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:
I am submitting this formal statement to document ongoing and unresolved issues with several negative and derogatory accounts currently reported on my consumer credit file across all three major credit bureaus. This statement represents a comprehensive, detailed, and factual account of the situation and my repeated efforts to obtain lawful validation, accuracy, and procedural fairness in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

For several months, I have been reviewing my credit reports, identifying inconsistencies, and making direct disputes concerning multiple accounts that continue to appear as derogatory, charge-off, or collection, despite the absence of verifiable evidence or lawful documentation proving their validity. These accounts include entries allegedly associated with CXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In total, seven accounts remain flagged as negative or derogatory. Each of these entries has contributed to an unjustified lowering of my credit score, negatively affecting my ability to obtain housing, fair financing, and employment opportunities. 

The issue is not simply about the existence of a balance, but about the accuracy, authorization, and procedural compliance behind the continued reporting of these accounts. The FCRA and FDCPA are designed to protect consumers from inaccurate, outdated, or unverifiable reporting. Under these laws, every furnisher and credit bureau has an affirmative duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy, to verify disputed items through reasonable reinvestigation, and to cease reporting unverifiable data. Unfortunately, despite my lawful dispute requests and written communications, these obligations have not been fully met. 

1. Initial Review and Discovery of Inaccurate Accounts Upon reviewing my consumer reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, I identified multiple derogatory entries that lacked consistent or verifiable data. Each bureau displayed variations in account numbers, balances, payment histories, or charge-off dates. Some accounts appeared duplicated across different bureaus under slightly different identifiers, suggesting a data transfer or reporting error. 

For example, the entries associated with XXXX XXXX appear twice both as an open charge-off and as a separate derogatory listing even though both represent the same original debt obligation. The reporting history across the bureaus does not align, and no uniform documentation has ever been provided to confirm the existence of two separate accounts. These discrepancies raise serious questions about data accuracy and compliance with FCRA 607 ( B ), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. 

Additionally, other accounts such as those associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are reported as collections but lack a clear chain of assignment from the original creditor. Debt buyers like XXXX and XXXX XXXX must produce original contracts, statements, or purchase agreements proving ownership and the right to report such data. Without these documents, the continued appearance of these accounts violates FDCPA 809 ( b ), which mandates that a debt collector must cease collection and provide full validation upon a consumers written request. 

I have previously submitted written disputes to the bureaus and the furnishers, requesting documentation and method of verification. However, the responses I received were either form letters stating the accounts were verified or notifications that the investigation was completed without substantive evidence. None of the bureaus have ever produced the original signed agreements, ledgers, or audit trails that would demonstrate lawful reporting or accurate verification. 

2. Failure to Provide Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), a consumer has the right to receive a method of verification a detailed description of how disputed information was verified, including the name and contact of the furnisher, the procedure followed, and any documentation relied upon. Despite requesting this multiple times, I have never received such disclosure. 

In several responses, the bureaus simply stated that the information was verified as accurate without specifying whether the verification was conducted through e-Oscar ( the automated system used for disputes ), through manual review, or through communication with a third-party data processor. 

If the verification was performed through e-Oscar, this system is inherently limited because it reduces complex disputes to two- or three-digit response codes. These automated responses do not constitute a proper reinvestigation or documentary validation under FCRA standards. Without documentary evidence, audit logs, or data transfer details, there is no way to confirm that the disputed accounts were legitimately reviewed, nor that they are based on accurate or complete data. 

Therefore, I am requesting a full description of the verification process, including : The system or method used to verify each disputed account. 

The name and contact of the individual or department responsible for verification. 

The original documentation or electronic data used to substantiate each item. 

The chain of custody showing how the data was transferred from the furnisher to the bureau. 
If no such records exist, the disputed items must be deleted immediately as unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).

3. Audit Trail and Chain of Reporting I have also requested an audit trail showing every action taken regarding each disputed account since its initial reporting. This includes timestamps, data furnisher identifiers, user IDs, and any modification logs showing when updates or verifications occurred. To date, no bureau or furnisher has provided this data. 

Such documentation is critical because it establishes whether proper verification procedures were followed, whether any reinsertion of deleted information occurred, and whether each furnisher continues to report in good faith. Without this audit trail, the accuracy and legitimacy of these records remain questionable. 

For instance, the account associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shows multiple late payments and a charge-off, yet no record of ongoing ownership or transfer has been produced. Similarly, XXXX and XXXX entries contain past-due balances without corresponding evidence of consumer consent, signed agreement, or original billing statements. 

Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), a furnisher must report that an account is disputed by the consumer when such disputes are filed. Yet some accounts remain without this required notation. This omission further indicates noncompliance and undermines the fairness and transparency required by law. 

4. Duplicate and Outdated Information Some accounts appear to be duplicated or re-aged to appear more recent than they actually are. For example, two separate XXXX XXXX listings exist under different variations of the same account number, one showing as charge-off and another as derogatory. Both reference similar balances and payment histories, implying duplication. Duplicate listings inflate the total number of negative accounts, distort credit utilization ratios, and create misleading impressions of risk to lenders. 

FCRA 605 ( a ) also limits the time frame during which negative information can be reported generally seven years from the date of first delinquency. I request confirmation of the date of first delinquency for each disputed account. If any entry exceeds this time frame or has been re-aged without proper documentation, it must be permanently removed. 

5. Procedural Failures and Lack of Independent Reinvestigation Despite prior dispute submissions, the responses from the credit bureaus suggest that reinvestigations were conducted solely through automated data exchange with furnishers. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation, meaning a substantive and independent review not a mere reliance on the furnishers word or an automated system result. 

The continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable data, without substantive documentation, constitutes a procedural failure. I have not received : Copies of any original contracts or applications bearing my signature. 

Records of internal correspondence showing a reinvestigation. 

Written confirmation of communication between the bureau and the furnisher. 

This lack of transparency prevents meaningful consumer review and obstructs my legal rights to accuracy, fairness, and correction. 

XXXX. Legal Basis for My Complaint The following sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are relevant to this situation : FCRA 602A : Declares that fair and accurate reporting is essential to consumer protection and mandates responsible data handling.

FCRA 607 ( B ) : Requires credit bureaus to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.

FCRA 611 ( a ) : Grants consumers the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information and obligates bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Requires deletion of unverifiable data and prohibits reinsertion without notice.

FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Requires furnishers to mark accounts as disputed by consumer.

FDCPA 809 ( b ) : Requires collectors to provide full validation upon written request and to cease reporting unverifiable debts.

The continued appearance of these derogatory accounts, without verifiable validation or legal authorization, constitutes potential noncompliance with one or more of these statutes.

7. Impact on Creditworthiness and Consumer Harm The reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts has caused tangible harm. Because these entries appear as active delinquencies or charge-offs, my credit utilization and payment history metrics are distorted. This directly affects credit scores and the ability to obtain reasonable financing terms. 

Beyond the financial damage, the emotional and reputational effects are significant. Consumers rely on the accuracy of their credit reports for employment, housing, and professional opportunities. When unverifiable accounts persist despite legitimate disputes, it erodes trust in the reporting system and leaves consumers without meaningful recourse. 

XXXX. Requested Remedies and Resolution I respectfully request that all involved credit bureaus and furnishers take the following actions : Conduct a full reinvestigation in compliance with FCRA 611 ( a ).

Provide the method of verification for each disputed account, including source documentation and audit logs.

Remove or suppress all unverifiable or inaccurate derogatory accounts pending validation.

Mark each disputed item as in dispute by consumer until validation is complete.

Provide a written explanation of the outcome of each reinvestigation and copies of any documentation used to verify the accounts.

Ensure that deleted items are not reinserted without following the reinsertion procedures under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), including advance written notice to the consumer.

Provide confirmation of updated reports to all parties who have received the erroneous data within the past six months, as required by FCRA 611 ( d ). 

If the bureaus or furnishers can not provide lawful documentation including contracts, signed agreements, account histories, or transfer records they must delete these items permanently. 

9. Continued Oversight and Compliance Expectations I expect full transparency throughout this process. If any account is verified, I request that the verifying party produce the exact materials relied upon. General statements such as verified by furnisher or confirmed as accurate do not satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable reinvestigation. 

If any furnisher fails to respond or refuses to validate, their reporting rights should be suspended pending investigation. I also request confirmation that all furnishers involved are registered and compliant under applicable state and federal laws. 

I intend to continue monitoring my reports closely to ensure compliance. If the disputed accounts remain without adequate documentation, I may pursue further remedies through formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, the Missouri Attorney General, or through private legal action.

10. Summary In summary, this dispute concerns the accuracy, completeness, and verification of several derogatory accounts currently reported on my credit file. The principal issues are as follows : Multiple accounts appear duplicative or inconsistent across credit bureaus. 

No written documentation or original contracts have been provided for any of the disputed items. 

The bureaus have failed to provide a detailed method of verification. 

Some accounts may have been re-aged or continued past the permissible reporting period.

Certain furnishers, particularly debt purchasers, have not proven ownership or legal authority to report the alleged debts.

Required dispute notations under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) are missing.

The overall process has lacked procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Given the above, I am requesting that all seven disputed derogatory accounts be immediately removed or suppressed pending full validation. If any account can not be verified with documentary evidence, it must be deleted entirely in accordance with federal law. 

I believe this request is reasonable, supported by statutory authority, and made in good faith. I have acted in accordance with my rights under the FCRA and FDCPA, providing notice, opportunity for investigation, and repeated requests for documentation. The continued reporting of unverifiable or inaccurate information constitutes noncompliance and requires immediate correction. 

I respectfully request written confirmation once this matter has been fully investigated and resolved.

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