Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Application denied
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Complaint regarding Fidelity Visa Signature Card application Company : Elan XXXX XXXX I am submitting this complaint regarding the handling of a Fidelity Visa Signature Card application submitted for XXXX XXXX and the inconsistent explanations provided by Elan XXXX XXXX during the application process. The sequence of events is as follows. First online application XXXX XXXX XXXX The original application for the Fidelity Visa Signature Card was submitted online on XXXX XXXX XXXX. Shortly after submitting the application, we received a text message instructing us to call customer service in order to complete identity verification. Following those instructions, we called the customer service number. During that call, the representative informed us that identity verification could not be completed over the phone. Instead, we were instructed that one of the following actions would be required : I personally submit a new online application again, or Visit the nearest branch in person and provide identity verification documents. The representative specifically directed us to visit a U.S. Bank branch and provided the address of that location. Visit to the provided branch address Following those instructions, I personally went to that address. However, after explaining the situation to the staff at that location, I was clearly told that the location was a U.S. Bank branch and that they could not process or handle applications for the Fidelity Visa Signature Card issued by Elan XXXX XXXX. Second online application XXXX XXXX XXXX Because the branch option that had been suggested was not actually available, I personally submitted a second online application on XXXX XXXX XXXX as instructed. After submitting the second application, we later received a letter stating that the second application could not be accepted because the first application was still in processing status within the system. In other words, we followed the instructions given by Elans representatives to submit another application, but were then told that the second application could not be processed because the first one had not been cleared. This created a situation where it was impossible to proceed with the application despite following the instructions provided by the company. Written complaint and response letter Due to repeated prior experiences with Elans customer service phone system including extremely long hold times, difficulty reaching a representative, and repeated transfers between departments without resolution I chose not to attempt to resolve this matter through additional phone calls. Instead, I documented the situation in writing and mailed a formal letter requesting that the unresolved application status be cleared so that the process could proceed properly. In response to that letter, I received a reply dated XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Reference : XXXX ). However, the letter was not delivered to our home until XXXX XXXX XXXX Incorrect explanation regarding credit freeze The content of this response did not reflect the actual situation. The letter states that the application could not be processed because a security freeze had been placed on the consumer credit file. This explanation is incorrect. At the time both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX applications were submitted, the credit freeze had already been temporarily lifted for a sufficient period of time to allow a credit inquiry. In other words, the credit file was fully available for review when both applications were submitted. For clarity, the credit freeze was placed back on the credit file after the application attempts, when the written complaint letter was mailed. At that point no new application was being submitted. The letter was sent only to request that the unresolved application status be corrected so that the application process could proceed properly. Unreasonable response deadline The letter also states that Elan must hear back within 15 days from XXXX XXXX XXXX, otherwise the application can not be processed. However, the letter itself is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX and was not delivered until XXXX XXXX XXXX This means the stated deadline had effectively passed before the letter was even received, making the deadline impossible to meet. Overall concern The repeated changes in explanation create the strong impression that the responses are based on generic template letters rather than a careful review of the actual case history. At this point, it does not appear that anyone has thoroughly reviewed the full history of this application. We respectfully request that this matter be carefully reviewed and that the pending application status be corrected so the situation can be resolved in a clear and consistent manner.

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