Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge 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: Self Financial Inc.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I discovered that Self had assessed a {$25.00} annual fee on my secured credit card account about a year after opening, even though I never received the physical card, never received tracking information, never activated the card, and never received notice that an annual fee would be imposed. This is not just a dispute over a {$25.00} charge. The core issue is that Self attempted to impose a fee on a card I never received or used, without clear notice, proof of delivery, proof of activation, or any transparent account history showing why the fee was allegedly valid. Self also appeared prepared to use that disputed fee as a basis to reduce, offset, or delay return of my security deposit, which is my money. On XX/XX/year>, I sent Self a written dispute demanding removal of the fee, reversal of any related interest, penalties, negative coding, collection activity, or credit reporting, return of my security deposit or credit balance, and production of documentary proof if Self contended the fee was valid. That written dispute expressly invoked billing-error type concerns and requested documentary clarification. Self has not provided a substantive response. T his matter raises Regulation Z concerns. Und er 12 C.F.R. section 1026.13, a consumer may dispute billing errors and request additional clarification and documentary evidence. Under 12 C.F.R. section 1026.11, once a credit balance exists and a written request is made, the remaining credit balance is required to be refunded within seven business days. To the extent Self failed to provide or deliver periodic statements reflecting the fee or balance, that also raises concerns under 12 C.F.R. sections 1026.5 and 1026.7 regarding required periodic statements. The call handling made the problem worse. Before I was able to speak with a manager, a Self representative acted dismissively and suggested that I might not get my money back. The representative first told me the fee could not be waived. I then stated three separate times that I wanted the account canceled. Instead of processing that request directly, the representative attempted to keep the account open and twice tried to steer the conversation toward waiving the fee and sending me a new card that I had never received in the first place. Rather than clearly addressing my dispute and cancellation request, the representative appeared to redirect the interaction into a scripted retention process. During that same exchange, the representative made a remark to the effect of " ahh there it is, '' which I found distasteful, unprofessional, and harmful in the middle of a live dispute over my money. From my perspective, this reflects a broader transparency and servicing problem. Self did not provide the card, did not provide notice, did not provide clear documentary support, did not provide a meaningful correction path after written notice, and did not handle the complaint in a professional or transparent way. I want the company to explain how it could assess an annual fee on a card never received or activated, why I had to repeat my cancellation request three times, why the interaction shifted into retention efforts instead of straightforward dispute resolution, and why Self failed to correct the issue after written notice despite the Regulation Z concerns identified above.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation