“MANAGED BY FINCL COUNSLNG PGM.”

[Paphijohn]

TransUnion is impacting the creditworthiness of the individual based on a assumption.  Therefore, sensitivity and or pleasantries are not a factor, much less the issue in this matter.  Actually, that is a distraction from the actual issue.  Lenders can make their own determinations based on a notation on an account, CRAs do not have the right or authority to classify an account based on assumptions, their belief and or reason why.  Should there be a need to express frustration and or disagreement, of course there is.  The interpretation or how the dispute is read is not a factor.  If however, having to be friendly or pleasant would be a consideration for the removal, then that on its own further supports the fact of an erroneous reporting or classification of an account, thus not the issue.  Once more, the issue is what rule and or regulation supports the classifaction?  Emotions do not bear any effect on this matter, rather distract from the issue.

[Paphijohn]

Thank You RobertEG for your answer as it is along the lines of what I was looking for.  After the complaint to CFPB, the reporting continued.  Another dispute was submitted  using similar wording as the letter indictates to TransUnion and their response has not yet been received.   Basically, I am seeking answers to support what the next step would be should TransUnion decide to maintain the classification of the account (s) in question.  Thank you for focusing on the issue.

[youdontkillmoney]

---

@Paphijohn wrote:

Thank You RobertEG for your answer as it is along the lines of what I was looking for.  After the complaint to CFPB, the reporting continued.  Another dispute was submitted  using similar wording as the letter indictates to TransUnion and their response has not yet been received.   Basically, I am seeking answers to support what the next step would be should TransUnion decide to maintain the classification of the account (s) in question.  Thank you for focusing on the issue.

---

^^^

This solution is simple whereas the execution can be challenging

Solution: get the creditor who put that on that credit report to directly contact transunion to delete it

Execution: you contact the creditor in writing and ask them to contact transunion to change it

[Paphijohn]

The Creditors were the very first ones contacted as I wanted to have proof that no default payment or past due amounts were an issue.  I even have copy of letters where the Creditors sent these to TransUnion asking they remove all derrogatory remarks from the account, still the status remains.  Disputes have been sent with a copy of the letter as supporting documents and the status remains.  Because of this, the formal complaint was filed and the status still remains.  An additional dispute has been submitted and now I am making preparations for the next step should the status remain.  That is what is being sought in this matter.  Is there any rule or regulation that would support the manner in which TransUnion has choosen to report/classify the account (s) in question.  If there is a need for legal action, I want to make sure the consumer has the best possible chance for a change.  I know the CRAs do not want to be the case law for the other CRAs, and it is very likely that TransUnion would be smart about the reporting and make changes to their approach particularly if there is nothing that would support it and they could bear some liability for their assumptions, which in turn are affecting peoples lives.  In all 6 cases I am overseeing that share this classification, no Creditor is reporting any default payments.  All other accounts are in good standings and the payment history of those having that status even shows that more than the minimum payment is being made.  The individuals are just being smart about their finances and trying to eliminate a debt as quickly as possible at the lowest possible rate.  They should not be penalized for being proactive.  Now, should there have been late payments at any given time, even with the accounts showing that as a status, I could certainly understand the "Lender beware" mentality.  But such is not the issue.  So in preparation for the next step, what grounds would TransUnion have to uphold its classification.  Thanks everyone for your responses and involvement.  Hopefully something positive will come from this that would in essence help others as well.