No. XXXX XXXX dba XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) is reporting derogatory student loan information in the form of late payments for XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, to the national credit reporting bureaus. I am requesting that these late payments be deleted, or that no reporting be made for these months, because a forbearance was retroactively placed on my account from XX/XX/XXXX, until XX/XX/XXXX, when my Income Based Repayment ( IBR ) application was approved. I made this argument in my complaints about the derogatory information to the credit bureaus, XXXX 's ombudsman and the USDOE ombudsman, but my concerns have been met with a conclusory response from XXXX that simply states that at the time the negative information was reported it was accurate. XXXX 's posture in this regard is not consistent with Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the derogatory information is being unlawfully reported. 
FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) provides that information reported to consumer credit bureaus be complete and accurate. A credit entry can be incomplete or inaccurate within the meaning of the FCRA where it is patently incorrect, or because it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions. ( Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc. , 158 F.3d 890, 895 ( 5th Cir.1998 ) ). As the FTC Advisory Opinion attached as Exhibit A confirms, on its face, [ FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) ] requires [ XXXX  ] to provide corrected or updated information to the consumer reporting agency that it had reported originally. Indeed, [ t ] his duty extends to all student loan accounts reported to [ credit bureaus ], regardless of whether they were accurate at one point, because the section requires the furnisher both to update accounts as well as to correct those that were erroneous when submitted to the [ credit bureaus ]. Accordingly, when my account with XXXX  was retroactively deemed timely, by placement into a forbearance, XXXX was obligated to correct the reporting. 
Although not materially controlling to my argument, I provide additional background to provide context. Unbeknownst to me, XXXX  stopped loan servicing in XXXX. I also filed bankruptcy that year. Although I mailed XXXX  my IBR renewal, it was never returned nor processed. Upon trying to follow up by accessing the XXXX  website, I discovered XXXX  's student loan servicing arm was defunct. I identified and located XXXX as the new servicer by using the lookup feature on the USDOE website. Thereafter, I submitted my IBR renewal to XXXX  and it was processed with the forbearance, which I also requested, as summarized above. In connection with my complaint to the USDOE ombudsman, XXXX reported that they had attempted to reach me during the period the delinquencies were reported to the credit bureaus, but were unsuccessful in their attempts. XXXX further admits that the mail they sent to me was returned to XXXX as undeliverable 3 years later - on XX/XX/XXXX. I have no information as to why this may have occurred. In closing my complaint with the USDOE ombudsman, the USDOE ombudsman did not mention, wrestle with nor reach any conclusions or recommendations on my FCRA violation contentions but instead merely parroted what XXXX  has consistently conveyed. 
Again, the FTC advisory opinion I have attached as Exhibit A hereto provides a FCRA analysis directly analogous to my own. Specifically, it emphasizes that there remains a continuing duty to both update as well as to correct credit entries, regardless of whether the reporting was accurate at some point in the past. Therefore, XXXX 's continuing contention that " [ t ] he forbearance brought the account current but did not change previous accurate credit reporting '' is legally unsound and in defiance of common sense. It is also clear that XXXX 's reporting of the derogatory late payments is intentional and accordingly, XXXX 's violation of the law willful. 
Knowing all of the information stated above, each of the national credit bureaus also violated the law because they have failed to implement or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of my report, failed to remove or correct inaccurate or incomplete credit information, and failed to meaningfully reinvestigate.

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