Consumer complaint received 2025-10-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
This is my formal request for Experian, Equifax and Transunion to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation regarding several inaccurately reported accounts that continue to appear on my credit file. Despite prior disputes and previous submissions of supporting evidence, the following accounts are still reflecting errors, unverifiable late payments, and inconsistent reporting that do not accurately align with my verified payment history and account status. It is concerning that these inaccuracies remain unresolved after multiple dispute rounds, which raises questions about the thoroughness of Experian, Equifax and Transunions prior investigations and the data being furnished to the bureau. 
The first account, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, shows a balance of {$720.00}, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, with a last payment recorded on XX/XX/XXXX. This account reflects a XXXX late mark for XX/XX/XXXX, which is not consistent with my actual payment history. During that period, my records show consistent, on time payments with no interruptions or delinquencies. There is no verifiable documentation from the creditor to justify or support this late entry. Reporting this inaccurate late mark not only distorts the accounts payment history but also undermines the accuracy and integrity required of credit data under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ), which mandates that consumer reporting agencies maintain maximum possible accuracy in all reported information. 
The next account, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a balance of {$280.00}, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, and last paid on XX/XX/XXXX, has been listed with a XXXX late payment. However, this reporting is not factually correct. My documented records confirm that the account has remained current, with payments made consistently during the disputed period. There is no substantiated evidence provided to validate this delinquency claim. A thorough reinvestigation and verification from the creditor should reveal that this late payment entry lacks proper documentation and should therefore be corrected to reflect the accurate standing of the account. 
The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, with a balance of {$790.00}, also contains erroneous reporting. It currently shows a XXXX late in XX/XX/XXXX and a XXXX late in XX/XX/XXXX. Upon reviewing my verified records, these late marks are inaccurate. Payments were made within the contractual grace period, and no documentation exists confirming a true payment delinquency for those months. Reporting back-to-back late statuses for an account that remained in good standing demonstrates a clear inconsistency that violates the standards of accurate data maintenance as required by the FCRA. 
Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$1600.00}, lists a series of late payments specifically, XXXX late entries for XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. This pattern of late reporting does not align with the verified activity of the account. My records show that payments were made timely, and there are no notices or confirmations of missed payments during those periods. Such repeated and unsupported late reporting significantly misrepresents the payment behavior and history of this account. It is imperative that Experian, Equifax and Transunion reinvestigate this account thoroughly to ensure that only verified, factually supported payment data remains in the file. 
In addition, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, and the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account, showing a XXXX late in XX/XX/XXXX, have also been inaccurately reported. My verified records reflect that these accounts were paid according to their respective billing schedules with no past-due activity. The addition of unverified late payments contradicts both the historical payment performance and the account agreements. Inaccurate reporting of delinquency where no legitimate default occurred is misleading and directly conflicts with the fair and accurate reporting requirements of the FCRA. 
Lastly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account, which is now a XXXX XXXX account but also tied up to open accounts, lists a XXXX late payment in XX/XX/XXXX and a XXXX late payment in XX/XX/XXXX. This account was being paid and resolved during that time, and therefore, such reporting of late activity is invalid. 
Once an account enters the closing or resolution process, it should not continue to reflect recurring late payments unless formally verified through the furnishers records. Reporting a closed account with recent delinquencies not only creates confusion but also unjustly penalizes the consumer with a misleading representation of their financial XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Balance Owed : {$44.00} late 30 days XX/XX/XXXX 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 explanation