Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 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: OK

Complaint narrative:
Improper Commingling of Separate Account Investigation Results and Failure to Maintain Account-Specific Verification by TransUnion ( XXXX ) - I am submitting this supplement to document procedural deficiencies in TransUnion LLCs handling and presentation of investigation results, based solely on three TransUnion Your Investigation Results letters dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, which are attached. This supplement does not dispute any account and does not request reinvestigation.- The issue documented here is not that a charged-off account was marked as paid, but rather that TransUnion bundled investigation outcomes for two separate XXXX XXXX tradelines into a single investigation result presentation without adequate segregation, clarity, or account-specific verification disclosure, thereby undermining the integrity of the reinvestigation process.- Exhibits Reviewed- Exhibit 1 TransUnion Your Investigation Results, Date Issued XXXX Exhibit 2 TransUnion Your Investigation Results, Date Issued XXXX Exhibit 3 TransUnion Your Investigation Results, Date Issued XXXX Each document is labeled as a final investigation result.- What the Documents Show ( Clarified )- The attached investigation results include two distinct XXXX XXXX tradelines, each with its own account number : - Account A Charged-Off Tradeline- TransUnion reports this account as : - Pay Status : Charged Off- Balance / Past Due : XXXX XXXX High Balance : $ XXXX Last Payment Made : XXXX Remarks : ACCT INFO DISPUTED BY CONSUMR, CONTACT SUBSCRIBER, and BALANCE CHARGED OFF- This reporting reflects an unpaid default.- Account B Paid/ Closed Due to Refinance Tradeline- TransUnion reports a separate XXXX XXXX account as : - Pay Status : Paid, Closed ; was Paid as agreed- Remarks XXXX ACCT CLOSED DUE TO REFINANCE ; CLOSED- Balance : $ XXXX Date Closed : XXXX This reporting reflects a paid-through-refinance outcome.- Why the Presentation of These Results Is Procedurally Deficient 1. Bundling Separate Accounts Into a Single Investigation Result Without Segregation- While it is permissible for TransUnion to include multiple accounts from the same furnisher within one investigation packet, it must still : - Clearly segregate each accounts investigation outcome- Clearly indicate that verification of one account does not apply to another- Avoid presenting outcomes in a way that implies shared verification or factual interdependence- The attached letters do not do this. Instead, they present both accounts together under a single Investigation Results Disputed Information Updated heading, without explaining : - which account was verified by which furnisher response- whether verification was conducted independently for each tradeline- whether any data from one account was relied upon to conclude the investigation for the other- This lack of segregation undermines transparency and verification integrity.- 2. Risk of Verification Cross-Contamination- Because both accounts appear : - within the same dispute cycle- within letters labeled as final investigation results- without account-specific verification disclosures- a reviewer can not determine whether TransUnion relied on a general XXXX response rather than account-specific verification XXXX which is required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.- Verification must be tradeline-specific. It can not be inferred, aggregated, or borrowed across separate accounts from the same furnisher.- 3. Implausible Refinance Data Was Accepted Without Reconciliation- Although the paid/refinance tradeline is separate from the charged-off account, it is notable that : - both XXXX accounts list the same Date Opened ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - one account is reported as charged off- the other is reported as paid through refinance- A refinance, by definition, occurs after an original obligation exists and therefore would normally reflect a later origination date. The identical origination dates raise questions as to whether the refinance designation was properly validated before being certified as part of the investigation results.- This does not require concluding the reporting is false, but it does indicate that TransUnion accepted and published implausible furnisher data without documented reconciliation, further undermining confidence in the investigation process.- Compliance Concerns Raised- The XX/XX/XXXX investigation results raise concerns under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : - Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) - Failure to properly conduct and present reinvestigation results in a clear, account-specific manner ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) - Failure to ensure that verification conclusions are transparent, segregated, and account-specific- This submission does not challenge the validity of either accounts balance or legal enforceability. It documents procedural shortcomings in TransUnions investigation handling and presentation.- Clarification- This supplement is submitted solely to document TransUnions procedures as reflected in the attached investigation results. It is not a new dispute, not a request for reinvestigation, and should not be treated as such.- I respectfully request CFPB review of TransUnions practice of issuing investigation results that commingle outcomes for separate accounts without adequate segregation or account-specific verification disclosure, thereby impairing the integrity and transparency of the reinvestigation process.-

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