Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit 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: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year> I was charged {$120.00} on my XXXX XXXX Credit Card for order # XXXX. The merchant produced XXXX conflicting accounts of a single transaction, none of which constitute an official itemized receipt : The physical packing list a warehouse fulfillment document, not a receipt shows qty XXXX at {$61.00} each, subtotal {$120.00}, tax {$7.00}, total {$130.00}, with no discounts reflected anywhere. The shipping confirmation email a logistics notification, not a receipt shows subtotal {$120.00}, a combined discount of - {$10.00} as a lump sum with no per-item attribution, tax {$7.00}, total {$120.00}. The order details page a system status screen, not a receipt shows XXXX separate discount line items ( {$5.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX and {$5.00} XXXX XXXX ) totaling {$10.00}, but attributes neither discount to a specific item, leaving the actual per-unit cost of each figure unknown. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stated in writing on XX/XX/year> that order adjustments were {$0.00} directly contradicting all XXXX of the above documents. Not XXXX of these XXXX records is an official receipt. Not one specifies what the consumer paid per unit. I contacted XXXX on XX/XX/year> requesting a reconciled itemized receipt. XXXX response failed to resolve the discrepancies and instead introduced a fourth conflicting account. I filed a formal dispute with Comenity Capital Bank on XX/XX/year>, providing all XXXX conflicting documents as evidence. On XX/XX/year> I received a resolution letter from Comenity containing a false statement attributing a claim to me that appears nowhere in any of my written submissions specifically that I had stated a discount wasnt applied to a purchase. I never made that claim. My actual claim that the merchant produced XXXX irreconcilable documents and failed to provide an official itemized receipt has not been investigated in any communication received to date. The false statement attributing a claim I never made has not been corrected, despite being brought to Comenitys attention both in writing and on a recorded call on XX/XX/year>. Instead, Comenity selectively cited figures from XXXX of the XXXX conflicting documents while ignoring the contradictions across all XXXX and without acknowledging that none of them constitute an official receipt. Furthermore, Comenitys findings directly contradict XXXX own written statement. XXXX representative stated {$0.00} in order adjustments. Comenity claimed to have verified a {$5.00} reward and {$5.00} in XXXX XXXX were applied, concluding that no further adjustment is due for this transaction. These XXXX positions are mutually exclusive. Comenity did not reconcile this contradiction they cited figures that XXXX own representative had explicitly denied. On XX/XX/year>, while my complaint regarding the XX/XX/XXXX letter was still open and unresolved in XXXX message chain, Comenity sent a response to a separate, unrelated message chain. That response referenced dispute details that corresponded to this case but were entirely incoherent in the context of the chain they were sent to. This demonstrates a failure of internal tracking that further undermines the integrity of the investigation process. Also on XX/XX/year>, I called Comenity to address the false statement in the XX/XX/XXXX letter and the misdirected response. I read the false statement aloud directly from the letter to the representative. When I raised the issue of the false attribution, the representative repeatedly characterized it as me not receiving what I had requested rather than as a factual error in an official document. After being corrected multiple times, she confirmed when asked directly that in her notes, the false attribution and me not getting what I wanted were the same thing, effectively documenting a factual error in an official letter as a customer satisfaction complaint. No correction was made, and I was offered only a XXXX XXXX address I already possessed and told to wait for the same process that had produced the false letter and the misdirected response to issue a final decision. These facts raise serious concerns about whether the investigation conducted by Comenity Capital Bank has met the standards required under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Rather than resolving the dispute, the XX/XX/XXXX letter made false attributions about my claim, selectively cited XXXX document from XXXX contradictory sources, and deflected with a referral back to the merchant who had already failed to provide accurate documentation. A separate response was sent to the wrong message chain. When these failures were raised directly on a recorded call, no correction was offered and no alternative process was provided. The actual claim that the merchant produced XXXX irreconcilable documents and failed to provide an official itemized receipt has not been meaningfully addressed, the false statements in the official resolution letter have not been corrected, and the written record as it stands contains attributions I never made.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation