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: TX

Complaint narrative:
Over the course of the last several years, I discovered multiple serious inaccuracies and irregularities within my consumer credit files maintained by the three major credit reporting agencies : Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. These errors primarily involve the continued reporting of derogatory, outdated, or unverifiable accounts despite my repeated efforts to request validation and reinvestigation. Each of these companies, along with several data furnishers and collection agencies, has failed to comply with their obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), resulting in the ongoing presence of inaccurate and damaging information in my credit history. 

The situation began when I reviewed my credit reports and noticed numerous accounts labeled as collection, charge-off, or otherwise derogatory. Many of these accounts had been closed, paid, refinanced, or transferred years earlier. Others were duplicated under slightly different numbers across different bureaus, creating the appearance of additional delinquent accounts that do not exist. Some accounts showed inconsistent balances or payment histories when compared between the XXXX bureaus. These discrepancies are clear evidence that the information being reported can not be considered accurate, current, or properly verified. 

Recognizing the potential harm of such inaccuracies, I promptly submitted disputes to all three credit reporting agencies in XXXX and XXXX. In each dispute, I specifically requested that the agencies perform a full reinvestigation as required under FCRA 611 ( a ), provide the method of verification under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), and ensure compliance with 607 ( b ), which requires them to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. I also requested that they obtain documentation from the furnishers to confirm that each reported account was valid, accurate, and lawfully authorized to appear on my file. 

Unfortunately, none of the agencies provided adequate responses. Each bureau returned a short form letter stating that the accounts had been verified as accurate without disclosing how that verification occurred or providing any underlying documentation. This pattern strongly suggests that my disputes were handled entirely through automated means, most likely the e-Oscar system, which transmits short dispute codes between furnishers and credit bureaus. Under that system, a furnisher can simply click verified without ever reviewing any documentation, thereby circumventing the consumers statutory right to a reasonable reinvestigation. 

Because the credit bureaus are required to ensure accuracy through reasonable procedures, reliance on a purely automated system without manual review violates both the letter and the spirit of the FCRA. The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have both issued guidance noting that reasonable procedures require more than automated responses, especially when a consumer provides detailed dispute information. Despite this, the bureaus continue to update my reports using unverifiable and inconsistent data. 

Among the accounts in question are several allegedly placed by third-party debt collectors such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others. These entities have reported balances and delinquency dates that are inconsistent or unsupported by original creditor records. In several cases, these same debts have been sold or reassigned multiple times over the years, yet no collector has ever produced a copy of the original signed agreement, payment history, or chain of assignment. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a debt collector must provide validation of a debt upon request and must cease all collection activityincluding credit reportinguntil such validation is provided. Despite my written requests, these collectors have continued to furnish data to the credit bureaus without ever supplying validation documentation, thereby violating the FDCPA. 

The continued publication of unverified information is not only unlawful but also damaging. Negative entries materially reduce a consumers credit score, limit access to financing, and can affect employment, housing, and insurance eligibility. Because lenders rely heavily on the accuracy of credit reports, the presence of unverifiable derogatory accounts has resulted in denials of credit, higher interest rates, and reputational harm. The situation has caused both financial and emotional distress.

Furthermore, the credit bureaus responses have not been consistent. One bureau may list a balance of zero while another lists a past-due amount ; one may show paid, another derogatory. Such inconsistencies prove that at least one or more agencies are reporting inaccurate data. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit bureaus are responsible for ensuring consistency and accuracy. Allowing conflicting data to remain without proper investigation shows that they are failing to follow reasonable procedures. 

In addition to the lack of proper verification, I discovered that some accounts that were previously removed after disputes were later reinserted without any notice or certification from the furnisher. This is a direct violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), which prohibits the reinsertion of deleted information unless the furnisher certifies its accuracy and the consumer is notified within five business days. I have never received such notice. The reinsertion of deleted data is one of the most serious forms of noncompliance because it demonstrates an ongoing disregard for the laws procedural safeguards. 

Moreover, despite my formal disputes, many of the disputed accounts remain unmarked as disputed by consumer. FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) requires furnishers to flag disputed accounts when reporting them so that potential creditors understand that the information is under review. The absence of this notation misleads anyone reviewing my credit report into believing the information is uncontested, which unfairly harms my credit reputation.

The overall pattern indicates systemic negligence : the credit bureaus continue to rely on furnishers unverified electronic responses, the furnishers continue to report data without documentation, and no entity is taking accountability for ensuring lawful accuracy. Every time a consumer disputes inaccurate information, the law requires a transparent reinvestigation and the removal of unverifiable items. Instead, the process has devolved into a closed loop of automation in which disputes are coded, transmitted, verified, and closedwithout ever reaching a human review or producing a single page of documentation.

My actions to resolve the situation have been exhaustive. Over multiple dispute cycles, I have mailed certified letters, submitted online forms, and provided supporting documentation such as statements showing accounts marked paid or transferred. Despite this, the same unverifiable data persists. I have also contacted several furnishers directly to request validation under FDCPA 809 ( b ). The few responses received were generic printouts of account summaries, which are insufficient to constitute legal validation because they do not include original agreements or assignment documents.

At this point, the situation extends beyond simple inaccuracy ; it represents a fundamental failure of the credit reporting system to meet its statutory obligations. The FCRA was enacted to protect consumers from exactly this type of harmto ensure that reporting agencies and furnishers operate with fairness, accuracy, and accountability. Section 602 ( A ) of the Act specifically states that consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit information and there is a need to ensure that such agencies exercise their responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. The continued publication of unverified derogatory data shows a failure to meet that standard.

I believe the breakdown occurs in three main areas : Lack of Proper Verification : Neither the bureaus nor the furnishers have produced the underlying documents proving the legitimacy of the debts or the authorization to report them.

Over-Reliance on Automation : The use of e-Oscar and other automated systems has replaced meaningful reinvestigation with superficial responses that do not satisfy the reasonable procedures standard.

Inadequate Oversight and Communication : There is no clear record of who verifies data, when it was verified, or how disputes are tracked and resolved.

Because of these systemic failures, inaccurate information remains on my credit reports in violation of FCRA 602 ( A ), 607 ( B ), 611 ( a ), and 623 ( a ), as well as FDCPA 809 ( b ). The harm is ongoing : each time a potential lender or creditor accesses my file, they are presented with information that has never been properly validated.

The actions I am requesting are simple and grounded in law. I want the companies to provide the documentation that substantiates each disputed accountspecifically the original signed agreements, payment histories, and chain-of-ownership documents. If such documents do not exist or can not be produced, the accounts must be permanently deleted from my credit files. I also request that the credit bureaus confirm in writing that they have notified each furnisher of my disputes and that the accounts are clearly labeled as disputed. Finally, I request that any accounts previously deleted not be reinserted without certification and written notice. 

Throughout this process, I have acted in good faith, supplying every piece of information requested and citing the relevant legal provisions. The credit bureaus and furnishers, on the other hand, have consistently failed to meet their statutory duties. Their conduct shows not only negligence but also a lack of procedural fairness. Even after multiple disputes, they continue to rely on automated responses instead of fulfilling the requirement to investigate and verify. 

The harm from this situation is tangible. My creditworthiness has been severely impacted, resulting in the loss of favorable financial opportunities and increased borrowing costs. I have had to spend significant time and resources attempting to correct records that the responsible parties should have maintained accurately from the outset. The psychological toll of being misrepresented by inaccurate credit information should not be underestimated. 

In summary, this complaint seeks to address a widespread and continuing pattern of noncompliance among the credit reporting agencies and certain furnishers of information. I am requesting the intervention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that : All parties conduct a complete and documented reinvestigation of every disputed item. 

The method of verification for each item is provided in writing. 

Any account that can not be verified through original documentation is deleted immediately. 

Each remaining account is accurately updated and properly marked as disputed by consumer. 

All bureaus implement procedural reforms to prevent future reinsertion or misreporting. 

I also ask that the CFPB require the companies involved to provide confirmation that they are using reasonable procedures as defined in FCRA 607 ( b ) and to submit evidence of their compliance policies.

The FCRA and FDCPA exist to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in credit reporting. When companies fail to uphold these standards, consumers lose confidence in the entire system. This case is not merely about one individual credit file ; it reflects a larger breakdown in how consumer information is managed.

A fair and just resolution would restore the accuracy of my credit reports, remove any unverifiable or outdated derogatories, and require each company to implement stronger compliance controls so that other consumers do not face similar harm. The relief requested is consistent with both statutory rights and the purpose of federal consumer protection laws.

Until each bureau and furnisher provides full validation or deletes the unverifiable data, the credit reports currently being distributed to lenders remain materially inaccurate and in violation of federal law. This situation demands regulatory oversight and enforcement to ensure full and permanent compliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief