Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit 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: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
We filed a dispute with Comenity Banks Archarge ( Arhaus Store Card ) on XX/XX/XXXX regarding the {$10000.00} in deferred interest that was charged t o our account on XX/XX/XXXX. The reason for this dispute is that w e were under the clear impression that, as a result of the warranty exchange being processed to replace the XXXX XXXX purchased on XX/XX/XXXX with the XXXX XXXX delivered on XX/XX/XXXX, our promotional financing period would restart or otherwise be preserved for any difference between the two sectionals. In an effort to ensure that we would not encounter any issues such as the one we are now facing, I made several calls to both Arhaus and the Comenity Arhaus Charge Card team to explain my understanding o f the situation and to confirm that everything would be handled appropriately. The only time I was advised that this might not be possible was when we initially placed the order for the XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. At that time, XXXX XXXX, who assisted us over the phone, explained that the exchange might not align with the promotional financing because the new sectional was expected to be delivered i n XX/XX/XXXX, after the promotional expiration date of XX/XX/XXXX. At the time the new order was placed on XX/XX/XXXX, i t was our understanding that the returned XXXX XXXX would be refunded in the amount of {$3000.00} plus applicable tax. I t was further our understanding that the remaining portion of the original purchase-the XXXX XXXX-would be returned at the time of the in-home exchange, resulting in an additional refund of {$9300.00} plus applicable tax, and that the new purchase charge for the XXXX XXXX, totaling {$14000.00} plus applicable tax, would be applied to our account only when the in-home exchange was completed. We were specifically advised that no portion o f the exchange or new purchase would be fully processed until the in-home exchange took place. However, we later noticed that on XX/XX/XXXX we were charged an amount of {$5700.00}, which appears t o represent the difference between the two sectionals. This charge was not consistent with our understanding o f how the transaction was to be processed, as i t occurred approximately two months before we received the new sectional and before the in-home exchange took place. We were also willing to have the XXXX sectional picked up earlier so the return could be processed sooner and any risk of deferred interest avoided ; however, we were advised that Arhaus preferred not to do so in order to avoid leaving us without a couch during the holiday. We were later informed that the XXXX XXXX would arrive earlier than originally anticipated. As a result, the in-home exchange took place on XX/XX/XXXX. While this date was five days after the promotional financing expiration date o f XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX t was still well within the applicable grace period. Based o n our conversations with Arhaus and Comenity representatives, we reasonably believed that the refunds and new charge would be processed in a manner that preserved the promotional financing and prevented any deferred interest from being assessed. On either XX/XX/XXXX o r XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the Arhaus Charge Card customer service line, explained the situation in detail, and was assured b y the representative that as long as the in-home exchange took place within the grace period, I would not need t o worry about deferred interest being assessed. I was further advised that if deferred interest were to post in error, we could contact Comenity Bank and the charges would be reviewed and removed. This was a point I specifically sought to confirm. I clearly stated during that conversation that if there were any risk that the promotional financing would not be protected, I would immediately pay the remaining balance of {$3900.00}. Based on the assurances we received, we did not believe that paying off the remaining balance prior to the exchange was necessary. We relied i n good faith on the representations made by authorized representatives of both Arhaus and Comenity Bank. Had we been advised at any point that deferred interest would still be assessed regardless of the timing or processing o f the exchange, we would have paid the remaining balance immediately to avoid any interest charge. We have taken multiple steps to have this situation resolved and I have had multiple customer service representatives share with me that they agree that they dont believe that we should have been charged the deferred interest based on how we thought the transaction was being done and the information that we had received. I have requested on multiple occasions to speak with someone with no success.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief