Consumer complaint received 2025-11-04 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: WA

Complaint narrative:
TransUnion Dispute of Inaccurate Negative Accounts TransUnion is reporting several negative items on my credit file that are inaccurate, inconsistent with other bureaus, or otherwise unverifiable. I have contested these over the last few years without proper resolution. This letter serves as my detailed dispute and demand for deletion of the following accounts from my TransUnion report under FCRA and Metro 2 compliance standards : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX ( Credit Card Charge-Off, Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) : TransUnion lists this account with a balance of {$5400.00}, and likely marks it as a charge-off ( TransUnions terminology might show Charged off as bad debt ). XXXX  shows the same balance and status, while XXXX  shows nothing ( account not present ). The absence on XXXX  indicates that when I disputed it there, it was removed ( unverified ). XXXX continued reporting thus raises concern : if XXXX  couldnt verify it, can TransUnion? So far, apparently not because my disputes with TransUnion have resulted in no changes. Additionally, XXXX record for this XXXX account shows None Reported under worst delinquency ( perhaps an error in the report ) even while its clearly a charge-off account. This could be a Metro 2 coding issue where the worst delinquency field wasnt properly populated on TU. Thats yet another inaccuracy. The net result is TransUnion is reporting a derogatory account that may not meet FCRA standards of verification and completeness. I demand TransUnion delete XXXX XXXX # XXXX entirely. Keeping a charged-off tradeline that at least one other bureau found unverifiable is a violation of FCRAs fairness and accuracy principles. If TransUnion and XXXX  rely on the same furnisher data, why did XXXX  drop it? I suspect the furnisher didnt validate in time or at all. Thus TU should have removed it as well. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX ( Auto Loan Default, Closed XX/XX/XXXX ) : TransUnion reports this loan with balance ~ {$9600.00} and likely a charge-off status ( reflected by multiple CO notations in payment history ). Notably, TransUnion lists a Closed Date of XX/XX/XXXX and last activity XX/XX/XXXX, whereas XXXX  had no closure date and XXXX  had none or a much earlier last update. Also, as discussed, XXXX  shows a wildly different balance ( {$19000.00} ) for this account meaning either XXXX  data is wrong or XXXX is. Given that {$9600.00} is about half of {$19000.00}, I lean toward XXXX  being wrong. But if so, TransUnion should confirm that. Has TransUnion received proper payment and charge-off information from XXXX? The differences in last activity dates suggest the bureaus stopped receiving updates at different times, which is problematic. Additionally, TransUnion did not report a credit limit or original loan amount ( XXXX indicated a XXXX term loan ). Without that context, the tradeline is incomplete on TU. All these factors show XXXX record is not as complete or up-to-date as it should be, and one bureaus data flatly contradicts anothers. I have disputed this account with TransUnion before, including highlighting the XXXX  discrepancy. TransUnion, however, verified it without reconciling the differences. Thats unacceptable under FCRAs reasonable investigation requirement. I demand TransUnion delete the XXXX XXXX # XXXX account entirely for being inaccurate and unreliably reported. If XXXX XXXX can not provide one consistent story to all CRAs, the account does not belong on my report. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX Accounts # XXXX & # XXXX : TransUnion has records of these additional XXXX accounts ( per my credit file ). Both have been subject to past disputes. XXXX own file shows repeated comments like Consumer disputes - reinvestigation in progress, indicating these have been in continuous contention. It appears one or both of these accounts might have been finally removed from XXXX  ( and possibly XXXX  ) while still lingering on TU. If so, that implies TU is alone in keeping data that others found unverified. For instance, XXXX # XXXX and # XXXX might correspond to smaller loans or credit lines that had delinquencies. If XXXX  or XXXX deleted them after dispute, TransUnion must do the same unless it has indisputable proof of accuracy. Given the pattern weve seen ( XXXX data has not been consistently reported ), I doubt such proof exists. I request TransUnion delete any remaining XXXX XXXX accounts ( XXXX ) from my file. They have been a source of multiple errors ( possibly including duplicative reporting of the same debt or misdated delinquencies ). XXXX is enough the FCRA does not permit TransUnion to simply leave contested, possibly duplicate tradelines on a report after multiple dispute cycles. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card # XXXX ( Closed, {$200.00} limit ) : XXXX report for this card shows it was 60 days past due at worst, and the account closed with {$0.00} balance around XXXX. XXXX  shows no delinquency, XXXX  shows only XXXX lates. So TransUnion is the only bureau listing a XXXX late for this account ( specifically, likely in XX/XX/XXXX given the timeline ). If XXXX info is correct, why did XXXX  miss a XXXX late? If XXXX info is wrong, then TU has falsely reported a more severe delinquency than actually occurred. Either scenario is concerning. I suspect perhaps XXXX XXXX initially reported a XXXX late to TU but not to XXXX ( maybe an error or delay ). That means at least one bureaus data is wrong which again violates the consistency principle. I disputed this inconsistency previously. TransUnion verified the late, but I remain skeptical. I want TransUnion to re-investigate that XXXX late payment notation. If XXXX XXXX can not provide proof that I was indeed 60 days late ( and that such reporting was meant to be on all bureaus ), then TransUnion must remove that derogatory mark. Given that the account is closed and paid, even XXXX XXXX might not care to defend a single late mark at this point. For me, however, its crucial a XXXX late is a serious negative. I therefore demand either TransUnion delete the XXXX delinquency ( and any lesser delinquencies ) from this tradeline, or if that is not feasible, delete the entire XXXX XXXX account from my TU report. As it stands, XXXX portrayal makes my payment history look worse than it does on XXXX thats misleading and unfair, failing the not misleading or incomplete accuracy standard of FCRA. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection ( XXXX XXXX ) : TransUnion reports this collection with original/current balance {$1100.00}, assigned XX/XX/XXXX, tied to XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX  also reports it ; XXXX  does not. I have disputed this debts validity. It appears LVNVs collection is only on two bureaus, which often signals incomplete reporting or that one bureau removed it after dispute ( XXXX  likely did ). TransUnion continuing to list it suggests either XXXX didnt report to XXXX  ( meaning TU is disadvantaging me uniquely ) or that XXXX  XXXX it due to a dispute. If the latter, TransUnion should have received the same dispute and should have deleted it too but hasnt. This is extremely frustrating. TransUnion is reporting a collection that at least one major bureau found unverifiable. Unless XXXX can prove the debt with proper documentation and explain why its not on XXXX, TU should not keep it. Moreover, I noticed TransUnions entry might lack a Consumer disputes this debt remark if true, that violates FCRA 623, since I have disputed it ( your records should reflect that ). I demand TransUnion delete the XXXX XXXX collection from my report. Its damaging my credit and appears to be an unverified junk debt. Keeping it when its been challenged is a willful disregard of the FCRAs dispute process. I am fully prepared to escalate this ( CFPB complaint, etc. ) if TU doesnt eliminate this derogatory item. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection ( ~ {$12000.00} ) : TransUnion lists a collection for a debt related to XXXX XXXX XXXX  with an original balance of {$12000.00} ( current balance same ), which is disputed by me ( noted in comments ). XXXX  also lists it ; XXXX  does not. This suggests the collection agency ( or XXXX itself ) reported only to TU and XXXX. I have no knowledge of owing XXXX that amount beyond maybe a contested tuition/fee, and I have disputed it vigorously. TransUnions file even says Account information disputed by consumer, yet the item remains. This is unacceptable. Its been well over the 30-day window since my disputes thus per FCRA 611, TransUnion should have deleted this by now if the collector didnt fully validate XXXX. The continued presence of this collection indicates TU did not properly follow up or the furnisher responded inadequately and TU gave them a pass. Not okay. I demand TransUnion delete the XXXX XXXX XXXX  collection immediately. It is clearly unverified ( given XXXX  non-participation and the dispute flag lingering ). If it remains, I will assume TransUnion is intentionally reporting inaccurate, disputed info to my detriment, and I will include this in complaints and potential litigation. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Last Updated XX/XX/XXXX ) : TransUnion is uniquely reporting a XXXX account ( likely a point-of-sale loan ) that was charged off in early XXXX. Neither XXXX  nor XXXX  list this account. This tells me two things : ( 1 ) the furnisher might have only reported it to TransUnion ( which is odd and inherently inequitable ), or ( 2 ) I disputed it with the others and they removed it ( or never had it ). I did dispute this with TransUnion in the past, but it remained. The account is closed and over 3 years old with no updates since charge-off this suggests its effectively stale. Under Metro 2, furnishers should regularly update charge-offs ( at least to reflect if sold or if any change ) ; a last update of XX/XX/XXXX means TransUnion is showing possibly outdated info. Also, since its not on my other reports, creditors see this derogatory only on TU, skewing their decisions. This is fundamentally unfair if the debt isnt fully verified. I assert that the XXXX account is not verifiable or has been resolved. I demand TransUnion delete the XXXX tradeline completely. Its dragging down my TU score for no valid reason, when peers XXXX XXXX  ) dont even show it. If TransUnion refuses, I expect a detailed explanation of how this debt was verified and why its only on TU. Otherwise, it needs to go. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX ( if applicable ) : I mention this because my TransUnion report might not list one older XXXX account that Equifax/Experian had XXXX ending XXXX, last updated XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX  ). If TransUnion does not have this account, great no issue. If TransUnion does have it, perhaps under a different entry, then it could be an oversight in my file review. In any case, any XXXX account that was closed in XXXX with no negatives should not be a problem. But if it had negatives and TU never showed it ( or deleted it earlier ), then fine. I primarily flag this to ensure Im covering all bases : if some NF account got sold or something and is hidden, I dispute any negative aspect of it too. 


TransUnions Legal Duties Reminder : As a CRA, TransUnion is bound by the same FCRA provisions mentioned earlier : Accuracy ( 15 USC 1681e ( b ) ) : TransUnion must have reasonable procedures to ensure maximal accuracy. The existence of data on TU that conflicts with data on XXXX for the same accounts suggests a procedural gap. Whether its not cross-checking updates or failing to reconcile furnisher responses, something is off. These inconsistent items are prima facie evidence that my TU report is not as accurate as possible.

Dispute Reinvestigation ( 15 USC 1681i ) : TransUnion is required to investigate disputes within 30 days and delete information that is inaccurate or can not be verified. Many of the above TU items have been through one or more dispute cycles already. If they are still wrong, TransUnion either didnt properly reinvestigate or didnt delete after a failed verification. Thats a direct FCRA violation. Im now providing granular details to assist TransUnion there is no excuse for not getting it right this time. The law even allows a consumer to provide additional information during disputes to help resolve them ( which I have done here ). That extends the timeline by at most 15 days, but ensures the CRA digs deeper. Use this information to fix these mistakes once and for all.

Metro 2 compliance : All the furnishers involved ( banks, credit unions, debt collectors ) use Metro 2 format to send data. The discrepancies in my TU file ( compared to peers ) indicate some have not followed the standardized coding properly for all CRAs. For example, one field may not be populated on TU that was on XXXX, or a charge-off flag sent to XXXX but not TU. These Metro 2 errors result in inaccurate credit reporting. Under FCRA, as cited, this makes the info disputable and removable. TransUnion should hold furnishers accountable by rejecting inconsistent data, but since it appears on my report, TU must correct or purge it now.

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