Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
This is a new, comprehensive complaint detailing three distinct, systemic, and ongoing violations by Wells Fargo : Mathematical Billing Error ( FCBA/Regulation Z ) : The complete omission of a settled {$6000.00} cash payment from my XX/XX/XXXX, billing statement. Retaliatory Account Restriction ( UDAAP ) : The deliberate removal of my historical billing statements ( XXXX and XXXX ) and transaction history from my online portal immediately following my initiation of XXXX XXXX. Credit Reporting Violations ( FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : The furnishing of a mathematically impossible balance, a fabricated account closure status, and a false " High Credit '' limit. Importantly, my case establishes the exact procedural posture required for a private right of action under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). District courts clearly articulate three elements for this claim, all of which are met here : ( 1 ) The consumer sent notice of disputed information to a consumer reporting agency : I submitted XXXX separate disputes through XXXX ( not just directly to Wells Fargo ). ( 2 ) The consumer reporting agency then notified the defendant furnisher of the dispute : XXXX transmitted Automated Consumer Dispute Verifications ( ACDVs ) to Wells Fargo, successfully acting as the filtering mechanism and indirect-dispute trigger that activates 1681s-2 ( b ) duties. ( 3 ) The furnisher failed to investigate reasonably : Across all XXXX ACDVs, Wells Fargo blindly verified the inaccurate data and refused to correct the errors. Explicit Statement Regarding Prior Investigations : I explicitly state that Wells Fargos prior investigations and responses are entirely unsatisfactory, in bad faith, and legally deficient. The Wells Fargo Enterprise Complaints Management Office ( ECMO ) and Stakeholder, Agency, Government & Executive Office ( SAGE ) have completely failed to conduct the reasonable, substantive, human investigations required by federal law. Instead of addressing incontrovertible mathematical proofs or reviewing external XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ACH logs, Wells Fargo has systematically abused the regulatory complaint portal by mass-closing inquiries with irrelevant, boilerplate templates ( including bizarre references to " auto loans '' and " paper envelopes '' in credit card disputes ). They are actively using the existence of an arbitration claim as an improper shield to avoid conducting standard ledger audits and to avoid fulfilling their duties as a data furnisher under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Arbitration Deflection and Non-Waivable FCBA Duties : In their recent resolution letters, Wells Fargo 's SAGE office explicitly refused to respond to these issues, claiming that the matters will be addressed through arbitration and that they " will not respond to the issues outside of that process. '' This arbitration deflection is legally invalid. The FCBA imposes independent, non-waivable statutory obligations under 15 U.S.C. 16661666j. Wells Fargo 's unilateral statement that it will not respond to issues outside of arbitration does not extinguish its pre-existing duty to investigate a properly lodged billing error dispute. Under 15 U.S.C. 1666, Wells Fargo is legally required to conduct an actual investigation and either correct the error or provide a written explanation detailing the reasons they believe the account was correctly shown. Wells Fargo has completely failed to meet this statutory investigation requirement. Non-Discretionary FCBA Timing and Resolution Pathways : Furthermore, the FCBA imposes specific, non-discretionary duties on a creditor upon receipt of a proper billing error notice. I triggered these duties by providing timely written notice detailing my name, account number, the exact date, type, and amount of the missing {$6000.00} payment, along with the reasons for my belief that an error occurred. Once triggered, Wells Fargo faced strict timing obligations : to provide written acknowledgment within 30 days and comply with appropriate resolution procedures within 2 complete billing cycles ( not to exceed 90 days ). Crucially, a creditor can not simply close a dispute. The regulation prescribes exactly XXXX permissible outcomes, both requiring a substantive determination. Because a verifiable billing error occurred, the FCBA dictates that the creditor shall, within the time limits, correct the billing error, credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, and mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer. By utilizing automated scripts to mass-close my complaints without making a substantive determination or correcting the {$6000.00} ledger omission, Wells Fargo has flagrantly violated these strict, non-discretionary resolution pathways. II. Consolidated Chronological Facts to be Stipulated Because Wells Fargo refuses to conduct a human investigation, I respectfully request that the CFPB compel Wells Fargo to stipulate to the following undeniable, documented timeline of facts aggregated across my previous disputes : Fact 1 : Year XXXX : I never missed a single payment in XXXX. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX : Throughout this dispute, I continued to remit and settle monthly good-faith payments without interruption. Certified XXXX XXXX XXXX logs prove successful monthly payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : The XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, billing statement opened with a starting " Previous Balance '' of exactly {$0.00}. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : The XX/XX/XXXX, billing statement contains a {$5900.00} entry labeled " ADJUSTMENT-PAYMENTS '' on XX/XX/XXXX, but no payment credit of {$5900.00} appears anywhere else in that billing cycle. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : The only credit visible in that billing cycle is {$6000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, labeled " XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' which differs in amount, date, and transaction type. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : I immediately cured a XX/XX/XXXX return glitch by submitting a new cash payment of {$6000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. This payment successfully cleared XXXX XXXX XXXX and settled with Wells Fargo. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : The gross sum of all new debits applied during this statement cycle ( Reversal of {$5900.00}, XXXX of {$5700.00}, XXXX of {$190.00}, XXXX of {$9.00} ) equals exactly {$11000.00}. The final " XXXX XXXX '' demanded on this statement is exactly {$11000.00}. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX ( The Mathematical Error ) : Mathematically, a starting balance of {$0.00} plus {$11000.00} in new debits can only result in a final balance of {$11000.00} if exactly {$0.00} in payments/credits were applied. The XX/XX/XXXX payment of {$6000.00} was completely omitted from the ledger, directly resulting in the {$11000.00} mathematical error and artificially inflating the balance reported to the credit bureaus. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX : Wells Fargo furnished inaccurate tradeline data to XXXX falsely indicating the account was " closed by consumer, '' and reporting an impossible " High Credit '' limit of {$18000.00} on an account with a strict credit limit of {$13000.00}. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : Wells Fargo issued a formal resolution letter explicitly stating the account " was closed as part of a business decision '' by the bank, directly contradicting their own furnished credit reporting data. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX completed XXXX distinct dispute investigations. In all XXXX instances, XXXX transmitted ACDVs to Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo verified the disputed, inaccurate data. Wells Fargo successfully corrected and verified the payment history but inexplicably refused to correct the underlying principal balance mathematically derived from that exact payment history. In doing so, Wells Fargo 's agents failed to conduct a reasonable, manual ledger audit, violating the standard of a reasonable investigation mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : I officially initiated a Demand for Arbitration with the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Case XXXX ). Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : I formally served the arbitration demand and supporting documentation via email to Wells Fargo 's outside legal counsel, XXXX XXXX, who confirmed receipt the same day. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : Following the initiation of this legal dispute and direct service to Wells Fargo 's counsel, my online account portal was altered. It ceased displaying historical billing statements for the years XXXX and XXXX, which represent the exact ledgers actively disputed in the ongoing XXXX XXXX case. Selecting the " XXXX '' or " XXXX '' time period resulted in a system message explicitly stating : " You do not have any statements for the selected period. '' Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : Wells Fargo 's outside legal counsel ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) formally instructed me via email to use the " Recent Statements '' filter to access records predating XX/XX/XXXX. Applying this filter exactly as instructed yielded a list that strictly cut off at the XX/XX/XXXX, statement, confirming the prior years were entirely omitted. I provided counsel with timestamped photographic proof. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : In the same email thread, I officially notified Wells Fargo 's counsel that in addition to the restricted billing statements, all individual online transaction history prior to XX/XX/XXXX, had also been removed from my portal. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : Wells Fargo 's counsel emailed me to confirm that the bank had been " diligently working to try to resolve '' the issue with accessing historical account statements and hoped to have it resolved by XX/XX/XXXX. Fact XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX : Wells Fargo 's counsel confirmed that billing statements going back to XX/XX/XXXX should now be viewable. I verified that statement access was restored, but formally notified counsel that all individual transaction history prior to XX/XX/XXXX remains restricted and unavailable. Fact XXXX : Ongoing : I have been paying out of pocket for a XXXX while waiting for Wells Fargo to conduct a serious, human investigation into these issues.

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 explanation