Consumer complaint received 2026-01-03 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Supplemental Escalation Statement Related CFPB Complaint : XXXX I am submitting this supplemental escalation statement in connection with CFPB Complaint No. XXXX because XXXX XXXX XXXXesponse did not correct the significant handling errors, procedural violations, or the incomplete reinvestigation of my credit card disputes. Based on these deficiencies, I am requesting full reimbursement of all disputed transactions.

1. Failure to properly file and investigate all disputes Wells Fargo states that XXXX transactions were filed for dispute ; however, my records reflect a total of XXXX disputed transactions. At least XXXX transactions were never acknowledged, opened, or investigated at any stage of the dispute process. 
2. Improper reliance on a time-limit denial rationale My disputes were timely under Regulation Z. Wells Fargo denied many transactions solely due to elapsed time, which is not a permissible basis for denialparticularly where any delay resulted from the banks own internal handling and processing failures. 
3. Delayed opening and mass denial of previously missing disputes Wells Fargo opened XXXX previously missing disputes only after CFPB involvement, months after the original dispute submission. These disputes were then denied within days using identical rationale, with no indication that each transaction received an individualized evidence review. 
4. Acknowledged internal processing errors Wells Fargo admits it can not determine why all disputes were not filed initially. This admission confirms internal handling failures that directly impaired the dispute process and prejudiced my ability to receive a fair investigation. 
5. No merchant evidence cited or provided Wells Fargo did not reference or provide any merchant documentation supporting the denials. There is no indication that merchant evidence was reviewed or evaluated, calling into question whether a substantive investigation occurred. 
6. Incomplete and non-compliant reinvestigation The presence of missing disputes, delayed case openings, mass same-day denials, and reliance on an improper denial rationale demonstrates that the reinvestigation did not meet Regulation Z requirements for a reasonable, good-faith investigation. 
7. Material harm caused by XXXX XXXX delays and inconsistent handling XXXX XXXX internal delays and procedural failures prevented a fair and timely dispute process. Under Regulation Z, a consumer should not be penalized for errors or delays caused by the bank itself. 

Requested Action I respectfully request a Regulation Z-compliant correction and full reimbursement of all disputed transactions. 

Attached is a full supplemental escalation statement and representative examples of the time-limit denial notices.

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