Consumer complaint received 2023-04-22 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes — 
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
In brief, there are three problems I need to report : ( 1 ) XXXX has repeatedly refused to remove a fraudulent hard inquiry from my credit report, insisting that the hard inquiry is " factual. '' ( 2 ) XXXX has repeatedly refused to place a seven-year fraud alert on my credit report, even though : Transunion implemented a seven-year fraud alert ; Transunion says that XXXX and XXXX were notified of the seven-year alert as required ; and XXXX has in fact received that notice and implemented a seven-year alert. XXXX has given conflicting reasons for why they have not placed the seven-year alert. One XXXX representative claimed that they received the seven-year alert from Transunion, but could not add a seven-year alert because I had already placed an initial one-year alert. A second XXXX representative claimed that XXXX had not received any sort of notice or notification from Transunion. 

( 3 ) Transunion has refused to send XXXX another notification of the seven-year alert. 

For the full details, please see the following : On XX/XX/2023, someone fraudulently tried to open two credit cards in my name. I became aware of this on XX/XX/2023, when I received an email that a hard inquiry had appeared on my credit report. I checked my credit reports and found two hard inquiries : one on my XXXX credit report and one on my XXXX credit report. Both involved retail store credit cards ( XXXX Bank and XXXX XXXX XXXX respectively ) for which I have never applied. 

I first filed disputes with both XXXX and XXXX. 

I next called XXXX, who confirmed that a credit card had been opened using my name and Social Security number ( but not my driver 's license number or phone number ). Using the XXXX card, this person made two purchases, in the amounts of {$440.00} and {$55.00}, both on XX/XX/2023, and both at XXXX XXXX # XXXX in XXXX, California. The XXXX representative told me that they had put a block on the card and flagged it as fraudulent. 

After this call, I placed security freezes on my credit reports with all three bureaus. I also filed a one-year initial fraud alert with all three bureaus, and created an FTC Identity XXXX Report. 

I also heard back from XXXX and XXXX regarding the disputes I had filed. XXXX removed the hard inquiry from my credit report. XXXX, however, said the hard inquiry was " factual '' and refused to remove it. When I called XXXX about this problem, and told them that XXXX had confirmed that the card was opened fraudulently, the XXXX representative insisted that the hard inquiry was " factual, '' and told me that they would only remove it if they received documentation from XXXX or the FTC. 

On XX/XX/2023, I next called XXXX ( the bank issuing the XXXX XXXX credit card ). The XXXX representative informed me that someone had attempted to open a card in my name ( using the same driver 's license number and phone number from the Target application ), on XX/XX/2023, at XXXX XXXX Store # XXXX in XXXX, California. The XXXX representative informed me that the company had not approved the credit card application. The representative voided the application and marked it as fraudulent, so that it could not be reopened or continued in the future. 

While I was on the phone with the XXXX representative, she called a Transunion representative and connected them to our call. The XXXX representative and I explained the fraudulent attempts to open a credit card using my name and XXXX, and the Transunion representative stated that they would place a seven-year fraud alert on my credit report, and, as required by law, forward that alert to XXXX and XXXX within 24 hours. 

Also on XX/XX/2023, after receiving information from both credit card companies, I opened a case with the XXXX XXXX XXXX, since the applications for the cards were both filed at retail stores in XXXX, California. At the XXXX XXXX XXXX 's request, I sent the officer an email detailing all the information I had learned from the two credit card companies. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called XXXX to check if the seven-year fraud alert had been added to my credit report. The XXXX representative told me that they had not received anything from Transunion, and that my account reflected only the initial one-year fraud alert. I also asked if it would be possible to remove the hard inquiry as fraudulent, now that I had confirmation from Target, as well as a case number with the XXXX XXXX. The XXXX representative insisted that that the hard inquiry was " factual, '' and told me that they would only remove it if they received documentation from XXXX or the FTC. 

Also on XX/XX/2023, I next called Transunion to ask whether they had placed the seven-year alert and forwarded it to XXXX and XXXX. The Transunion representative confirmed that my Transunion credit report reflected a seven-year fraud alert, and that the alert had been forwarded to both XXXX and XXXX. The Transunion representative recommended that I check back with the other bureaus after XX/XX/2023, because that would give the other bureaus a full week to receive notice and implement the seven-year alert. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called XXXX to check the status of the seven-year alert. The XXXX representative confirmed that they had received the notice from Transunion and that my XXXX credit report reflected a seven-year alert. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called XXXX to check the status of the seven-year alert. I received conflicting information from XXXX. The first XXXX representative told me that they had received the notice from Transunion, but because my account already reflected the initial one-year alert, they were unable to change the one-year alert to the seven-year alert. I asked to speak to a supervisor who could make this change for me. I was transferred to a second XXXX representative, who told me that they had not received any notice from Transunion. The second XXXX representative told me that I had two options : I could either contact Transunion to confirm that they had sent the notice, or I could send XXXX all of the documentation required for XXXX to place a seven-year alert. 

Also on XX/XX/2023, I called Transunion to confirm the status of the seven-year alert. The Transunion representative reaffirmed that Transunion had placed a seven-year alert and notified the other bureaus. I explained that XXXX might not have received the notification, and I asked if it would be possible to send XXXX the notification again. The Transunion representative told me that it was not their policy to do so, and that they would not be able to send XXXX another notice of the seven-year alert. I also asked Transunion if they could send documentation of the seven-year alert directly to me, so that I could forward it to XXXX. The Transunion representative refused, saying it was not their policy to do so. 

Also on XX/XX/2023, I called XXXX again to tell them that Transunion had definitely sent the notification of the seven-year alert, and I asked that the seven-year alert be placed on my account. The XXXX representative told me that my only option was to send XXXX all of the documentation required for XXXX to place a seven-year alert. 

At this point, I decided to contact the CFPB.

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