Consumer complaint received 2026-04-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Problem when making payments — Problem during payment process
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
CFPB XXXXomplaint Escalation & Rebuttal to Prior Response Consumer : XXXX XXXX Account : XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card ( Comenity Capital Bank ), ending in XXXX -- - # # # Complaint Overview This complaint is a formal escalation and rebuttal to XXXX XXXX Banks prior CFPB response ( Complaint ID : XXXX ), which was closed without addressing the core issues raised. The companys response relies on generalized statements and recycled language, while failing to reconcile documented contradictions between : - Their payment system representations - Their written explanation of stay payments - The actual credit reporting and account behavior As a result, the information being reported is misleading, inconsistent, and not a fair reflection of my payment activity. -- - # # # XXXX. Direct Contradiction : Payment System vs. Company Explanation At the time payments were made, Comenitys system stated : > This option keeps your account from becoming further past due Paying this amount should keep your account from becoming further delinquent. However, in their written response, Comenity states : > A stay payment keeps your account from becoming further past due however the account is not being brought current and continues to report as past due. These statements are not equivalent. - The consumer-facing system indicates delinquency will not worsen - The post-dispute explanation introduces limitations that were not clearly disclosed at the time of payment I relied on the systems representation when making payments. The explanation provided later does not cure the misleading nature of the original representation. -- - # # # 2. Failure to Reconcile Delinquency Progression Comenity claims : > The delinquency hasnt progressed further. However, the actual reporting reflects : - Progression through 30, 60, 90, and 120-day delinquency statuses- Continued severe delinquency despite ongoing monthly payments This is a factual contradiction that has not been addressed. If delinquency truly did not progress, the account would not reflect escalating delinquency levels across reporting periods. -- - # # # 3. Misleading Payment Structure & Negative Amortization The account demonstrates a structure where : - Credit limit : {$350.00} - Balance increased to approximately $ XXXX - APR : approximately 31.24 % - Monthly late fees : approximately {$41.00} - Monthly payments : generally {$40.00} {$60.00} This created a situation where : - Payments were insufficient to reduce principal - Fees and interest consumed payments - The balance increased despite consistent payments This is effectively negative amortization, which was not clearly disclosed in the context of stay payments. -- - # # # 4. Inconsistent Fee Application Undermines Accuracy Recent account activity shows : - Late fees assessed and later reversed ( e.g., XX/XX/year> ) This demonstrates that : - Fees were not applied consistently - The balance and past due amounts are subject to change after the fact - The reported data may not be reliable or fully accurate -- - # # # 5. Prior CFPB Response Was Not a Reasonable Investigation The companys prior CFPB response : - Recycled a previous letter - Stated its position remains unchanged - Did not address : - Payment-to-delinquency contradictions- Balance growth mechanics - Reporting progression inconsistencies A reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires more than restating prior conclusions without addressing documented discrepancies. -- - # # # 6. Misleading Reporting Under FCRA Standards The combination of : - Ambiguous and misleading payment representations- Continued delinquency reporting despite ongoing payments - Fee-driven balance inflation - Contradictory explanations from the creditor results in a tradeline that is materially misleading, even if individual data points are technically accurate in isolation. Under the FCRA, information must be complete and not misleading, not merely technically correct. Final Statement This matter is not a simple dispute of reported datait involves contradictory representations, consumer reliance, and reporting outcomes that do not align with those representations. If Comenity Capital Bank can not reconcile these inconsistencies with a clear and accurate explanation, the tradeline can not be considered reliable and must be removed. -- - Attachments Included : - Screenshots of Stay Payment representations- Full payment history and transaction records- Prior CFPB complaint and company response - Credit reporting dispute results showing data changes - Current account summary reflecting balance and limit

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation