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: LA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this statement to report multiple inaccuracies, unverifiable data entries, and procedural violations that have occurred in connection with the reporting and reinvestigation of several accounts appearing on my consumer credit file with TransUnion. The information below outlines what has taken place, what steps I have taken to resolve the issues, and the ways in which TransUnion and certain furnishers have failed to comply with their legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

Over the past several months, I have been reviewing my credit file for accuracy and completeness. In doing so, I identified several accounts that were being reported as derogatory, delinquent, or in collection status, even though I have repeatedly requested validation, proof of ownership, and proper documentation to support their inclusion. These accounts include entries furnished by a variety of companies such as a charge-off reported by a bankcard issuer, an auto finance company, a collection agency, and a state child-support division. Each of these tradelines continues to appear on my TransUnion file without sufficient evidence that they were verified in accordance with federal law. 

My first concern is that TransUnion has failed to conduct a full and fair reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ). When I initially disputed the accounts, I provided written explanations identifying the specific items in question and requesting a copy of the documentation used to verify them. The bureau responded within the thirty-day window but did not provide any documentary evidence, only a statement that the accounts had been verified as accurate. The response lacked the method of verification disclosure required under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). I am entitled to know the procedure used in the verification process, including whether TransUnion verified the information through e-Oscar, manual review, or a third-party vendor. Without that information, there is no way to confirm that the investigation was fair, thorough, or based on original evidence. 

In each dispute, I also requested the source of the data and the legal authority allowing those furnishers to report to the bureau. For instance, one of the disputed accounts involves a financial institution that reported a charge-off balance despite the fact that the account had been paid and closed long ago. Another involves an automobile finance company that reported a derogatory status even though the account was settled. In both cases, I asked for the original contract or agreement showing my consent for continued reporting, but no such documentation was ever provided. Instead, I received generic statements that the information was confirmed by the furnisher. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Reliance on automated responses, without underlying proof, does not satisfy this requirement.

Additionally, one collection account was reported by a company claiming to have purchased or been assigned the debt from another lender. When I asked for the Forward Flow Agreement, Purchase Agreement, or other proof of assignment, no evidence was provided. Without a clear chain of title, there is no way to establish that the reporting entity has a legal right to furnish this data. This situation also raises FDCPA concerns, as debt collectors are prohibited from continuing collection or reporting activities without proper validation under 809 ( b ). Despite my formal requests, the collection tradeline remains on my TransUnion report, negatively affecting my creditworthiness.

A further issue involves a state-level child support account reported as being 120 days late. While I understand that child support agencies may furnish information, this particular entry reflects outdated or inaccurate data. Payments have been made and the balance does not reflect the correct amount. I requested documentation of the verification process and the data source used by TransUnion to confirm the reported figures. The bureau has not provided any such proof or indicated whether the data was validated through direct contact with the state agency or through a third-party batch transmission. Without transparency into the system logs or audit trail, it is impossible to determine whether the information is accurate. As a result, the report may be disseminating incorrect financial data to lenders and employers, causing ongoing harm. 

Each of these disputed entries has significant consequences. The presence of multiple derogatory accountsparticularly those listed as collection or charge-offhas lowered my credit scores, limited my access to credit, and subjected me to higher interest rates. This harm has continued despite my timely efforts to dispute the information and request validation. I have kept records of all correspondence, including the dates on which I sent disputes, the tracking numbers for certified mail, and the responses received from TransUnion. The bureau has consistently failed to provide substantive documentation or proof of the datas authenticity. 

The procedural deficiencies in these reinvestigations demonstrate systemic noncompliance with FCRA obligations. Section 602 ( A ) of the FCRA declares that consumer reporting agencies have a duty to ensure fairness, accuracy, and confidentiality in credit reporting. TransUnions reliance on electronic confirmation through automated systems does not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation. Courts, including the Third Circuit in XXXX XXXX TransUnion Corporation and the XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have ruled that a credit bureau must conduct an independent review rather than merely rely on the furnishers word. My case mirrors those precedents. TransUnion did not obtain or review any original documents, did not contact me for additional information, and did not supply the method of verification or audit trail when requested. Therefore, I believe the reinvestigation process was inadequate and non-compliant. 

Another violation concerns TransUnions failure to properly mark the accounts as disputed by consumer. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), when a consumer disputes an account directly or indirectly, the bureau must clearly note that the item is under dispute. During my review of recent credit disclosures, I noticed that the disputed accounts are still shown as ordinary derogatory entries without any consumer disputes this account notation. This omission misleads third-party users of the report and contributes to ongoing reputational and financial harm.

I also question TransUnions adherence to the data retention and reinsertion rules outlined in 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). When unverifiable information is deleted following a reinvestigation, the bureau is prohibited from reinserting it without certification from the furnisher and notice to the consumer within five business days. I have reason to believe that certain accounts previously disputed and temporarily removed were later reinserted without the required certification or notice. This pattern suggests a breakdown in internal compliance procedures and record-keeping practices.

Beyond the credit bureaus conduct, I am equally concerned about the furnishers behavior. Each furnisher is legally required under 623 ( b ) to conduct its own investigation once notified by a bureau of a consumer dispute. They must review all relevant information and report the results back to the bureau. Yet, in multiple instances, the same inaccurate information continued to appear, indicating that the furnishers either failed to investigate or did not provide supporting documentation. TransUnions continued publication of that unverified data demonstrates a failure to exercise reasonable procedures for accuracy. 

The cumulative effect of these practices is a credit report that does not accurately reflect my true credit history. Certain accounts show inflated balances, outdated delinquency dates, or statuses inconsistent with payment history. Others continue to appear long after they should have aged off under the seven-year obsolescence rule of 605 ( a ). These errors distort the overall risk profile presented to creditors and can unfairly influence decisions on employment, housing, and insurance. 

To date, I have attempted to resolve these matters directly through the established dispute channels. I have sent written disputes on multiple occasions, including certified correspondence referencing specific accounts. I have also submitted supporting evidence such as payment confirmations, correspondence from furnishers, and explanations of inaccuracies. Despite these good-faith efforts, TransUnion has not corrected or deleted the disputed information. Instead, it has repeated the same boilerplate response stating that the information was verified as accurate. This form of response, without evidentiary support, fails to satisfy the transparency and fairness requirements that the FCRA was designed to enforce. 

From a procedural standpoint, TransUnions actions raise questions about its internal audit trail and data governance. Under 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( a ) ( 2 ), consumers have the right to obtain the sources of information and the identification of each person that procured a consumer report for employment purposes. I have never been provided with those details. I have requested the data furnisher identifiers, timestamps, and sequence of updates associated with the disputed tradelines. To date, none of that information has been shared. A proper audit trail should show when the account was first reported, by whom, and each modification thereafter. The absence of that transparency undermines the reliability of the entire reporting process. 

It is also unclear whether TransUnion has ensured compliance with its furnishers under 607 ( d ), which requires the maintenance of reasonable procedures to assure that users of reports receive accurate information. The persistence of obviously inconsistent data suggests that TransUnion has not exercised adequate oversight. For example, a tradeline reported as closed and paid by the furnisher still appears as collection/charge-off on my file. That discrepancy could not persist if proper matching, data cleansing, and validation procedures were in place.

In addition to statutory obligations, industry standards such as the Metro 2 reporting format require that furnishers accurately code accounts for payment status, date of first delinquency, and consumer dispute indicator. When bureaus fail to enforce these standards, systemic inaccuracies occur. In my case, some accounts display inconsistent payment histories, missing update dates, and conflicting high-balance figures. These errors indicate that either the furnisher or the bureau did not follow established Metro 2 compliance rules. Regardless of which party is responsible, TransUnion bears the ultimate duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy under the FCRA.

The practical impact on me as a consumer has been substantial. The presence of unvalidated derogatory accounts has reduced my credit standing by several points, caused loan denials, and led to the loss of favorable financing terms. I have spent considerable time and effort attempting to correct the inaccuracies, including sending disputes, making phone calls, and gathering documentation. Each reinvestigation cycle results in the same outcome : a brief acknowledgment letter followed by a generic statement that the accounts were verified. No underlying documentation is ever produced, and no genuine review appears to take place. This cycle erodes trust in the consumer reporting system and defeats the purpose of the FCRAs safeguards. 

Furthermore, TransUnions responses fail to meet the reasonable investigation standard articulated by federal regulators. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has repeatedly emphasized that credit reporting agencies must do more than pass disputes through an automated platform like e-Oscar. They must evaluate all relevant evidence and, when necessary, obtain original documentation from furnishers. In my situation, there is no indication that any such steps were taken. The outcome letters contain identical phrasing regardless of the disputes content, suggesting a form-letter process rather than an individualized investigation. 

Another area of concern involves the bureaus communication with furnishers. When a consumer disputes an item, 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) requires the bureau to forward all relevant information provided by the consumer to the furnisher. I included detailed explanations and supporting documents with my disputes, yet furnishers later stated that they never received those materials. This suggests that TransUnion may not have forwarded my evidence, thereby depriving furnishers of the opportunity to review it and ensure accuracy. Such failure compromises the entire reinvestigation process. 

The FCRA also obligates credit bureaus to provide notice to the consumer once a dispute is completed, including the results and an updated credit file reflecting any changes. The results letters I received did not specify the factual findings, the evidence reviewed, or the identity of the verifier. Without that information, I can not assess whether the investigation was properly conducted or whether the data can be trusted. This lack of transparency violates both the spirit and letter of the FCRA. 

Moreover, the continuing publication of unverified information constitutes ongoing harm. Each day that these inaccurate tradelines remain on my credit report, they are being disseminated to third parties. This dissemination of false or misleading information may constitute defamation and invasion of privacy under 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). The damages include loss of credit opportunities, emotional distress, and time spent correcting errors that should never have existed.

From a broader perspective, these failures highlight weaknesses in the automated dispute process. The heavy reliance on electronic systems such as e-Oscar allows disputes to be reduced to two-digit codes that oversimplify complex factual issues. Consumers provide detailed explanations, but those explanations are often truncated or converted into generic codes like XXXX Not XXXX or XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. As a result, the nuances of each dispute are lost, and furnishers respond with canned statements affirming the prior reporting. The credit bureau then marks the item verified and closes the case, even though no meaningful validation has occurred. That is precisely what has happened in my situation. 

Given the number of accounts involved, the variety of furnishers, and the repetitive nature of the bureaus responses, I believe this represents a systemic failure of compliance rather than an isolated oversight. TransUnions duty under 607 ( a ) to maintain reasonable procedures for accuracy extends to its handling of consumer disputes, its communication protocols with furnishers, and its reinsertion safeguards. All of these areas appear to have broken down in my case. 

I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review these practices and compel corrective action. Specifically, I ask that TransUnion be required to provide : A detailed description of the methods used to verify each disputed account, including whether the verification was conducted manually, electronically, or through a third-party vendor. 

Copies of any documentation obtained from furnishers during the reinvestigation process. 

An audit trail or system log showing when the disputed items were reported, updated, or verified, including the identity of the furnishers and agents involved. 

Proof that all disputed accounts are properly marked as consumer disputes this account on the file currently being distributed to third parties. 

Written confirmation that unverifiable information will be deleted and not reinserted without certification and notice. 

In addition, I ask the CFPB to ensure that TransUnions dispute handling and data verification procedures comply with the statutory requirements of the FCRA and the guidance previously issued by the Bureau regarding the use of e-Oscar and automated dispute platforms. Consumers have the right to meaningful investigations, not cursory checks that rubber-stamp whatever the furnisher provides. 

While I understand that credit bureaus process XXXX  of accounts, volume can not excuse non-compliance. Each consumer report must meet the maximum possible accuracy standard. When a bureau allows unverified or inaccurate data to persist, it undermines the integrity of the entire credit reporting system. In my case, these failures have resulted in financial, professional, and personal harm that could have been avoided through proper validation and communication. 

I am submitting this complaint in good faith and with the hope of achieving an accurate and fair credit report. My intention is not to avoid legitimate obligations but to ensure that only verified, lawfully reported information appears in my file. I respectfully request that the CFPB facilitate an independent review of TransUnions handling of my disputes and require the deletion of all unverifiable or inaccurate data. I further request written confirmation of corrective actions taken by both the bureau and the furnishers involved. 

In conclusion, the events described above demonstrate that TransUnions reinvestigation process was incomplete, non-transparent, and inconsistent with the requirements of federal law. Despite multiple good-faith attempts on my part, the bureau has continued to report derogatory accounts without proof of their accuracy or authenticity. The lack of documentation, failure to provide the method of verification, absence of dispute notations, and potential reinsertion of unverifiable data collectively represent serious compliance failures. These practices have caused tangible harm and must be addressed through regulatory oversight. 

I ask that the CFPB hold TransUnion and its data furnishers accountable for these violations, ensure the immediate correction or deletion of the disputed items, and require the bureau to implement stronger validation and audit controls going forward. My objective is simple : to have a consumer credit report that is complete, accurate, and verified according to law. I trust that the Bureau will review these matters carefully and take the appropriate steps to enforce compliance.

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