Consumer complaint received 2025-06-26 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: MI

Complaint narrative:
I am challenging the TransUnions claim that the XXXX XXXX XXXXradelinereported as XXXX XXXX XXXX verified as accurate. Report # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX and Report # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX. 
My dispute is not about whether I owed the account. Rather, my dispute centers on : XXXX. Unverifiable Legal Ownership Post-Securitization XXXX. Deceptive and Excessive Fee Stacking XXXX. Contradictory Creditor and Servicer Responses XXXX. Failure to Disclose or Update Issuer Transitions 5. Furnisher Identity That Is Legally and Structurally Invalid XXXX. SEC Filings Prove Account Ownership Was Securitized An XXXX filing submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, by XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), confirms that over XXXX revolving credit card accountsincluding XXXX  XXXX XXXX securitized into the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
The Exhibit XXXX XXXX XXXX Procedures Report, included in the same filing, makes clear that ownership of these accounts is no longer with the original creditor ( Genesis/Concora ) and explicitly states no verification of legal title was provided or confirmed. 
Despite this, TransUnion continues to report XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the owner and furnisher of the XXXX XXXX account into XXXX, with no documentation or legal assignment presented showing that XXXX retained legal ownership or had the right to report the account post-securitization. 

XXXX. Conflicting Statements from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX I have received the following written responses regarding this account : XX/XX/XXXX Letter from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX claimed the account was issued by them and serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
They stated XXXX was formerly XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX suggesting a name change. 
However, this is factually incorrect. The XXXX  filings from XX/XX/XXXX prove that XXXX and XXXX were operating concurrently during the securitization of accounts, debunking any claim of a rebranding. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX stated that effective XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX became the new issuer of the XXXX XXXX 
They provided no documentation of this issuer change, nor any legal transfer or authorization allowing XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXo assume reporting or furnishing rights. 
Despite this claimXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXes not appear on my TransUnion credit report, and there is no chain of title provided from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

XXXX. Misleading Fee Practices and Abusive Reporting The account reflects over {$400.00} in fees in XXXX alone, including : Monthly billing fees Late fees Reinstatement fees These were : Assessed after the securitization, despite unclear servicing authority. 
Reported as delinquent balances, which falsely increased my debt-to-income ratio and risk profile. 
Not accompanied by any detailed disclosures, payment ledgers, or consumer notices explaining how these fees were calculated or validated. 

This constitutes deceptive fee stacking and violates FCRAs requirement that all information be accurate and verifiable. 

XXXX. FCRA and XXXX XXXX Violations in Furnisher Naming While my credit report lists XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is vague and XXXX in any official communications. Nowhere in my billing statements, legal disclosures, or dispute responses does XXXX appear the proper entity name is XXXX XXXX XXXX. If the credit bureaus or furnishers claim that XXXX refers to XXXX, they still failed to clearly identify the legal entity as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ). Additionally, if XXXX is only the servicer and not the owner or creditor, they should not be listed as a furnisher of record, especially post-securitization and issuer transfer to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXn XX/XX/XXXX. This furnisher listing remains inaccurate, misleading, and unverifiable. 

This is deeply problematic for several reasons : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXinsured bank XXXX 
Destiny is a product branding name, not a legal entity. 
XXXX refers to XXXX XXXX XXXX, a third-party servicer. 

These XXXX entities are not interchangeable and can not simultaneously : Own Furnish Service the same tradeline. FCRA XXXX ( a ) and XXXX XXXX standards require that only the legal owner or authorized servicer report the tradeline and that this furnisher be named clearly and singularly. 

XXXX XXXX parties creates a legally confusing, structurally unsound, and misleading reporting structure, rendering the tradeline unverifiable. 

XXXX. Failure to Reflect Issuer Change or Chain of Assignment According to my billing statements : In XXXX, my statements reflected the account as issued by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX 
In XX/XX/XXXX, I was notified that The Bank XXXX Missouri would become the new issuer effective XX/XX/XXXX. 
However, my credit report was never updated to reflect this transition, and no new furnisher was added. TransUnion has not updated the creditor name, nor verified whether XXXX had legal standing to report the account. 

There is no documentation or public record of : Ownership assignment from XXXX to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXsignment from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX for either to furnish post-securitization Request for Resolution I am requesting the following actions under the FCRA : 1. Immediate deletion of the Destiny Mastercard tradeline from my TransUnion credit file.

2. Written confirmation of the exact method of verification used to verify this accounts accuracy.

3. Disclosure of all documents used to verify the furnishers identity and ownership authority.

4. Referral to the CFPBs enforcement division for TransUnions repeated failure to conduct a lawful and reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ). 
XXXX. Notification to all parties who have accessed this tradeline that the information was disputed and removed due to non-verification.

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