Consumer complaint received 2025-10-08 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: ID

Complaint narrative:
See information requested in : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Summary : Synchrony Bank has once again demonstrated a complete failure to conduct a fair or competent investigation into my dispute. Their XX/XX/XXXX Final Response letter is riddled with contradictions and self-incriminating evidence that further validate my original claim of improper loan origination and mishandling. 

The most damning aspect is that the very document Synchrony themselves attached as proof directly contradicts their own written timeline, showing that the purchase date they cite is factually impossible and that the financing was processed before the XXXX  work was completed. 

XXXX. Failure of basic due diligence NEW Additional Evidence of Manipulated Documentation -> It is worth emphasizing that the very same Final Response packet from Synchrony now includes what appears to be my signature on the sales slip, and yet the accompanying pages containing the credit terms, APR tables, and lengthy contractual disclosures were clearly stitched in after the fact. Those materials were never provided to me at the time of signing or at any point prior to the alleged financing being executed. The inclusion of those generic credit terms in the Final Response is a transparent attempt to retroactively legitimize a transaction that was never properly disclosed. In short, Synchronys own submission demonstrates that while they may possess my signature on a merchant slip, they can not prove that I was ever shown or agreed to the terms they later attached to it. 

If Synchronys Fraud Team had reviewed this case with even minimal scrutiny, they would have immediately noticed that the purchase date on the alleged sales slip does not match the transaction details cited in their own response.

The letter claims the purchase occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. 

The sales slip they enclosed is dated XX/XX/XXXX as the date of sale ; before the work was even completed on XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced by the contractors invoice. 

A competent investigator would have seen that the document Synchrony is using to prove the transaction actually disproves their timeline entirely. Instead, Synchrony presented this contradiction as if it somehow strengthens their position. This is not an oversight. It is negligence.

2. Contradictory merchant information The sales slip also identifies a completely different companyv XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the merchant of record, when the actual installation was performed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

These are distinct legal entities. Synchrony has never explained this mismatch, which raises serious questions about how, where, and through whom this account was actually created. Either their internal documentation was fabricated after the fact, or Synchrony allowed a third-party merchant to submit transactions under another business name => both scenarios constitute serious compliance failures. 

3. Six months of obstruction before producing contradictory evidence Synchronys behavior is indefensible under CFPB standards for good-faith dispute resolution.

Despite multiple formal requests and three CFPB-filed complaints, it took over six months for Synchrony to produce this so-called sales receipt.

If Synchrony truly had this document all along, it should have been the very first exhibit in their initial investigation. The fact that it appeared only after repeated escalation suggests that either : - It was not in their possession originally - It was generated post-dispute to justify their previous denials. 

Either possibility undermines the credibility of their investigation entirely. 

4. Lack of impartial investigation and reliance on circular reasoning Synchronys conclusion that your payments validate the debt is not an investigative finding, its weak attempt at a circular reference logic path.

They ignored every piece of documented evidence contradicting their narrative : - No pre-loan disclosures - No lender identification before work began - No signed credit agreement - A sales slip that contradicts their own letter - A merchant mismatch indicating possible misrouting or fraud.

An investigation that overlooks these facts can not reasonably be considered compliant with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ) or Regulation V requirements for thorough, good-faith review.

5. Synchronys letter strengthens, not refutes, my case Synchronys own proof confirms that : - The loan was executed before services were rendered, - The merchant listed does not match the contractor, and - The evidence took half a year and two CFPB complaints to materialize.

That is an admission of systemic failure. 

Requested Regulatory Action I am requesting that the CFPB examine the adequacy and integrity of Synchrony Banks investigation procedures and compel them to : - Explain the date discrepancy between the alleged sales slip and their own letter. 

- Clarify the merchant mismatch between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

- Account for the six-month delay in producing this evidence, despite prior certified correspondence and two CFPB cases.

- * * * Reopen this investigation with regulatory oversight to ensure Synchrony can not self-certify an investigation built on contradictory and possibly fabricated documentation. * * * Closing Statement - At this point, Synchronys conduct reflects either willful disregard for investigative standards or deliberate misrepresentation of evidence. Their final response does not resolve the dispute. Rather, it validates every concern I raised.

This is no longer a question of misunderstanding. Its a question of integrity, compliance, and whether Synchrony believes the law applies to them.

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