Consumer complaint received 2025-10-19 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Synchrony XXXX XXXX Credit Card ) Reference : CFPB Case # XXXX ( XXXX XXXX/Citi/XXXX ) same XXXX  franchise network, same practices, parallel financing channel. 

I am submitting this complaint to alert the Bureau to a parallel, systemic pattern involving XXXX in-home bathroom remodeling marketed with XXXX franchisees and financed by Synchrony Bank XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX XXXX The pattern mirrors the facts in my active case # XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) : Illegal deposits over 10 % at contract signing before permit application, a practice that violates Florida XXXX. XXXX when permits are not applied for within 30 days. 

Unpermitted construction and life-safety hazards ( e.g., unauthorized work on new electrical circuitry ; demolition in XXXX homes with untested lead paint/asbestos risk ). 

High-pressure early payments and senior-exploitation optics ( targeting older homeowners for accelerated draws ). 

Re-Bath corporate materials expressly recruiting franchisees with no remodeling experience, while big-box marketing implies we handle permits and inspections. 

Why this is relevant to XXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent XXXX Corporate XXXX XXXX XXXX duty-to-warn letter about Re-Baths practices ( attached ). XXXX acknowledged receipt and asked whether our project originated through XXXX. I clarified that my notice was public-safetydriven, not a customer-service ticket, and that any LowesRe-Bath jobs in Pinellas/Hillsborough counties were at high risk of illegal deposits and permit avoidance. To date, XXXX has offered no denial, corrective program or inspection remedy ; Synchrony has not ( to my knowledge ) implemented any Holder Rule safeguards specific to the XXXX model despite obvious permitting red flags. 

Corroboration from the parallel channel ( XXXX XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter admitting no permit was obtained on our job ( attached for pattern corroboration ). 

Database building permit searches over XXXX years in XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX Florida reveal a stunning absence of applications by XXXX XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX personnel admitted in front of multiple witnesses " We typically don't pull permits ''. The XXXX general XXXX also stormed off the premises when confronted with numerous violations. 

OuXXXX XXXX contract ( attached ) shows a staggering 45 % up-front draw inconsistent with XXXX 10 % XXXX30-day permit rule. Our XX/XX/XXXX charge of {$13000.00} on a {$30000.00} job represented ~45 % up front. Where that structure is mirrored under XXXX XXXX XXXX is implicated if permits were not timely filed. 

Life-safety specifics behind the pattern : Electrical : We documented a new whirlpool tub tied into a wall outleta latent electrocution/fire hazard and clear XXXX breach. No inspections. 

Plumbing, Other : Numerous building code violations as well as purchased safety grab bars intentionally left off, structural wood damage intentionally covered up. No inspections. 

Demolition hazards : XXXX homelead paint/asbestos concerns where no permit/inspection path existed. No hazard testing or employee PPE. 

Elder risk : We are 63 and 66 ; the pressure for repeated early/final payment during unsafe/incomplete work is consistent with senior-targeting/exploitation patterns. 

National scale of violations : Exhibit D reveals numerous anecdotes of XXXX 's malfeasance spanning the nation. This includes a notorious Nevada Re-bath franchisee that was convicted and jailed. 

Radio silence/ no denial : My XX/XX/XXXX escalation package to the other channel ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX rebuttal or denial of the factual allegations. 

My XX/XX/XXXX notice to XXXX ( XXXX ) was acknowledged but led to no corrective program or customer safety inspection effort. 

Why this belongs with CFPB ( SynchronyXXXX ) : Where Synchrony finances XXXX  installations using identical deposit and permitting practices, Synchrony may be exposed under the FTC Holder Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 433 ) and UDAAP principles for financing contracts illegal or unsafe on their face ( e.g., unlawful deposit timing ; absence of required permits/inspections ). I ask the Bureau to examine whether Synchrony financed XXXX projects with >10 % deposits collected before permits and without proof of permit applications within 30 daysespecially in Florida, but also in other states with similar permitting regimes. 

Other agencies already engaged on the parallel channel ( for context ) : AG ( Florida ) -- -- filed XX/XX/XXXX ( AG has coordinated with DPBR ) DBPR ( Florida ) filed XX/XX/XXXX ( investigation active ). 
XXXX ( XXXX ) filed XX/XX/XXXX ( investigation open ). 
XXXX XXXX XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX ( investigation active ). 
FTC filed XX/XX/XXXX ( Holder Rule/systemic deception ). 
SEC Whistleblower filed XX/XX/XXXX regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX franchisor owner ) nondisclosure risk. 

( This list shows the systemic nature ; it is not a request for duplicate relief. ) Professional status / duty to warn : I am a licensed Professional Engineer ( Ohio XXXX ) and XXXX ; I filed the XXXX notice under professional ethics ( XXXX XXXX  I ; XXXX XXXX ). This CFPB complaint is submitted in the same spiritto protect consumers where financing incentives appear to be enabling unpermitted, unsafe remodeling at scale.

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