Consumer complaint received 2026-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I filed multiple disputes in XXXX related to duplicate transactions and non-delivery of services through an online platform. The issue is straightforward : I paid for services and credits that I ultimately can not access, withdraw, or use. The platform experienced failures including wiped balances, inaccurate tracking of credits, and account lockout. I have provided supporting documentation showing that I had a significant balance that is now inaccessible. Despite this, Wells Fargo has taken the position that services were rendered. This conclusion ignores the fact that I do not have access to the account or the ability to use what I paid for. If I can not access or use the services, then they were not delivered. Access and the ability to use or withdraw are fundamental components of the service itself. The handling of my disputes has been inconsistent, contradictory, and raises serious concerns about compliance with Regulation E. The claims were initially opened on XX/XX/XXXX and denied within 24 hours after being routed to the wrong department. This error was later acknowledged by the executive team. The claims were then repeatedly reopened and closed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, often within very short timeframes and without any clear explanation or documented investigative findings. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received communication stating that more time was needed to complete the investigation. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, the claims were denied. When I contacted the executive team shortly after, the most recent internal notes still stated : * Pending partner response * Verified IMC response should be today * Pending outcome for Regulation E claim These notes confirm that the investigation was still ongoing at the time the claims were denied. Despite this, Wells Fargo proceeded to close the claims. In addition, Wells Fargo stated in their response that they are reviewing the other transactions and will provide updates separately. These transactions are part of the same claims that were already denied. This creates a direct contradiction : Wells Fargo can not claim the investigation is complete while simultaneously stating that the same transactions are still under review. This indicates the investigation was not complete at the time of denial. There have also been significant inconsistencies in how my claims were handled. The claim from XX/XX/XXXX remains open with provisional credit issued and is still under review. Additionally, I opened another claim on XX/XX/XXXX for a separate transaction, and provisional credit was issued on that claim as well, which also remains open. At the same time, the remaining claimsfiled under the same circumstanceswere denied without provisional credit. This demonstrates inconsistent application of Regulation E requirements. Claims where provisional credit is issued remain open and under review, while others are denied despite exceeding the same timeframe and involving similar facts. I was also given conflicting information between departments. The claims department advised that provisional credit should have been issued but could not act because the executive team controls the claims. The executive team stated the claims were denied and directed me back to the claims department. This resulted in a continuous runaround with no resolution. Wells Fargo also failed to follow the requirements of Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Specifically, under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), if a financial institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it is required to provisionally credit the consumers account while the investigation continues. In my case, Wells Fargo explicitly stated that more time was needed to complete the investigation, confirming that the investigation exceeded the 10-business-day timeframe. Despite this, provisional credit was not issued on the majority of my claims. Wells Fargo can not extend the investigation timeline and deny provisional credit at the same time. The regulation requires provisional credit if the investigation is not completed within the required timeframe. Additionally, Wells Fargos determination that there are no grounds for a chargeback is inconsistent with established dispute standards. My claims involve non-delivery of services, services not as described, duplicate transactions, and failure to provide access to purchased services. At the time of purchase, there was no clearly disclosed no-refund policy presented through the payment processor. At this point, the record shows : * Claims were denied while internal notes show the investigation was still pending * Wells Fargo acknowledged the need for additional time but did not issue required provisional credit * Conflicting and contradictory information was provided between departments * Claims were repeatedly opened and closed without clear resolution * Identical claims were handled inconsistently, including some receiving provisional credit while others did not I also want to document a concerning development that occurred while my disputes are still active. I have now been notified that my accounts will be closed by XX/XX/XXXX, despite multiple open claims, pending investigations, and formal notices of error and appeals already submitted. At the same time, I have observed a pattern where any new claims I submit are closed within a very short timeframe ( often within an hour ) when provisional credit is not issued. This raises serious concerns about how my disputes are being handled. Closing accounts while disputes are active, combined with the immediate closure of newly submitted claims, creates the appearance that my claims are not being fully reviewed or processed under standard procedures. Additionally, this pattern is inconsistent with how other claims have been handled, including claims where provisional credit was issued and those claims remain open and under review. The difference in treatment between claims that receive provisional credit and those that do not further highlights the lack of consistency in how my disputes are being processed. Given that I have submitted formal notices of error and appeals within the required timeframe, I am requesting that all claims be properly reviewed and handled in accordance with Regulation E requirements, regardless of the status of my accounts. I have also filed a complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which has opened a case and is currently reviewing this matter. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this case for compliance with Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Wells Fargos handling of this matter raises serious concerns about whether proper investigation procedures were followed and whether required consumer protections were applied. I also request that these claims be reassigned to a different representatives at a higher level than the current escalation specialist ( XXXX XXXX ). My interactions with the current assigned representative have been inconsistent, with conflicting information provided at different times regarding the status of the claims, provisional credit, and investigation progress. This has contributed to confusion and a lack of confidence in how my case is being handled. Given the inconsistencies and communication issues, I am requesting that a different representative review and handle these claims moving forward to ensure an objective, thorough, and compliant investigation.

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