Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding Wells Fargos handling of multiple billing disputes on my account ending in XXXX. This complaint specifically addresses the improper reversal of provisional credits, failure to investigate whether services were actually provided, and misapplication of billing dispute standards. I submitted disputes for several transactions and provided supporting documentation, including merchant communications, refund requests, and evidence showing that goods or services were not delivered as promised. Despite this, Wells Fargo issued provisional credits and later reversed them without conducting a proper investigation into whether the underlying services were provided. In at least XXXX instance, a tutoring charge in the amount of {$150.00} ( Reference XXXX. XXXX ), no tutoring session was ever scheduled or delivered. I notified the merchant and requested a refund immediately. However, Wells Fargo denied the dispute and reversed the provisional credit based solely on the fact that the transaction was authorized. Authorization of a transaction does not establish that goods or services were delivered. The relevant issue under billing dispute protections is whether the service was provided as agreed. Wells Fargos investigation failed to address this issue and instead relied on an incorrect standard. Additionally, Wells Fargo issued and reversed multiple provisional credits across different disputes, including claims involving services not rendered and goods not delivered, without demonstrating that the underlying obligations were fulfilled by the merchants. Wells Fargo also sent correspondence requiring responses within specific timeframes ; however, some of these letters were received after the stated deadlines, preventing a meaningful opportunity to respond. The pattern of issuing provisional credits and then reversing them without properly evaluating the evidence submitted indicates a failure to conduct reasonable investigations as required. Itemization of Disputed Amounts and Credits Reversed The following amounts were provisionally credited and later reversed : {$150.00} Tutoring services never provided ( Reference XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) {$210.00} Food-related dispute ( misrepresented goods ) {$110.00} and {$29.00} XX/XX/XXXX-related transaction issues ( Reference XXXX. XXXX ) {$66.00} Product not delivered ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( Reference XXXX. XXXX ) {$66.00} Additional reversal under separate claim reference These reversals total a significant amount that remains improperly charged despite unresolved disputes and documented non-delivery of goods and services. How the Law Was Applied Incorrectly Wells Fargo failed to properly apply the standards under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Specifically : The bank relied on transaction authorization rather than determining whether goods or services were actually delivered. The investigation did not evaluate whether the merchant fulfilled its obligation. Evidence submitted by the consumer was not addressed in the final determinations. Disputes involving different merchants and issues were not consistently evaluated under the correct dispute categories. A reasonable investigation requires verification of delivery of goods or completion of services, not merely confirmation that a transaction was processed. Failure to Consider Submitted Evidence I submitted multiple emails and supporting documentation directly to Wells Fargos claims department for each disputed transaction. These submissions included communications with merchants, refund requests, and statements clearly indicating that services were not provided or goods were not delivered. For example, in the tutoring dispute, I notified the merchant that no tutoring session was scheduled and requested a refund. This communication was provided to Wells Fargo as part of the dispute. Despite this, the denial determinations do not reference or address the emails submitted. Instead, Wells Fargo relied solely on transaction authorization or generalized conclusions without evaluating whether the underlying service was actually performed. The absence of any reference to the submitted emails in the investigation results indicates that the evidence was either not reviewed or not properly considered in the decision-making process. Concern Regarding Assignment and Review of Complaint I have previously requested that this matter be reviewed by a different representative ; however, the same individual ( identified in correspondence as XXXX XXXX, Escalations Representative ) continues to be assigned to my case. Given the repeated denials and the failure to address the documentation submitted, I am concerned that my disputes are not receiving an independent and objective review. The continued assignment of the same reviewer, despite my request, raises concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the investigation process.

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