Consumer complaint received 2026-04-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: WY

Complaint narrative:
REBUTTAL TO SYNCHRONY BANKS INVESTIGATION Submitted as a New CFPB Complaint Referencing Case ID XXXX XXXX Product : Credit Card Issue : Problem with a purchase shown on statement I. Introduction This rebuttal is submitted because Synchrony Bank failed to conduct a lawful investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z. Synchrony misclassified the dispute, ignored evidence, relied solely on the merchants statements, and accepted unauthorized billing. The prior investigation was not reasonable under 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ). II. Summary of billing error The dispute involves : Unauthorized billing Premature billing before Cooling Off Rule expiration A contract never delivered to the cardholder Misrepresentation of goods Non conforming goods Unsafe installation Merchant abandonment Synchronys failure to review evidence III. Detailed rebuttal ( 25 sections ) 1. Misclassification of the dispute Synchrony incorrectly labeled this as a contractual dispute. The issues involve unauthorized billing, non delivery of contract, misrepresentation, and non conforming goodseach of which is a billing error under FCBA, not a mere contract disagreement. 2. Reliance solely on merchant statements Synchronys letters repeatedly state according to the merchant, demonstrating that Synchrony relied exclusively on the merchants narrative instead of conducting an independent investigation as required by 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ). 3. Contract was never delivered to the cardholder The DocuSign certificate shows the contract was sent only to the salespersons laptop. The cardholder never received, reviewed, or consented to the contract terms. Without delivery, there is no informed consent and no valid authorization for billing. XXXX. Premature billing before Cooling Off Rule expired The merchant billed the account on the first business day following the in home sale, within the XXXX business day cancellation period required by the FTC Cooling Off Rule ( XXXX CFR Part XXXX ). Billing during this period is improper and renders the charge unauthorized. XXXX. Cancellation occurred before billing The contract was cancelled before the merchant submitted the charge. A charge submitted after cancellation is not authorized by the consumer and should have been treated as an unauthorized transaction. XXXX. Synchrony ignored the account freeze The account was frozen and Synchrony was explicitly instructed not to allow charges. Synchrony nonetheless permitted the merchants charge, ignoring the freeze and failing to protect the consumer from unauthorized billing. XXXX. Unauthorized rebill after merchant abandonment After abandoning the job and leaving the property in an unsafe condition, the merchant rebilled the account. A rebill after abandonment, without any completed or conforming work, is an unauthorized charge. XXXX. No proof of authorization obtained Synchrony accepted a merchant provided screenshot instead of verifying that the contract was delivered to and signed by the cardholder. Synchrony did not obtain any independent proof of authorization, despite the heightened risk associated with merchant initiated charges on a closed loop project card. XXXX. Failure to review timeline Synchrony ignored the detailed timeline showing that : Re measures were requested on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, 2026 The merchant refused both requests The merchant only agreed to a re measure after a BBB complaint The merchant missed the XX/XX/XXXX appointment window The merchant then abandoned the job None of this appears in Synchronys denial letters. XXXX. Failure to consider XXXX non conforming goods The windows delivered were the wrong type, unsafe, and unusable for the homes siding. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, a buyer XXXX reject non conforming goods, and the seller loses the right to payment. Synchrony failed to consider this and treated the transaction as if conforming goods had been properly delivered and installed. XXXX. Improper reliance on merchant return policy Synchrony improperly deferred to the merchants internal policies and scheduling rather than applying XXXX and XXXX standards. A merchants return or service policy can not override federal billing error protections. XXXX. Illegal instruction to work with the merchant Synchrony repeatedly instructed the consumer to work with the merchant to resolve the issue. Under XXXX, the creditornot the consumeris responsible for investigating billing errors and can not shift that burden back to the consumer. XXXX. XXXX of false merchant narrative The merchant falsely claimed that the consumer refused access. In reality : The consumer requested re measures twice ( XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, 2026 ) The merchant refused both requests The merchant missed the agreed XX/XX/XXXX appointment window ( XXXX PM ) The installer attempted to arrive at XXXX PM in the dark The consumer declined only after the merchant breached the appointment. Synchrony accepted the merchants false narrative without scrutiny. XXXX. XXXX never attempted a valid remedy The only scheduled re measure appointment was for XX/XX/year>, between XXXX PM. The merchant failed to appear during that window. A proposed XXXX PM arrival in darkness is not a reasonable or safe attempt to remedy the situation. No valid cure was ever attempted. XXXX. Ignored evidence of unsafe installation Photographs and documentation show : XXXX that were too small Gaps and unsafe openings Improper placement relative to the XXXX XXXX denial letters do not reference any of this evidence, indicating it was not meaningfully reviewed. XXXX. Ignored evidence of injury The unsafe and incomplete installation contributed to injury and unsafe conditions. Synchrony did not acknowledge or address this in its investigation, further demonstrating a failure to consider the full impact of the merchants actions. XXXX. Improper use of a goodwill credit Synchrony issued a small goodwill credit instead of applying XXXX remedies. A goodwill credit is discretionary and does not substitute for a lawful investigation or proper correction of a billing error. XXXX. Denial letters do not reference evidence None of Synchronys denial letters reference : The XXXX delivery failure The timeline of re measure requests The missed appointment The unsafe installation photos The merchants abandonment The installers admissions This absence shows that the evidence was not actually evaluated. XXXX. Template language instead of findings The denial letters use generic, template language and repeat the merchants position without any specific factual findings. This is inconsistent with the requirement to conduct a reasonable investigation under XXXX CFR XXXX ( f ). XXXX. Improper closure of dispute Synchrony closed the dispute despite : Unresolved questions about authorization Clear evidence of non conforming goods Evidence of misrepresentation and unsafe installation Evidence of merchant abandonment Closing the dispute under these circumstances is inconsistent with FCBA obligations. XXXX. Pattern of delayed mailing XXXX denial letter was dated 11 days before the postmark on the envelope, and another letter was never received at all. This pattern of delayed or missing mail undermines XXXX claim that it provided timely and adequate notice. XXXX. Merchant liability for unauthorized charge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ), liability for unauthorized use generally falls on the merchant and creditor, not the consumer, when the consumer did not authorize the transaction. Here, the merchant initiated charges through a closed loop project card portal without valid authorization. XXXX. XXXX missed the only scheduled appointment The installer did not arrive during the agreed XXXX PM appointment window on XX/XX/year>. The attempt to arrive at approximately XXXX PM in the dark does not cure the missed appointment or shift blame to the consumer. XXXX. Synchrony ignored all submitted evidence The consumer submitted : Photos Timeline Written communications Documentation of contract delivery failure Evidence of misrepresentation and unsafe installation Synchronys responses do not reference any of this, confirming that the investigation was not reasonable. XXXX. Misrepresentation, non conforming goods, and manufacturer warranty violation The salesperson never provided a copy of the contract to the cardholder, and the product was misrepresented at the time of sale. The installer later confirmed : XXXX only sells XXXX window type That window is designed for stucco, not homes with siding like this property Because the window was designed for stucco, the installer attempted to place the window outside the sill using the stucco XXXX, rather than properly supporting it within the rough opening. According to XXXX own installation and warranty requirements, the window must : Be fully supported by the XXXX, and Be installed within the rough opening, not outside of it In this case : The windows were too small They were not supported by the XXXX The attempted installation placed them completely outside the XXXX This installation method voids the manufacturers warranty and creates unsafe conditions The goods were therefore : Misrepresented ( sold as suitable for siding when they were not ) Non conforming ( wrong type and wrong size for the structure ) Unsafe ( improperly supported and installed outside the XXXX ) The merchant abandoned the job after creating these unsafe conditions and never cured the defects. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, the buyer XXXX revoke acceptance of non conforming goods that substantially impair their value, especially where the seller fails to cure. In such circumstances, the seller loses the right to payment, and any charge submitted to the card issuer is not validly authorized. Synchrony ignored : The installers admission about stucco only windows The incompatibility with siding The XXXX support requirement in XXXX warranty The fact that the attempted installation voided the manufacturers warranty By failing to consider these facts, Synchrony did not conduct a reasonable investigation and improperly upheld an unauthorized, void transaction. IV. Conclusion Synchrony failed to comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z. The investigation was not reasonable, the dispute was misclassified, critical evidence was ignored, and unauthorized charges were accepted for misrepresented, non conforming, and unsafe goods. V. Attached exhibits Exhibit A : Postmarked envelope showing delayed mailing Exhibit B : Appointment timeline and merchant abandonment Exhibit C : Contract delivery failure & product misrepresentation Exhibit D : Email to XXXX XXXX ( also provided to Synchrony )

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 monetary relief