Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM Synchrony Bank reported two 30-day late payments and closed my XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX XXXX XXXX, account number beginning XXXX, statement account ends XXXX ) even though my bank records and Synchrony 's own billing statements show a {$950.00} payment cleared successfully on XX/XX/XXXX, paying off the vast majority of the account balance. Despite this cleared payment, Synchrony then issued a past-due notice on XX/XX/XXXX for {$160.00}, reported 30-day late marks for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and closed the account. My XXXX checking balance exceeded {$43000.00} throughout the entire period. No returned-payment event appears anywhere in XXXX 's own billing records. DOCUMENTED PAYMENT HISTORY FROM SYNCHRONY 'S OWN RECORDS The Synchrony billing statements for this account, which are attached to this complaint, show the following payment activity : XX/XX/XXXX : Payment Thank You, {$150.00} cleared XX/XX/XXXX : Automatic Payment Thank You, {$150.00} cleared XX/XX/XXXX : Automatic Payment Thank You, {$150.00} cleared XX/XX/XXXX : Previous Cycle Late Fee {$30.00} posted ( no NSF code, no returned-item code ) XX/XX/XXXX : Payment Thank You, {$950.00} cleared successfully XX/XX/XXXX : Past-due notice issued by Synchrony for {$160.00} XX/XX/XXXX : Account closed at credit XXXX 's request The {$950.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX is not a reversed or returned transaction. It appears on the XX/XX/XXXX statement as a successful payment, and the account balance reduces accordingly. The only fee that appears in the statement trail during the relevant period is a {$30.00} late fee from the XXXX cycle and a {$2.00} minimum interest charge there is no NSF fee, no returned-payment fee, and no returned-item code visible anywhere in XXXX 's records. BANK BALANCE EVIDENCE ( XXXX VERIFICATION LETTER ) The following balances on my XXXX personal checking account ( ending XXXX ) are documented in a verification letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, signed by Banking XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ID XXXX ), which is attached to this complaint : XX/XX/XXXX : {$47000.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$66000.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$43000.00} The lowest documented balance during XX/XX/XXXX {$43000.00} was more than XXXX times greater than the full outstanding balance on this Synchrony account ( highest balance ever {$1200.00} ). No insufficient-funds condition could have existed on any documented date. WHY THE LATE MARKS AND CLOSURE ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED The Synchrony billing statements for this account show that a payment of {$950.00} cleared successfully on XX/XX/XXXX paying off the vast majority of the account balance in a single transaction. This directly contradicts any claim that payments on this account were being returned for insufficient funds during the same period. Synchrony 's statements contain a line-item transaction summary with reason codes for fees. The only fee charged during the relevant period was a {$30.00} " Previous Cycle Late Fee '' in the XX/XX/XXXX cycle. No NSF fee, no returned-item fee, and no failed-draft code appears anywhere in the billing record Synchrony produced. On XX/XX/XXXX, Synchrony issued a past-due notice for {$160.00} even though a {$950.00} payment had cleared less than a month prior. This sequence of events does not match any coherent account-management rationale. If there had been an NSF event, it would appear in the billing statement with a corresponding reversal entry and fee. There is no such entry. There is a separate, older XXXX XXXX account on my credit report ( opened XX/XX/XXXX, closed XX/XX/XXXX ) that has exceptional payment history throughout. That older account is not in dispute and is referenced only to demonstrate a long prior track record of responsible account management with this retailer. PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE WITH SYNCHRONY I previously sent Synchrony a written reinstatement request, with the FirstBank verification letter attached, asking them to reconsider the closure and correct the credit reporting. Synchrony 's response was a generic form letter that did not address the bank verification, did not identify any specific returned-payment event, and did not conduct any substantive investigation. LEGAL FRAMING Synchrony 's failure to meaningfully investigate this dispute, despite receiving direct bank verification and despite the absence of any returned-payment event in its own billing records, is inconsistent with its obligations as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Under FCRA Section 623 ( b ), a furnisher that receives notice of a dispute is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and report the results. A form-letter response that does not engage with the specific bank evidence provided does not satisfy that standard.

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