Consumer complaint received 2026-06-01 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
Wells Fargo has denied my chargeback dispute XXXXe on shifting and self-contradictory grounds, and the bank 's own written denial letters demonstrate that no genuine merits review of my dispute has occurred. On XX/XX/XXXX, I paid a {$5000.00} deposit on my Wells Fargo card ending XXXX to a custom cabinet contractor. The merchant subsequently failed to deliver any goods. He committed in writing on XX/XX/XXXX to deliver the full order by XX/XX/XXXX, stating " I will make sure the XXXX happens. '' He reconfirmed in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, stating " Yes I will be delivering all the cabinets. '' He missed that date along with XXXX subsequent cure windows on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I terminated the project for non-performance on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX No goods were ever delivered. On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I submitted my first and only supporting documentation package to Wells Fargo at the email address they provided to me during a call that same day. The submission included XXXX attachments ( invoice, communication records, payment proof ) and a written dispute summary. Before XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo had received no supporting documentation from me whatsoever. Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX denial letter ( case XXXX ) states that " a secondary review of the dispute was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. '' The use of the term secondary review implies a prior primary review. But there could not have been a substantive primary review, because Wells Fargo had received no documentation from me before XX/XX/XXXX. The actual facts giving rise to my dispute, including the merchant 's XX/XX/XXXX firm commitment, his XX/XX/XXXX reconfirmation, the missed XX/XX/XXXX delivery, the missed XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX cure windows, and my XX/XX/XXXX termination, had not yet occurred at the time of any earlier internal review. Wells Fargo can not have substantively reviewed a dispute based on facts that did not exist and documentation that had not been submitted. This produces a contradiction Wells Fargo 's denials can not reconcile. Either the prior internal claim was a paperwork closure with no merits evaluation, in which case the XX/XX/XXXX secondary review was the first and only merits review and reviewed a XXXXattachment evidence package in less than XXXX hours, or both reviews were paperwork closures with no substantive evaluation, or Wells Fargo conducted a primary review of evidence I had not yet submitted. None of these scenarios reflects a properly processed chargeback dispute. Wells Fargo has now denied my dispute on XXXX unrelated stated grounds across XXXX denial letters. The XX/XX/XXXX denial states that the documentation did not present new or materially different evidence from what was previously reviewed and that the dispute was determined to be substantially the same as the earlier claim. The XX/XX/XXXX denial pivots to a new reason, stating that the invoice does not specify the number of cabinets, the colors, the materials to be used, or the exact measurements. These are not the same reason. The XX/XX/XXXX denial is also factually questionable, since custom cabinet quotes are industry-standard in linear feet ( my invoice provides XXXX linear feet of lower cabinets, XXXX linear feet of wall cabinets, and XXXX linear feet of tall cabinets ) with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX listed. The invoice is consistent with how every custom cabinet shop quotes a job. In late XX/XX/XXXX, I called Wells Fargo to ask procedural questions about what would happen if I opened a chargeback claim. I did not request a formal dispute be opened at that time, because the merchant had not yet missed a final committed delivery date. Wells Fargo 's records show an internal claim was opened and closed on or around XX/XX/XXXX, without my authorization for either action. I request that Wells Fargo produce the recording of that late XX/XX/XXXX call. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent Wells Fargo an escalation email asking them to confirm in writing whether the prior internal claim was opened at my request or unilaterally by the bank, and whether the closure was authorized by me. Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX response did not address these questions. Instead, they denied on a new substantive ground without engaging the procedural questions. Under Visa Reason Code XXXX ( Goods or Services Not Received ), the chargeback clock runs from the expected delivery date, not the transaction date. The expected delivery date here is XX/XX/XXXX, alternatively XX/XX/XXXX as the final cure date. My XX/XX/XXXX dispute is timely and is the first dispute that could properly have been filed under this rule. No earlier inquiry, authorized or unauthorized, could have resolved a non-delivery dispute on facts that had not yet occurred. I am asking that Wells Fargo treat my XX/XX/XXXX contact as the first formal dispute on this transaction, process it on the merits, confirm in writing whether the prior internal claim was authorized, and produce the late XX/XX/XXXX call recording.

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