Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
THIS COMPLAINT REPORTS A DISTINCT VIOLATION FROM CFPB COMPLAINT # XXXX AND IS NOT A DUPLICATE. CFPB Complaint # XXXX addressed XXXX XXXX false representation to the XXXX on XX/XX/year> regarding spoliation. This complaint addresses a different and ongoing violation : XXXX XXXX failure to conduct the reasonable investigation required by XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( B ), as evidenced by a specific documentary anomaly that propagated unchanged across at least XXXX complaint responses. XXXX. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE : A PROPAGATED TYPO Wells Fargos XX/XX/year> consolidated response to multiple CFPB complaints contains the following sentence in its substantive FCRA accuracy paragraph : Because the reporting is accurate, Wells Fargo is unable to delete or change the inofrmaiton to reflect a more favorable credit history. The word inofrmaiton is a misspelling of information. It is not a valid English word and is flagged by any standard spell-check tool. The error involves XXXX letter transpositions ( fo of and ti it ) in a single word. This same typo appears, unchanged and uncorrected, in XXXX XXXX responses to : CFPB Complaint # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> XXXX billing error ) CFPB Complaint # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> continuing XXXX violation ) CFPB Complaint # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> portal access ) CFPB Complaint # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> Reg XXXX statement retention ) CFPB Complaint # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> ) CFPB Complaint # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/year> ) The consolidated master letter dated XX/XX/year> ( Wells Fargo XXXX ID : XXXX ) XXXX. WHY THIS PROVES THE XXXX INVESTIGATION DID NOT OCCUR XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( B ) requires that, upon receipt of a billing error notice, a creditor shall conduct a reasonable investigation. Regulation XXXX ( XXXX CFR XXXX ( f ) ) further requires the creditor to provide a written explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditors belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect. A reasonable investigation presupposes review of the response sent to each consumer. The propagation of the same typo across at least XXXX distinct complaint responses addressing different statutory theories ( XXXX, FCRA, Reg XXXX, UDAAP ) and filed weeks apart is dispositive evidence that : No individualized review occurred for any of these responses The substantive FCRA accuracy paragraph is template text, not the product of investigation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Government XXXX XXXX XXXX ( SAGE ), described in the response as the highest office of complaint response, does not in fact review the responses it issues If a highest level review had occurred even cursorily a reviewer would have caught and corrected an obviously misspelled English word appearing in the substantive justification of the companys FCRA reporting accuracy. The reviewer did not, across XXXX responses involving XXXX distinct federal statutes. This is the type of error that reveals process. A typo that survives XXXX response could be carelessness ; a typo that survives XXXX identical responses across multiple weeks of nominal review reveals that no review occurred. XXXX. WHY THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE Prior complaint # XXXX addressed the underlying XXXX billing error. Prior complaint # XXXX addressed the continuing pattern of non-response over 10 months. Prior complaint # XXXX addressed Reg XXXX XXXX XXXX. Prior complaint # XXXX addressed the false representation to the XXXX regarding XXXX. This complaint addresses a different theory XXXX XXXX failure to satisfy the investigation duty under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( B ) using the propagated typo as discrete documentary evidence. The evidence became fully actionable only after XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> master letter brought the count of identical-typo responses to at least XXXX. The complaint advances a distinct statutory provision ( the investigation requirement ) using new evidence ( the cross-complaint propagation pattern ). XXXX. APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK XXXX XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( B ) Reasonable Investigation Duty. Upon receipt of a billing error notice, a creditor must conduct a reasonable investigation. Template responses lacking individualized review do not satisfy this duty. XXXX Regulation Z, XXXX CFR XXXX ( f ) Investigation Procedures. Specifies the procedural requirements for the investigation, including a written explanation of the reasons for the creditors determination. XXXX FCBA, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX of XXXX to Collect. A creditor that fails to comply with the investigation requirements forfeits the right to collect the first {$50.00} of each disputed amount and all finance charges attributable to the disputed amount. XXXX CFPA, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Deceptive Practices. Representing to consumers that responses come from the highest office of complaint response and that the company has carefully reviewed the concerns you raised while in fact issuing unreviewed template responses is a deceptive practice within the meaning of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

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