Consumer complaint received 2025-11-13 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:
Over an extended period, I have discovered that the consumer reporting agencies are displaying multiple negative and derogatory accounts on my credit file that appear to have been added without proper validation, proper reinvestigation, proper documentation, or lawful compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). I have attempted repeatedly to resolve these issues directly with the credit bureaus, yet the manner in which my disputes have been addressed raises serious concerns about procedural violations, failures to investigate, failures to verify, and failures to maintain accurate records as required by federal law. This complaint concerns all negative and derogatory accounts being reported across my credit file, including collections accounts, charge-offs, repossession-related accounts, transferred student loans, and revolving lines that show late payments or derogatory statuses. 

The core issue is that the credit bureaus continue to publish, share, and circulate multiple negative items on my credit report without providing any proof of their accuracy, origin, or lawful basis for continued reporting. I have submitted disputes, reinvestigation requests, and requests for validation multiple times. However, each time, the responses I receive do not include what I am entitled to under FCRA 611 ( a ), FCRA 602A, FCRA 607 ( b ), and FDCPA 809 ( b ). Instead of supplying proper verification, the bureaus repeatedly mark the accounts as verified without providing any explanation of how they were verified, what documents were used, what procedures were followed, or whether they conducted an independent review. 

My primary concern is that these negative items appear to have been verifiedor at least processedthrough an automated system such as e-OSCAR. E-OSCAR does not constitute a legitimate reinvestigation because it relies on automated furnishers coding rather than reviewing actual documentation or reviewing original contracts. An automated data-matching tool can not fulfill the FCRA 's requirement to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. When credit reporting agencies rely on e-OSCAR instead of actually obtaining documents showing the accuracy of an account, the result is that inaccurate, outdated, unverified, or improperly transferred accounts remain on my file. 

In addition, multiple collection agencies and creditors reporting these negative items have not provided any original contracts, original applications, billing statements, complete account histories, or chain-of-title information showing assignment from the original creditor to any subsequent debt collector. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a debt collector is required to validate a debt upon request. And under FCRA 623, a furnisher is required to only report accurate information and to review all evidence supplied in a dispute. Yet despite my repeated requests, none of the furnishers nor any of the credit bureaus have provided evidence that any of the derogatory accounts were validated with original documentation. Instead, they appear to simply confirm the information with internal data or automated responses. 
My concern extends beyond one single account. In total, there are multiple categories of negative information being reported : Collections accounts from various agencies, including debt buyers and third-party collectors. These accounts appear on my report with past-due balances, but I have never been given any documentation showing how the collector acquired the debt, whether the debt was legally assigned, or whether the collector possesses original account contracts. 

Charge-offs and repossession-related accounts, which include severe derogatory reporting from major creditors. I have asked for documents showing the origin of these accounts, the dates of delinquency, how balances were calculated, and whether the original lender sold, transferred, or assigned these accounts properly. I have never been provided with validation of these details. 

Student loan accounts with long histories of transfers, late payments, and inconsistent information. Many of these loans were transferred between multiple federal loan servicers. The credit bureaus continue reporting late payments and derogatory information even though these loans underwent several transitions. I specifically asked for documentation showing which servicer validated each data point, whether the late payments were confirmed by the current servicer or inherited from old reporting, and whether the credit bureau reviewed any original records. None of this has been provided. 
Revolving accounts showing late payments and derogatory statuses, where the bureaus have marked the information verified without supplying the method used to verify or what was reviewed.

Across all of these categories, it appears that the credit bureaus did not conduct a legally compliant investigation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), I am entitled to a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information. But the bureaus repeatedly fail to supply such a description, which suggests that no genuine review occurred.

I have also asked for the names, addresses, and contact details of each furnisher that verified the accounts, along with a complete audit trail, including : Dates the accounts were inserted Dates they were verified Who verified them How they were verified What system or method was used Whether a manual review occurred Whether documents were examined Whether the furnisher provided original documentation Whether the furnisher provided a contractual right to report None of this information has been produced. 

This systemic lack of transparency strongly suggests a pattern of noncompliance with the FCRAs accuracy and reinvestigation provisions. Under FCRA XXXX ( b ), the bureaus must maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. However, if furnishers are simply sending automated codes through e-OSCAR and credit bureaus are accepting these codes as sufficient proof, then the bureaus are failing in their duty to maintain reasonable procedures.

Furthermore, the continued reporting of unverified information is a violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), which requires credit bureaus to delete information that can not be verified. If a furnisher can not produce contracts, account applications, statements, charge-off calculations, chain-of-title documents, or other required records, the information is not verified and must be deleted. Instead, the bureaus are choosing to leave the data on my report and mark it as verified, even though no documentation has been provided.

In addition, furnishers themselves may be violating FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), which requires them to mark accounts as disputed when a consumer lodges a dispute. Not all accounts on my report are accurately marked as disputed, despite multiple disputes being submitted. This presents further evidence that proper investigation is not occurring. 

There are additional issues regarding the chain of assignment and ownership of various debts reported in the negative sections of my credit file. For example, many collection accounts appear to be debts that were sold or transferred from one company to another. The bureaus have not demonstrated any awareness of this transactional history, nor have the furnishers provided documentation establishing their legal right to collect or report the debt. Without a valid chain of assignment, debt buyers do not have the authority to furnish information.

In some cases, the same debt appears twice under different furnishers, or a debt that shows as transferred has a corresponding student loan trade line that contradicts the status shown by other servicers. These inconsistencies are a violation of FCRA 602 ( a ), which mandates maximum possible accuracy. This standard is not optional. It requires the bureaus to ensure that all parties reporting information have the proper authority, documentation, and accuracy in what they furnish. The contradictions and duplications on my report prove that these standards are not being met.

Further, under FCRA 609 ( a ), consumers are entitled to information relating to the sources of the information contained in their credit file. But when I requested verification or the identity of the source, it was not provided. Instead, I received generic form letters that did not address my requests. This suggests that the credit bureaus are simply passing along whatever the furnishers say without investigating whether it is accurate, complete, or legally reportable. 

Additionally, when I have filed disputes, my disputes were processed extremely quicklysometimes within a few days, which is not enough time for the furnishers to locate original contracts, chain-of-title documents, billing histories, or other detailed records. This rapid turnaround suggests an automated verification rather than a substantial reinvestigation. The law requires an actual investigation, not a superficial or automated process. 

Because the credit bureaus and furnishers are not following proper procedures, my credit file contains damaging negative information that has not been verified. This has caused significant harm, as these negative items affect my ability to obtain credit, housing, insurance, and employment opportunities. The presence of unverified derogatory accounts has resulted in higher interest rates, denials of credit applications, and other financial damages. The credit bureaus failure to comply with federal law has directly impacted my life. 

To summarize, the following major issues require CFPB intervention : Failure to validate negative accounts with original documents Failure to provide method of verification Failure to conduct a lawful reinvestigation under FCRA 611 Reliance on automated e-OSCAR codes rather than actual review Failure to provide audit trails, timestamps, and verification history Failure of furnishers to validate debts under FDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 602A Failure to maintain reasonable procedures under FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to delete unverifiable information under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to properly mark disputed accounts under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to demonstrate legal right to report debts through chain-of-title documentation Failure to resolve contradictory and inconsistent data between furnishers Failure to provide the source of information under FCRA 609 ( a ) These systemic failures affect all negative and derogatory information appearing across my credit report. My concerns are not limited to a single furnisher or account ; they apply to every derogatory item that the bureaus currently show. I am asking the CFPB to intervene because the credit bureaus have not followed federal law and have not provided the required documentation when I requested validation. 

I am requesting that the CFPB require the credit bureaus and the furnishers to provide full validation of all derogatory accounts currently reporting, including original contracts, billing statements, complete account histories, assignment or transfer documents, chain-of-title information, and proof of furnishing authorization. If the furnishers can not supply these documents, I am requesting that the CFPB instruct the credit bureaus to remove the negative information from my credit file immediately, pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).

I am also requesting that the CFPB require the credit bureaus to supply a full explanation of the procedures used to reinvestigate the accounts and to demonstrate that they have complied with federal requirements. This includes whether automated systems were used, whether manual reviews occurred, and whether any documentation was actually examined. 

The continued reporting of unverified information is harmful, inaccurate, and unlawful. I am requesting that the CFPB hold the credit bureaus and furnishers accountable for these violations and require them to comply with all provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA concerning the accuracy, verification, handling, and reporting of consumer credit information.

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