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: TX

Complaint narrative:
Inaccuracies / Dispute Points on the XXXX Account : 1. Reporting Inaccurate Delinquencies After Charge-Off The account was charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, yet it continues to show monthly charge-off notations ( CO ) through XXXX, including XX/XX/XXXX. 

FCRA Violation : This is potentially misleading or inaccurate. After charge-off, creditors can not continue reporting the same debt as newly delinquent each month it's already been written off. This is re-aging of the debt and violates the FCRA and Metro 2 guidelines.

2. Balance & Past Due Amount Confusion It says Charged off / {$1200.00} written off but still lists a balance of {$1200.00} and past due amount of {$1200.00}.

FCRA/Metro 2 Violation : Once a debt is charged off, the past due amount typically should not be increasing. If the full balance has been charged off, past due should not be reported monthly. These numbers shouldnt match after charge-off unless its actively accruing interest and if so, that must be clearly disclosed.

3. Incomplete or Missing Required Fields Monthly Payment, Terms, and Your Statement fields are all blank.

Metro 2 Violation : Required data fields must be filled in, especially on a negative tradeline. Incomplete fields can mislead automated systems and violate credit bureau data formatting standards.

4. Open Date is Suspicious Open date is XX/XX/XXXX, and it was charged off by XX/XX/XXXX. 

If youre asserting this is fraud and you didnt open it, this is a narrow timeframe its also extremely fast for a charge-off ( less than 12 months ). That supports your identity theft claim and lack of long-standing responsibility for the account. 

5. Failure to Provide Debt Validation TransUnion and Experian have continued to verify the account without furnishing you with a copy of the signed agreement, original application, or any billing statements until after CFPB involvement.

FCRA 611 and 623 Violations : Furnishers and CRAs must conduct a reasonable investigation. Continuing to report without providing actual validation documentation violates your rights.

6. Prior Dispute Was Not Properly Addressed The report says : " Account previously in dispute - investigation complete, reported by data furnisher. '' However, youve said the bureaus never validated the debt and only responded due to CFPB pressure.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : They are required to provide written notice and results of the reinvestigation, including method of verification which youve not received.

If they completed the dispute without providing method of verification or documentation, theyve failed in their duty to you. 

7. Re-Aging Reporting After 150 Days XX/XX/XXXX shows 120 days late, XXXX is 150 days, and then XXXX through XXXX are marked as CO again. 

Once an account hits 150+ days, the reporting should reflect either : Charge-off ( static ), or Transfer to collections/sold neither is shown.

They are essentially resetting the delinquency clock, which is unlawful.

Summary of Dispute Points to Include : Account is not mine identity theft. 

No proper debt validation provided by XXXX or bureaus. 

Continued monthly COs after charge-off = illegal re-aging. 

Past due amount & balance match after charge-off = inaccurate. 

Missing data fields : monthly payment, terms. 

Previous dispute improperly handled no method of verification.

Timeline of opening to charge-off is too short, inconsistent with standard account progression.

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