Consumer complaint received 2025-05-19 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: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, Subject : Regulation Z Violation Dispute with Synchrony Bank I am filing a formal complaint against Synchrony Bank regarding the mishandling of a credit card dispute. Below are the details of the incident : On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Synchrony Bank to report an issue related to a purchase made on XX/XX/XXXX, with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I took my XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to address a check engine light issue that came on due to the 02 sensors. I was assured that the repair would be completed correctly. However, after picking up my vehicle and paying for the service on XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered on XX/XX/XXXX that the check engine light had returned, indicating that the issue was not resolved. This failure suggests that the repair was either not performed or was done incorrectly. 

I attempted to resolve this matter directly with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in person with XXXX, a representative at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. He advised me that I would have to pay for additional services, despite the fact that the problem I had originally paid to fix had not been addressed which was not a satisfactory resolution. As a result, on XX/XX/XXXX, I took my vehicle to another repair shop, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for further evaluation. After a thorough inspection, I was informed that either no work had been performed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or that their repair was completely faulty. The mechanics at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX advised that the necessary repairs needed to be redone in their entirety, and I authorized them to proceed. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated a Regulation Z dispute with Synchrony Bank, citing reason code XXXX : " Not as described, defective service. '' I explained that XXXX had assured me the service would resolve the issue, but it did not, causing me to incur additional costs with another repair shop. I provided Synchrony Bank with all the relevant information. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I had to call Synchrony Bank because I never received a letter or any correspondence stating my claim was denied. What prompted me to call was that I noticed that the credit that was initially given for the dispute had been reversed on my account. On the call with the Synchrony Bank representative, I was advised that my claim had been denied, citing that the goods were as described and in good condition. Being that I never received an initial denial letter with any supporting documentation is a Regulation Z violation. The Synchrony Bank representative instructed me to provide any additional supporting documentation, in order to proceed. I complied and submitted all the requested documents on XX/XX/XXXX, including the sales invoice, a detailed letter outlining my attempt to resolve the issue with XXXX, the invoice from the new shop showing that the work had to be redone and a letter from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX explaining why the services had to be redone. Despite submitting these documents, Synchrony Bank denied my claim again on XX/XX/XXXX stating that the merchant was working with me to resolve the issue. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Synchrony Bank and spoke with another representative, I advised the Synchrony representative that the explanation for denial that the merchant was working with me to resolve was XXXX XXXX false as I have not received any communications from the merchant. 
Additional from the call on XX/XX/XXXX, the representative, who discussed the dispute informed me that I needed to provide additional documentation. I asked if a letter from the second repair shop on their letterhead, explaining why the work from XXXX was not completed was not considered additional documentation. The representative confirmed that this letter was the only additional documentation needed to continue the case. I then informed the representative that the said letter had already been sent in, and was clearly overlooked. At this point, the representative requested to reopen the dispute case. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Synchrony Bank because despite providing all required documentation, including the recently requested letter, Synchrony Bank continued to deny my claim, this time with an explanation stating that merchant had attempted to contact me to resolve the matter and I advised again that this was XXXX XXXX false as I have not received any communications from the merchant and if that were the case I would not be disputing the charge. At that time, I requested to speak to a Synchrony dispute manager. 

When I spoke with Dispute manager XXXX, she decided not to submit my case for pre-arbitration with XXXX, despite my having provided sufficient evidence, as outlined in the XXXX chargeback guide ( Section XXXX ). Instead, she said she would escalate the dispute and denial to her director but shortly after that call, I received another digital letter stating that I opened a dispute. Their denials, combined with their lack of properly handling the dispute, providing sufficient communication or supporting documentation from the merchant, has caused significant delays and frustration in resolving this matter. 

As mentioned, I never received an initial denial letter with any supporting documentation. I only received the XXXX  and XXXX  digital denial letters but have never received any supporting documentation throughout the entire situation. 
Given the clear violation of Regulation Z and the failure to properly handle my dispute, I request that Synchrony Bank credit my account permanently for this disputed charge. If this issue is not resolved promptly, I will pursue further legal action. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your assistance in resolving this issue. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX

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