Consumer complaint received 2025-06-21 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:
This is a follow-up dispute to formally challenge TransUnions investigation results associated with file numbers XXXX and XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, as well as the credit report issued under file number XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I am disputing TransUnions inaccurate credit reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX auto loan. Specifically, I challenge the 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-day delinquency notations, which are not supported by my verified payment history, bank statements, XXXX XXXX own ledger, or the tradeline data.

My car note is due on the XXXX of each month, with late fees assessed after the XXXX. However, a late fee charged on the XXXX does not constitute a 30-day delinquency. Under FCRA and Metro 2 standards, a 30-day late mark should only be reported if a full payment of {$390.00} is not made within 30 days of the due date. My records show that full and catch-up payments were consistently made, yet XXXX XXXX applied them inconsistentlyat times reducing the past-due balance, at other times not at all. In certain months, even a {$19.00} late fee was treated as a delinquency, which is not only misleading but contradicts the terms of my agreement. 

Metro 2 credit reporting guidelines, developed by the Consumer Data Industry Association ( CDIA ), require furnishers to report data in a consistent, fair, and factual manner. XXXX XXXX handling of my account violates these standards by inaccurately applying payment statuses and inflating delinquency levels. Below is a detailed breakdown comparing TransUnions reported payment status to actual bank statement data and agreed-upon payment arrangements. 

Below is a month-by-month breakdown comparing TransUnions reported payment status with actual bank statement data and known payment arrangements. This reflects numerous reporting inaccuracies that should be corrected : XXXX : XXXX : Reported 30 days late Paid {$300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and {$310.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ( {$610.00} total ). Well above the required payment. Reporting as late is inaccurate. 

XXXX : XXXX : Reported 90 days late Paid {$390.00} on XXXX and {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Two full payments made. The 90-day delinquency is not only inaccurate, it violates the CARES Act amendment to the FCRA. I was under XXXX XXXX COVID-19 Protected Status through XX/XX/XXXX, which allowed for payments without being required to bring past-due balances current. Their XX/XX/XXXX email confirmed this. I resumed full payments in XXXX and should not have been penalized with a XXXX delinquency. 
XXXX : Reported 30 days late Paid {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ( on time ). 
XXXX : Reported 30 days late Paid {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ( on time ). 
XXXX : Reported 60 days late No payment made. 30 days late would be more accurate. 
XXXX : Reported 90 days late Paid {$400.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ( partial, but not 90 days late ). 
XXXX : Reported 60 days late each month Paid {$390.00} monthly ( on time ). 
XXXX : Reported 60 days late No payment made. Should be reported as 30 days late. 
XXXX : Reported 90 days late Paid {$200.00} on XXXX and {$250.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ( {$450.00} total ). XXXX the required amount under payment plan. 

XXXX : XXXX : Reported 90 days late Paid {$250.00} each month under documented hardship plan. These partial payments were consistent with the arrangement. 
XXXX : Reported 90 days late No payment. Should reflect 30 days late. 
XXXX : Reported 90 days late Paid {$250.00} on XXXX and {$500.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Total of {$750.00}, bringing account current. 
XXXX : Reported 60 days late Paid {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Both full and timely. 
XXXX : Reported 60 days late No payment. Based on last payment, should be 30 days late. 
XXXX : Each month reported 6090 days late despite full payments ranging from {$390.00} to {$400.00} being made. 

XXXX : XXXX : Reported 90 days late Paid {$390.00} {$400.00} each month. Full and timely. 
XXXX : Reported 60 days late Paid {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Full payment. 
XXXX : Reported 90 days late No payment. At most, 30 days late. 
XXXX : Reported 120 days late Paid {$800.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Double the required payment. 
XXXX : Reported 90 days late No payment. At most, 30 days late. 
XXXX : Reported 120 days late Paid {$600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX : Reported 120 days late No payment. At most, 30 days late. 
XXXX : Reported 120 days late Paid {$600.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX : Reported 120 days late Paid {$2400.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Major overpayment, yet still reported delinquent. 

XXXX : XXXX : All reported as OK with full payments made. 
XXXX : Reported no payment. At most, should be 30 days late. 
XXXX : Reported 30 days late Paid {$800.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Should be reported as current. 
XXXX : Reported OK Paid {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX ( to date ) XXXX : All reported as OK with full monthly payments. 

Summary of Dispute Grounds : * Inaccurate Reporting of Full Payments : Several months with full or overpayments were still marked as delinquent. 

* Mischaracterized Hardship Plan Payments : Partial payments under agreed arrangements were reported as full delinquencies. 

* Illogical Delinquency Progressions : Monthly status jumps ( e.g., 90 60 120 days ) conflict with payment records. 

* Violation of CARES Act Protections : COVID hardship protections were disregarded in early XXXX reporting. 

It is both illogical and factually inaccurate for my XXXX XXXX account to reflect such prolonged and severe delinquency when I did not miss more than XXXX payments in any year. In XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, I made more than XXXX payments per yearenough to remain current. The tradeline paints a false picture of default and neglect when the actual record shows consistent effort, catch-up payments, and even overpayments. 
TransUnions reliance on furnisher automationwithout human review or critical reconciliationviolates its FCRA obligation to maintain maximum possible accuracy. I am requesting a full manual reinvestigation and correction of this account. If TransUnion continues to rely solely on automated furnisher responses, it must provide full documentation supporting the tradelines accuracy and explain why my evidence has been disregarded. 

As a result of TransUnions continued reporting of inaccurate and misleading delinquency information, I have experienced both emotional and financial harm. These false late marks have severely reduced my credit score and led to denials for essential financing, including auto loans. I have spent an extraordinary amount of time and energy gathering records, submitting disputes, and responding to inadequate outcomes. The emotional tollstress, anxiety, and discouragementhas been profound. I have made good-faith efforts to meet my obligations and should not continue to suffer from erroneous credit data. 

Requested Resolution : Please update the XXXX XXXX tradeline to reflect accurate payment history and remove all incorrect 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-day late marks. Provide written confirmation of the corrections or, if TransUnion maintains the current reporting, supply the full verification file including the method of investigation and data used.

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