Consumer complaint received 2026-01-26 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
This is supplemental evidence to Complaint ID XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX WI XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Re : Complaint / Update Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . 
Account ending XXXX / Debit card ending XXXX Wells Fargo Claim # XXXX Related regulator matter : OCC Case XXXX XXXX. Purpose of this submission This submission is to update or file a complaint with the CFPB regarding Wells Fargos failure to investigate and resolve a debit-card dispute and related duplicate charges as raised. This is not a fraud or unauthorized-use complaint. The transactions were authorized. The complaint concerns Wells Fargos dispute-handling process, misclassification of the dispute, and inconsistent statements about whether the matter was submitted to the XXXX XXXX  for review . 

The CFPBs involvement is requested to require a complete written response from Wells Fargos executive complaint unit and to ensure Wells Fargos position is consistent with its responses to other regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 

XXXX. Accounts and identifiers Bank : Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . 
Account : ending XXXX Debit card : ending XXXX Wells Fargo Claim # : XXXX Transaction location : XXXX, XXXX Transaction period : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Dispute opened with Wells Fargo : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Evidence submitted to Wells Fargo : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( auto-reply confirms receipt ) 3. Summary of disputed transactions A ) XXXX XXXX XXXX debit card charges ( XXXX XXXX  ) Total disputed ( net ) : {$7000.00} XXXX  : {$7100.00} ( later {$960.00} credit {$6100.00} net ) MRI : {$850.00} Visit : {$70.00} Dispute basis : Services/tests occurred, but the hospital did not provide usable, durable deliverables. Access to records was expiring, platform-restricted, or encrypted, and no durable XXXX imaging or usable XXXX  data was provided. This is a service not as described/defective deliverables dispute, not an authorization dispute. 

B ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debit card charges ( XXXX XXXX ) Amounts disputed : {$1900.00} + {$1900.00} + {$380.00}, plus related international transaction fees Dispute basis : Apparent duplicate and undocumented/unsupported charges. Documentation supporting each charge and appropriate refund/credit were requested. 

4. Timeline ( condensed ) XX/XX/XXXX : Charges posted to the account while overseas in XXXX. 
XX/XX/XXXX : Dispute reported to Wells Fargo. 
XX/XX/XXXX : Evidence emailed to Wells Fargo ; auto-reply confirms receipt. 
XXXX XXXX  : Wells Fargo issued multiple denial/closure letters ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ), asserting the charges were authorized, there was no processing error, and that medical records are not a valid dispute, and stating the dispute could not be forwarded to XXXX. 
At one point, a Wells Fargo executive-office representative stated the dispute was filed to XXXX and provided XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ), which directly conflicts with later written denials. 
XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : Wells Fargo mailed a documents relied upon packet identifying what it used to make its decision. 

5. Core complaint : failure to investigate the dispute as raised Wells Fargo consistently treated this matter as an authorization issue even though authorization was never disputed. The bank relied primarily on transaction authorization logs and the intake questionnaire rather than evaluating whether services were delivered as described or whether charges were duplicative/unsupported. 

The documents relied upon packet states Wells Fargos investigation focused on whether authorization was revoked timely. That rationale does not address a service-not-as-described dispute or a duplicate-charge dispute and indicates misclassification of the claim. The packet also contains no XXXX case record, no XXXX documentation, and no network correspondence, despite prior statements that a XXXX filing occurred. 

6. Why CFPB intervention is needed Wells Fargo has provided inconsistent explanations, closed the case multiple times, and has not produced the claim file or XXXX  processing records supporting its denial. These process failures deprived us of a meaningful dispute review and potentially of network remedies. CFPB oversight is requested to ensure Wells Fargo provides a complete, accurate, and consistent written response and corrects any procedural handling errors. 

XXXX. Requested resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Wells Fargo to : Produce the complete claim file for Claim # XXXX, including internal notes, disposition codes, and evidence reviewed. 
Provide documentary proof of XXXX submission ( including the full XXXX record ) or a written admission that no XXXX dispute was filed, with the reason and policy basis. 
Reopen and reinvestigate the dispute under the correct basis ( service not as described/defective deliverables and duplicate/unsupported charges ). 
Provide appropriate remediation, including credit/refund, if Wells Fargos handling error caused loss of network remedies or other harm. 
Communicate in writing only. 

8. Closing This complaint concerns Wells Fargos dispute-handling practices, not the underlying XXXX XXXX. I appreciate the CFPBs assistance in requiring a complete written response and corrective action.

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX / Card ending XXXX Wells Fargo Claim # XXXX Related : OCC Case XXXX Complaint ID 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