Consumer complaint received 2025-05-17 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:
As a consumer, I have spent months battling to ensure the accuracy and integrity of my credit profilesomething that should be a fundamental right, not a relentless uphill fight. I have filed multiple disputes, provided detailed evidence, and communicated directly with both the original creditor and the credit bureauonly to be met with continued misinformation, negligence, and willful disregard for the truth. 

This is more than a dispute over numbers on a credit report ; it is a matter of basic fairness, legal compliance, and financial justice. My credit profile directly impacts my ability to access housing, transportation, employment, and essential financial services. When false, outdated, or unverifiable information is knowingly left on my report, it is not just an inconvenienceit is a violation of my rights under federal law and a clear example of how credit reporting systems often work against the very consumers they are supposed to serve. 

It should not take repeated complaints, legal citations, and escalating efforts to compel accuracy. The burden of proof should not fall entirely on the consumer when the credit bureaus and furnishers have both the data and the legal obligation to report truthfully. What I have experienced is not only unacceptableit is systemic negligence. I am calling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to intervene, enforce the law, and restore fairness to this process. 

As of XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion continues to report this account as charged off with a balance of {$2900.00} and reflects ongoing derogatory reporting under the name XXXX. This is factually inaccurate, materially misleading, and directly contradicted by documentation provided by the furnisher itself. 

Contradictory Evidence and Violations : XXXX. Falsified Account Status and XXXX TransUnion reports the account as placed in collections in XX/XX/XXXX, which under FCRA ( XXXX XXXX Code XXXX ( a ) ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines, should have triggered the account to be marked closed and updated to reflect {$0.00} balance with no further delinquency reporting from that date. 
However, TransUnion lists the account as closed in XX/XX/XXXX, deliberately inflating the delinquency timeline and falsely extending the appearance of ongoing default. 
This is not just a clerical errorit is a misrepresentation of the accounts status in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires maximum possible accuracy in consumer reporting. 
A data furnisher and credit bureau can not arbitrarily select reporting dates to worsen a consumers credit standing. Doing so constitutes willful negligence and intentional harm designed to misrepresent the consumers risk profile. 
The creditor and credit bureau are both obligated under federal law to report truthful, timely, and consistent information. Manipulating closure dates or status updates to keep an account derogatory for longer than permitted is a direct violation of FCRA and Metro 2 compliance and reflects an abuse of the credit reporting system. 

XXXX. Contradictory Payment Data TransUnion reports the last payment date as XX/XX/XXXX, yet the account status is marked as XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX. This is factually and procedurally impossibleif no payment was made in XXXX, the account should not reflect a current or satisfactory status for that month. 
This type of inconsistency directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which mandates that furnishers of credit data shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.

Moreover, TransUnion has an obligation under FCRA 1681i ( a ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information. Continuing to report contradictory payment history after a formal dispute and documented error demonstrates a failure to meet that standard.

These contradictions undermine the accuracy and integrity of the credit report and appear to be either grossly negligent or intentionally misleading, both of which are unlawful under federal reporting standards. 

XXXX. Illegal Balance Reporting TransUnion is reporting a charge-off balance that exceeds the original credit limit, which is a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishing information that is known or should be known to be inaccurate. 
The creditor claims this inflated balance is due to late fees and interest, yet these fees were allegedly added after the account was already in collections and should have been closed. This is an improper and deceptive practice that violates both federal law and Metro 2 reporting standards.

As a credit bureau, TransUnion has an independent obligation under FCRA 1681e ( b ) to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. TransUnion should know that post-collection fee stacking is not permissible for charge-off reporting, especially when the account has been sold or closed.

Additionally, this reporting violates Metro 2 guidelines, which require that the Charge-Off Amount must not exceed the High Credit or Credit Limit unless the increase is clearly supported by itemized and contractually authorized fees. In this case, no such documentation has been provided or disclosed.

By continuing to report a balance greater than the limit without substantiated detail, both the creditor and TransUnion are engaging in material misrepresentation, credit report manipulation, and unfair and abusive practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( UDAAP 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).

My challenge to their justification is outlined below, with each point supported by federal law, Metro 2 guidelines, and consumer protection regulations : The creditor has not provided itemized documentation to justify the fees that exceed the credit limit, violating FCRA 623 and Metro 2 standards.

Fees or interest applied after the account was placed in collections or charged off are not permitted unless clearly disclosed and contractually authorizedwhich they have failed to do.

A creditor can not continue to accrue or report additional charges once the account is sold or closed, as this falsely inflates the balance and misrepresents my credit profile.

General references to account terms do not satisfy legal requirements without specific proof of when and how each charge was applied.

Reporting a charge-off balance that exceeds the credit limit without proper justification is a violation of Metro 2 , FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), and may be deemed deceptive and abusive under UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).

TransUnion is also responsible under FCRA 1681e ( b ) for ensuring the accuracy of this information and should not report unverifiable or inflated balances.

4. Conflicting and Inaccurate Remarks The Pay Status field shows the account as both Charged Off and Transferred, which is internally inconsistent and factually misleading. An account can not simultaneously be in both statusesonce transferred or sold, it must no longer be reported as charged off by the original creditor.

The Remarks field is even more contradictory, stating the account was : Transferred to another lender, Paid in full, and Charge-off.

These remarks can not all be accurate, and together they paint a deliberately confusing and damaging picture of the accounts status. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), furnishers must not report information that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate.

This type of inconsistent reporting also violates Metro 2 guidelines, which require that the account status, remarks, and payment fields must align and reflect the true lifecycle of the accountespecially once it has been sold or closed.

Continuing to report these contradictory statuses misleads creditors and scoring models, unfairly portraying me as a higher credit risk and causing material harm to my financial reputation.

Furthermore, reporting an account as paid in full and charged off at the same time, while also stating it was transferred, is not only inaccurateit is reckless and deceptive, constituting an unfair practice under UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).

5. Intentional Harm and Reckless Disregard TransUnion has continued to furnish this account with knowingly false, outdated, and derogatory data, even after receiving clear documentation that the account was sold and should no longer be reported.

Specifically, TransUnion was provided with : A debt sale notice from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, confirming that the account was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
A formal response from the creditor confirming that all ownership, servicing, and reporting responsibilities were relinquished as of XX/XX/XXXX, and that no further information would be furnished to the credit bureaus. 
Despite this, TransUnion continued reporting the account for nearly two additional months after it was placed in collections, which is a direct violation of Metro 2 guidelines and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Once notified that the furnisher no longer owns or services the debt, the credit reporting agency is obligated to stop furnishing or updating that tradeline.

More troubling is that these inaccurate updates were not corrected until after multiple formal disputes were submitted by me as the consumer. If the tradeline were properly verified from the beginning, it would not have taken months of repeated disputes and evidence submissions to address these errors.

As a consumer, I should not have to exhaust time, energy, and resources to correct obvious inaccuraciesespecially after the credit bureau and furnisher were provided with all necessary documentation. This reflects a complete failure of the credit bureaus duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 1681e ( b ) and constitutes a pattern of neglect that erodes public trust in the credit reporting system.

The prolonged failure to correct these known errorscombined with contradictory account remarks, inflated balances, and inaccurate reporting datesdemonstrates reckless disregard for the truth and violates core consumer protections.

This conduct also constitutes an unfair and abusive act or practice under UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ), as it results in foreseeable consumer harm, misrepresents the accounts current status, and inflicts unjustified damage to my creditworthiness.

6. Grounds for Complete Removal Under Federal Law Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), credit bureaus are required to report information with maximum possible accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). When information is proven to be inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading, the credit reporting agency must either correct or delete the information within 30 days of receiving notice of dispute ( 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ).

In this case, the reporting by TransUnion remains factually incorrect, internally inconsistent, and legally unsupportedeven after repeated disputes and verified documentation were provided.

The account includes : Contradictory statuses ( e.g., charged off, paid in full, and transferred ), A charge-off balance exceeding the credit limit without itemized support, Inaccurate payment history, Improper reporting after the account was sold, And remarks that misrepresent the nature and resolution of the account.

The Metro 2 credit reporting guidelinesused by all major credit bureausrequire clear, consistent, and verifiable reporting. This account fails to meet those standards on multiple fronts.

Because TransUnion has failed to correct these errors after multiple disputesand because the information remains materially harmful, misleading, and unverifiablecomplete removal of the tradeline is not only justified but legally required.

Continued reporting of an account that violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( inaccurate furnishing ) and FCRA 1681e ( b ) ( failure to maintain accuracy procedures ) exposes both the credit bureau and furnisher to regulatory enforcement and civil liability.

Therefore, I am formally requesting the immediate and permanent deletion of this account from my TransUnion credit file in accordance with my rights under the FCRA.

7. Failure to Validate Debt and Provide Legal Chain of Title While XXXX has confirmed in writing that this account was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX d/b/a Structured Settlement on XX/XX/XXXX, neither XXXX nor the alleged new owner has provided a complete and legally sufficient chain of title to establish rightful ownership of the debt. 
As it stands, no party has produced documentation tracing the full legal assignment of the account, such as a bill of sale, assignment contract, or any itemized documentation showing the lawful transfer of ownership from originator to collector. 
Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), consumers have the right to request validation of a debt, which includes not just a statement of the amount owed, but proof that the party seeking to collect or report the debt has legal standing to do so.

An email or letter simply stating that the debt was sold is not sufficient under federal law. If XXXX has relinquished all rights to the debt and XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to provide the full chain of title, then there is currently no verifiable party with legal authority to collect or report this debt. 
Reporting a debt to a credit bureau without establishing legal ownership or valid assignment is a violation of both the FCRA and FDCPA. It is considered an unfair and deceptive practice under UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) and undermines the consumers right to a transparent and lawful dispute process.

Therefore, if neither the creditor nor the debt collector can demonstrate clear, documented legal ownership of the account, it must be removed entirely from my credit report as an unverifiable tradeline that does not meet the legal threshold for credit reporting or collection activity.

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