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:
After reviewing my credit disclosures from the XXXX major consumer reporting agenciesTransUnion, Experian, and EquifaxI discovered multiple errors and unverified derogatory entries that have not been corrected despite numerous formal disputes. XXXX accounts in particular, reported by XXXX and XXXX XXXX, continue to appear as negative items on my credit reports. Both are being reported without proper validation, transparency, or documented verification, and their continued publication violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

The events began when I obtained my credit reports to review my financial profile. I found that the account furnished by XXXX shows an extensive history of XXXX delinquencieseleven instances in totalwithout any accompanying proof of those missed payments. The second account, reported by XXXX XXXX, is reflected as a charge-off or collection with a past-due balance of about {$9000.00} and repeated notations of XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX lateness prior to the charge-off. I had never been provided original documentation substantiating these delinquencies or the accuracy of the amount claimed. 

Because the FCRA grants consumers the right to dispute any inaccurate or unverifiable information, I filed written disputes with all three credit bureaus. In each dispute I identified the XXXX accounts, explained why I believed they were inaccurate, and requested a full reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ). I also specifically asked for the method of verification disclosure under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), requesting that each bureau tell me exactly how the information was verified, who verified it, and what documents were reviewed. I further requested that the bureaus obtain from the furnishers copies of the original contracts, payment histories, or assignment documentation to support the accuracy of the reported items. 

Within a few weeks I received short, template-style replies from each bureau stating that the items had been verified as accurate. None of the agencies explained what evidence was reviewed or how verification was achieved. There was no reference to whether a manual investigation had taken place or whether the furnishers simply responded electronically through the e-OSCAR system. In other words, I received confirmation that the bureaus had processed my disputes, but no proof that an actual reinvestigation had occurred. 

To comply with the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and delete or correct information that can not be verified. The automated verified responses I received do not meet that standard. In practice, e-OSCAR merely allows a furnisher to choose a code such as verified, updated, or deleted, without reviewing original source documents. Such automation can not satisfy the FCRAs requirement that consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy under 607 ( b ). 

After receiving those inadequate responses, I contacted the furnishers directly. I asked XXXX to provide the promissory note, servicing records, and payment ledger to substantiate the alleged delinquencies. I asked XXXX XXXX to provide the retail installment contract, payment history, and any assignment or charge-off documentation establishing that the debt and its amount were accurate and collectible. Neither company supplied any documents proving that the information they furnished was valid. In effect, both furnishers simply relied on their existing internal records without producing any signed or original-source evidence. 

In the absence of such validation, continued reporting of these accounts violates FDCPA 809 ( b ), which requires a debt collector to cease collection activity until it provides verification of the debt, and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which forbids furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to believe is inaccurate. Reporting unverifiable data to the credit bureaus is a form of collection activity because it pressures the consumer to pay or settle in order to remove the negative marks. 

Each time I disputed the information, the outcome was identical : the bureaus closed the disputes as verified, the furnishers provided no supporting evidence, and the derogatory entries remained. This cycle suggests that none of the parties performed a meaningful investigation. My requests for a copy of the reinvestigation results, including the names of the individuals who handled the disputes, have gone unanswered. 

The consequences of these failures are significant. Because of the derogatory reporting, my credit standing has been harmed and I have faced higher interest rates and credit denials. Potential lenders have cited these specific accounts as factors in adverse decisions. I have spent months attempting to correct the issue through the standard dispute process with no success. The lack of transparency has made it impossible to verify whether the reported information is genuine or fabricated. 

The first disputed account, XXXX, is especially problematic because it involves federally serviced student-loan data. The reported balance, payment history, and delinquency pattern do not correspond with the actual timeline of payments that I can document. No notice of default or acceleration was ever provided, and yet the credit report shows multiple consecutive XXXX late notations. When I contacted XXXX for clarification, representatives could not produce a detailed payment history or a copy of the original note showing the due dates they claim were missed. The absence of these documents means the reporting can not be considered verified. 

The second disputed account, XXXX XXXX, raises even greater compliance concerns. The file shows the account as a charge-off dated XX/XX/year>, with a {$9000.00} past-due balance. I never received a notice of charge-off, demand letter, or right-to-cure communication before the account appeared in collection status. There has been no validation notice required by FDCPA 809 ( a ), which should have been sent within five days of initial communication if the account were being collected. Moreover, there is no evidence that XXXX XXXX currently owns or services this debt, nor that it has the legal right to furnish such information. If the account was sold, assigned, or transferred, they must provide a Forward Flow or Purchase Agreement showing the chain of title. No such proof has been offered.

Given these facts, I believe the bureaus and furnishers have each violated their independent obligations. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ), a bureau must reinvestigate a dispute and delete unverifiable information. Under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( B ), if information is deleted and later reinserted, the consumer must be notified within five business days, and the furnisher must certify that the data is complete and accurate. None of these steps have been documented. The continued reporting of the same unverifiable information implies that no deletion or certification process has occurred.

In addition, FCRA 607 ( b ) imposes on consumer reporting agencies a duty to maintain reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy. Allowing data to remain without independent verification, and failing to provide consumers with a meaningful method-of-verification report, shows a lack of reasonable procedures. Likewise, FCRA 602 ( a ) recognizes the importance of accuracy and fairness in credit reporting to ensure consumer confidence in the financial system. These principles are being undermined when automated verifications replace genuine reinvestigations. 

The FDCPA also applies because XXXX of the disputed accountsXXXX XXXXrepresents a collection or charge-off. Section 807 ( 8 ) prohibits a debt collector from communicating credit information known to be false or that should be known to be false. Section 809 ( b ) requires a collector to provide validation of the debt upon request and to cease collection until that validation is provided. Reporting a charged-off balance to the credit bureaus is a form of communication intended to collect payment. Because no validation was provided, continued reporting constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice. 

In my correspondence I also requested that both furnishers and bureaus supply the audit trail and system logs documenting how the data was uploaded, verified, and updated. These records would show the timestamps, reporting IDs, and user activity associated with the disputed items. None of this information has been produced. The failure to provide such audit documentation leaves me unable to determine whether proper chain-of-custody and data-accuracy procedures were followed. 

It is clear that the verification process used by the bureaus relied solely on the furnishers automated response rather than on any independent evidence. This practice has been criticized by regulators and courts for failing to meet the statutory standard of reasonableness. Without reviewing source documents, a bureau can not know whether the information is accurate. 

As of today, both the XXXX  and XXXX XXXX accounts remain on my credit reports. The derogatory notations continue to be shared with third parties who access my credit file. Each time this information is disseminated, it constitutes a new publication of unverified and potentially false data. The ongoing damage to my credit reputation is compounded by the refusal of the reporting system to correct itself. 

I have followed every procedural step available to me as a consumer : I obtained my credit reports and identified inaccuracies. 

I submitted written disputes specifying the items and grounds for inaccuracy. 

I requested method-of-verification documentation. 

I contacted the furnishers directly seeking validation. 

I awaited reinvestigation results within the statutory timeframe. 

I received generic verified responses without evidence. 

I re-disputed the same information after continued inaccuracy. 

Despite these good-faith efforts, the information has not been corrected or removed. The process has left me with no recourse other than to request regulatory intervention. 

The FCRA was enacted to ensure accuracy, fairness, and privacy in consumer reporting. The FDCPA was enacted to eliminate abusive and unfair debt-collection practices. Both laws depend on the good-faith cooperation of furnishers and bureaus to investigate and correct disputed data. When they fail to do so, consumers are left defenseless against misinformation that affects nearly every aspect of financial life. 

My case exemplifies that failure. The credit reporting agencies appear to have relied entirely on the furnishers unverified statements without obtaining or reviewing any original documentation. The furnishers, in turn, have ignored multiple written requests for validation. The result is a self-perpetuating error : the bureaus rely on the furnishers, the furnishers rely on their own unsubstantiated data, and the consumer bears the consequences.

Each bureau has also failed to provide me with the sources of information in my file as required by FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). I do not know whether the data originated from a direct furnisher feed, a third-party reseller, or another intermediary. Without that transparency, I can not meaningfully challenge the accuracy of the records. 

The harm extends beyond credit scores. Inaccurate reporting can influence insurance rates, housing eligibility, and employment screening. The continued publication of unverifiable derogatory data suggests a breakdown in compliance culture. Reasonable procedures require more than checking a box in an automated system ; they require actual evidence of accuracy. 

At this stage, the most appropriate and fair outcome would be for the bureaus and furnishers to conduct a genuine reinvestigation supervised by compliance officers, not automated systems, and to delete the disputed accounts unless they can produce original documents verifying every reported detail. Those documents should include the original signed agreements, complete payment histories, and any transfer or assignment records establishing ownership of the debts. 

Until such documentation is produced, the continued reporting of these items remains contrary to law. The FCRA explicitly prohibits the inclusion of unverifiable data, and the FDCPA forbids collection activity without validation. The bureaus refusal to provide method-of-verification information further denies me the procedural transparency that the statute guarantees. 

In summary, the key issues are : The XXXX disputed accounts were never validated with original documentation. 

The credit bureaus conducted only superficial, automated verifications. 

The furnishers failed to produce any proof of accuracy or ownership. 

Audit trails, verification records, and data-source disclosures have been withheld. 

The accounts continue to appear and cause harm despite the absence of evidence. 

I have acted diligently, documenting every communication and giving each party multiple opportunities to correct the problem. Their consistent inaction constitutes negligent and possibly willful noncompliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. 

Because these agencies and furnishers are entrusted with sensitive consumer data, they have a heightened responsibility to maintain accuracy. My experience demonstrates that this responsibility has not been met. I therefore submit this complaint so the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can review the matter, require production of validation and verification documents, and ensure that unverified data is permanently deleted from my credit record.

I respectfully request that the Bureau consider not only the individual harm but also the systemic implications of automated verification practices that disregard documentary evidence. Meaningful reform would benefit all consumers who rely on accurate credit reporting to access housing, employment, and credit. 

Until proper validation is provided, the continued presence of these accounts on my credit reports constitutes inaccurate and unfair reporting. The law requires that unverifiable information be deleted, not endlessly marked as verified without proof. My goal is not to avoid legitimate obligations but to ensure that only truthful, properly validated data appears in my credit file.

For these reasons, I am requesting the Bureaus assistance in compelling compliance from both the credit reporting agencies and the furnishers, obtaining full documentation of the verification process, and ensuring permanent removal of any unverifiable or inaccurate information. I have followed the prescribed dispute procedures faithfully ; the companies involved have not. The integrity of the credit reporting system depends on accountability, transparency, and adherence to statutory obligations. I ask that those principles be enforced here so that my credit file accurately reflects verified information and my rights as a consumer are fully protected.

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