Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 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: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: NH

Complaint narrative:
I purchased a XXXX refrigerator from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX using my Lowes Synchrony credit card. Within approximately 30 days, the original refrigerator failed when the interior lights stopped working. I contacted XXXX and requested service, however XXXX chose to exchange the refrigerator instead. A replacement refrigerator was then delivered. Approximately four months later, the replacement refrigerator developed serious problems including leaking water and cooling-related issues. The leak caused damage to my flooring. I first contacted XXXX directly by both email and phone requesting assistance and resolution. Many of my emails were ignored, phone calls were not returned, and I struggled to obtain meaningful assistance despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue. When I requested a refund due to the repeated defects, property damage, and prolonged repair process, the refund request was denied. Warranty service was then handled through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the technician documented that the refrigerator was not cooling properly, had water underneath the crisper drawer, a frozen evaporator drain, and a cracked dual valve. Parts were ordered during that visit. After the technician left, the refrigerator leaked onto the floor again, causing additional water/property damage. On XX/XX/XXXX, another service visit documented continued issues including a cracked water valve, cracked filter housing/waterline connection, disconnected sensor, and temperature fluctuation complaints. Additional parts were again ordered. On XX/XX/XXXX, a scheduled appointment was delayed/rescheduled due to time frame, and a follow-up repair appointment took place on XX/XX/XXXX related to the ice maker/water system repairs. I disputed the transaction with Synchrony because the replacement refrigerator delivered after the original exchange became defective, caused documented property damage, and was not repaired within a reasonable time despite multiple service visits, ordered parts, photographs, repair documentation, and repeated communications. My dispute was not based on the original refrigerator exchange. I fully acknowledged that XXXX replaced the first refrigerator after it failed within approximately 30 days. My dispute specifically concerns the replacement refrigerator delivered afterward. I submitted photographs of the property damage, service records, repair documentation, and communications regarding the ongoing defects and prolonged repair process. However, Synchrony denied the dispute while appearing to focus primarily on the fact that XXXX exchanged the original refrigerator, which does not address the actual basis of my dispute involving the defective replacement refrigerator, the documented property damage, and the prolonged repair process. After reopening the dispute and again explaining that my claim involved the replacement refrigerator and resulting property damage, Synchrony closed the case without providing a meaningful explanation addressing the evidence submitted. Based on the responses provided, I do not believe the dispute investigation fully evaluated the documentation, repair history, photographs, communications, and evidence submitted regarding the defective replacement refrigerator and resulting damages.

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