Consumer complaint received 2023-03-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: PR

Complaint narrative:
Requesting the C.F.P.B. to sue XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX  for Willful Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations The credit card account was not a loss. 
Was reported as a loss by XXXX, and now XXXX XXXX  certified, once again, after XXXX XXXX, their XXXX XXXX  attorney, that the XXXX against the Law report saying it was a loss, which is false, is correct? 
No account that was not a loss can be reported as a loss, but that is not their policy at both banks, XXXX and XXXX XXXX  : If an account was fully paid to the original bank, it was not a loss, the credit report from XXXX, provoked a 7 years credit damage that was against the Law, now backed by XXXX XXXX, which has the same policy. 
How many clients found this problem after paying the account directly to them, were penalized with a false loss report damaging their credit reports for 7 years? 
This fraudulent and against the Law credit report provokes the client, myself or any other, only qualifies for 7 years at financial institution owned by XXXX XXXX like XXXX XXXX, and was precisely XXXX XXXX  through their subsidiary XXXX XXXX the one who approved my loan which I used to fully update the XXXX Loan back in XX/XX/XXXX, and after 34 regular payments of {$260.00}, back in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX decided to refuse my regular monthly payment, and returned this XX/XX/XXXX payment 4 days after, rejecting the complaint I filed at the back then XXXX XXXX XXXX through their bank officer XXXX XXXX. 

All this information is precise, correct, and according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, all this has to be reported, but no, was not reported with precision and exactness, because the bank policy is what they recognize at the moment of truth, not the Law Fair Credit Reporting Act, just because is more convenient for the Bank, to unfairly leave the customer with an against the Law fraudulent and false credit report that damages his credit for 7 years, so he or she could only qualify at their subsidiary, XXXX XXXX, which is no other than XXXX XXXX  operating under other name, the loan application with documents was and are sent to XXXX XXXX  officers for approval or denial, and at the financial subsidiary, the interest rate charged is for affected credit, at 34.95 %, 29.95 %, 24.95 %, or always at a higher interest rate than at the XXXX XXXX  branches, meaning the bank earns more money with us that when we qualify at the bank by far. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX paid and closed loans still appear on my Trans Union credit report as shown at the Trans Union credit report of today, XX/XX/XXXX provided for free by XXXX XXXX free credit reporting service, no matter, I made more loans through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is just that those do not appear anymore at the credit report because of the years passed. 

This is not the FICO credit report of today, The main issue here is that XXXX, and now is more than certified, XXXX XXXX, have a policy against the Law, where they both report accounts that are not losses as loss, damaging against the Law their own clients credit, to take advantage of this situation created by their false reported loss, no matter against the Law, and have the opportunity for 7 years to charge the same customer they have, more money in interests for the same loans than at their XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX  branches, where the interest rate is much much lower, meaning both Banks earn less money at the Bank branches. 

And not only that : then the customer has also not only his or her credit against the Law, damaged by false reported losses, because it was not really a loss, much less the credit report include with precision and exactness all that really took place, as the Law requires : The other banks do not consider the client favorably : Because he or she has loans at finance institutions, like XXXX XXXX, who owns XXXX XXXX, the same one who approved my loan back in XX/XX/XXXX precisely as reported to them, to update my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX division they ended buying for {$1.00} XXXX XXXX  years after this loan was approved and paid by myself, precisely to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

The evidence clearly shows both Banks say they have to report this accounts as a loss no matter, what they do reporting a false account loss is against the Law : Their policy in this provokes all this damage my complaints filed show, and is against the Law. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

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