{"took":419,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":42,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6762891","_score":16.85328,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/ at XXXX  XXXX, PayPal processed my monthly XXXX credit card bill payment, as scheduled through their \" Bill Pay feature, resulting in a {$800.00} debit from my XXXX bank checking account. \n\nAfter that, two different issues arose which have yet to be resolved, despite the fourteen hours over the past seven stressful months I have spent on the phone asking for a resolution and following every direction given by PayPal. \n\nThe first issue arose minutes later. Following the first {$800.00} debit, PayPal made a second, third, and fourth {$800.00} debit from my checking account at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX debiting {$2400.00} more from my checking account than I had scheduled. \n\nAfter being notified about these transactions, I called PayPal aXXXX XXXX XXXX  and while I was not provided an explanation for this error, I was assured that there would not be any more redundant transactions. Of note, I received two emails as receipts for two of the {$800.00} payments but never received any for the remaining two. \n\nThe second issue arose days later. After waiting until XX/XX/XXXX, I saw that the four {$800.00} transactions had been posted, for a total of {$3200.00} debited from my XXXX bank checking account. However, only {$1600.00} had been received by XXXX from PayPal in the form of two {$800.00} payments. \n\nI called PayPal on XX/XX/XXXX, spoke with a representative, and explained that only half of the money taken from my checking account was received by XXXX. The PayPal representative claimed that the transactions appeared to have been successful from PayPals end and directed me to contact XXXX and request a trace performed to find the remaining {$1600.00}, which I did. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, my wife ( the primary account holder for the XXXX credit card account ) received a letter addressed to her regarding the investigation to trace the payments, stating that only two payments of {$800.00} each were received on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX and was provided the same information over the phone. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and spoke with a representative about the errant and redundant transactions on XX/XX/XXXX, the missing {$1600.00}, and XXXX response. I was then directed to contact XXXX bank and request a chargeback for all four unauthorized {$800.00} transactions, which I did. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX stating Based on our investigation, we do not find that an error has occurred. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account as a result of your claim and this matter is considered closed. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and spoke with a representative about the results of the XXXX investigation. I was directed to appeal the results and that PayPal would communicate directly with XXXX bank about the investigation into the unauthorized transactions, which I did. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal after not seeing any changes to the status of the XXXX claims opened up as part of the investigation. I was directed to wait until 75 days had elapsed after the claims were opened, which I did. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal after more than 75 days had elapsed after the claims were opened and they directed me to contact XXXX as there were no updates to provide. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX and was told that there was no further documentation provided by PayPal to change the result of the investigations opened in XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and requested that the claims be escalated as I had done everything I was directed to by PayPal representatives and I still did not have my {$1600.00} back. I was told I would receive communication about the claims after escalation, but I did not. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and explained that I had not received any communication about the escalation of the claims, and was told the claims would be escalated again, but I did not receive any further communication. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and spoke with a supervisor in the chargeback department. I was told that a trace could be performed by PayPal into the two {$800.00} payments to XXXX that were never received by XXXX. I was told I would receive communication about the results of the trace within XXXX hours, but I did not. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and spoke with a supervisor in the chargeback department. I was told that the trace into the missing payments would not take 40 hours, but instead would take 5-7 calendar days and a maximum of XXXX calendar days from XX/XX/XXXX. I was directed to call back if I did not receive communication about the results of the trace. I did not receive communication after more than 30 days. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and spoke with a supervisor in the chargeback department. I was told that the trace was not performed and I was directed to contact XXXX bank and ask to again appeal the results of the claim opened in XXXX and to provide an updated reason code of duplicate instead of unauthorized, which I did. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX bank where, despite my appealing the XXXX case on the basis of an updated reason code, the final determination remained : we still have concluded that no error occurred. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called PayPal and provided this information to a representative who explained that a supervisor in the chargeback department was unavailable. The representative said that they would provide this information to a supervisor and that I should receive communication from them with further direction. After two weeks, I have not. \n\nIt has been over 200 days since PayPal debited four times the amount I requested and failed to deliver half of that money to the intended recipient. I have not seen the missing funds, despite my taking every action PayPal has directed me to.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-29T02:22:25.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"02905","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6762891","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2023-03-29T01:59:25.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I did not receive communication after more than 30 <em>days</em>. \n\nOn XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, I called PayPal and spoke with a supervisor in the <em>chargeback</em> department. I was told that the trace was not <em>performed</em> and I was directed to contact <em>XXXX</em> bank and ask to again appeal the results of the claim opened in <em>XXXX</em> and to provide an updated reason code of duplicate instead of unauthorized, which I did."]},"sort":[16.85328,"6762891"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7478280","_score":16.32279,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This is in response to the response given by the institution on my last complaint, Chime has failed to properly investigate my disputes, ignored requests for proper documentation and a valid reason for denial of claims. As a consumer I have a right to file a chargeback in the following circumstances Fraud or unauthorized charges on the account.\n\nOrders that were never delivered.\n\nMerchandise that arrives damaged or defective.\n\nOrders that do not reflect what was purchased. \nIncorrect charges ( additional charges or incorrect totals ). \n\n\nIn regards to Dispute XXXX Chime has continued to fail to investigate, provide a reason, and supporting documents used to support their denial or honor my chargeback/dispute rights backed by XXXX. I request my money back for the amount of XXXX. I have submitted supporting documents regarding the disputes and the shady practices performed by the merchant and how they have blatantly violated VISAs rules and Policies all of which Chime proudly says I am protected by. Chime has already failed to comply with their obligations on this dispute. I have proof that Chime has failed to provide supporting documentation or a valid reason to deny this claim within the 10 day time frame they are required to. \n\nIn regards to Dispute XXXX Chime had failed to investigate properly, provide supporting documents for their denial or honor my chargeback/dispute rights. Chime decided to deny my claim of unauthorized transactions without properly investigating the supporting documents supplied by only 1 of the 4 vendors in question.\n\nThey have failed to address how my card was charged 7 times in under a minute by two different vendors with a similar name who also failed to provide supporting documentation to validate one of the charges they did not willfully refund. They have failed to address how this same vendor charged my card for the same amount in under a minute, did not provide a refund and did not provide supporting documentation to validate the charge. They have failed to address charges not associated with the vendor who did provide documentation and did not provide any supporting documentation or reason to validate the charge.\n\nIn regards to 9 of the charges that documentation was provided by the vendor, this vendor has blocked access to the account has not attempted to communicate with me at all and I have no way to contact them, based on that premise, I do not have access to the supposed purchases chime says I made and now own. Based on that alone I am entitled to a chargeback. It is CLEAR THEY ARE NOT REVIEWING COMPELLING EVIDENCE AS I HAVE DISPUTED WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE VENDOR. And using evidence from one vendor as an excuse to deny charges am from a totally different one. \n\nIn regards to Dispute XXXX They have failed to investigate ANY charges dated XX/XX/2023 from a vendor currently in dispute. I have 60 days to dispute billing charges from the time that I receive the statement. The charges they immediately denied appeared on my statement delivered in XXXX, there should be no reason why they were not handled in the same manor as the other charges attached to this dispute. Chime continues to pick and choose what rules and policies they wish to follow. Again not honoring Visas practices. \n\nNo matter what evidence or documentation that I submit, it is clear based on the responses that I am getting that NO ONE is really investigating my claims. I have provided proof of the merchants in question shady business practices, how I have been prevented from using my purchases, and how the merchant has violated rules set forth by VISA and who Chime is refusing to do their part to hold them accountable. I am a victim of a fraudulent merchant and should be protected by financial institution. \n\nI want chargebacks filed on all the requested transactions and access to the money that was taken from me.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-30T23:43:34.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"64138","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7478280","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2023-08-30T23:27:33.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In regards to Dispute <em>XXXX</em> Chime has continued to fail to <em>investigate</em>, provide a reason, and supporting documents used to support their denial or honor my <em>chargeback</em>/dispute rights backed by <em>XXXX</em>. I request my money back for the amount of <em>XXXX</em>. I have submitted supporting documents regarding the disputes and the shady practices <em>performed</em> by the merchant and how they have blatantly violated VISAs rules and Policies all of which Chime proudly says I am protected by."]},"sort":[16.32279,"7478280"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8258710","_score":15.37409,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Electrical work service completed on XX/XX/XXXX, {$420.00} payment and {$3000.00} payment paid on XX/XX/XXXX towards paid-in-full invoice paid XX/XX/XXXX - partial payments made with Chase Freedom XXXX credit card XXXX \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Electrician company \" the Merchant '' mailed a letter that the work was incomplete and permit was still opened. I called the City of XXXX to confirm the open permit and received the Inspection Report- the electrical work failed inspection three times : XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Demand Letter sent to Merchant on XX/XX/XXXX, Second Notice Demand Letter sent to Merchant on XX/XX/XXXX, and Final Formal Demand for Documentation and Resolution sent to Merchant on XX/XX/XXXX. Initial Demand Letter requested a response from the Merchant to the demand for refund within 30 days due to incomplete and unsatisfactory nature of work, the inconvenience I have experienced due to the delayed completion, and the expenses incurred as a result of the failed inspections. Merchant did not provide a response that addressed the demand for refund by the deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI contacted Chase on XX/XX/XXXX to file chargeback claims for both credit card charges of {$420.00} and {$3000.00}. The claim for {$420.00} was closed on XX/XX/XXXX and reopened on XX/XX/XXXX after I called Chase to inquire why the chargeback was reversed on XX/XX/XXXX. Chase told me to submit my evidence online for which I submitted over XXXX files of evidence including a second opinion letter plus estimate to fix the incomplete and unsatisfactory service performed by the Merchant from another electrician company. In addition, chargeback resolution letters ruling in my favor from XXXX XXXX were submitted as evidence to Chase as I also used my XXXX  XXXX XXXX credit card to make partial payments for this same unsatisfactory electrical service completed on XX/XX/XXXX by the Merchant. \n\nChase then again closed the claim without resolution on XX/XX/XXXX stating that the timeframe was expired for them to review the evidence that Chase requested and received for the {$420.00} claim on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI contacted the Merchant via demand letter sent on XX/XX/XXXX with a 30-day deadline to process refund before filing the chargebacks with Chase on XX/XX/XXXX and reopening the claim for {$420.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested to escalate the {$420.00} claim to XXXX through a Chase representative of the Dispute & Claims department who declined my request. The claim for {$3000.00} status is still on-going investigation by Chase as oXXXX XX/XX/XXXX and Chase has confirmed receipt of my submitted evidence for this open claim as well for the same unsatisfactory service completed by the Merchant as the claim for {$420.00}.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-01T00:02:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"75061","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8258710","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2024-01-31T23:04:21.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I contacted Chase on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> to file <em>chargeback</em> claims for both credit card charges of {$420.00} and {$3000.00}. The claim for {$420.00} was closed on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> and reopened on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> after I called Chase to inquire why the <em>chargeback</em> was reversed on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[15.37409,"8258710"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19693305","_score":15.186758,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"Made a purchase from a company called XXXX XXXX using Affirm on XX/XX/XXXX, Paid the installments and was fully paid on XX/XX/XXXX. Order was marked as delivered XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and never arrived. My father was home and recived the mail but no package was delivered, I went to ost office and when showed the provided tracking attendant showed the usps label with the exact tracking number and a different name and address. \n\nMy father was able to go to the address we were given by post office and the package was there, Person that recieved it opened the package to confirm it was not mine even though it had my tracking number. I opened a case with USPS who closed the case as it was marked as delivered so it could not be lost. \n\nI contacted the merchant ( XXXX XXXX ) that day to say it was never delivered and an email the following day to confirm the tracking number but recieved no response. Contacted Affirm the following week and created a dispute that ended siding with the seller as he showed \" proof of delivery '' I provided Affirm with a picture of the package label that has the tracking number with a different name and address, Four followup emails to the merchant asking for help with no replies from seller ( Which to me should prove its fraud as the seller responds to Affirm but ignores me ) but the seller provides the tracking number with delivered status and Affirm closes my disputes. \n\nI since contacted XXXX XXXXXXXX  and they performed a chargeback while they perform an investigation, Now Affirm says my payments are 95 days past due ( Which they are not since the loan was fully paid untill the chargeback on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and the loan will default and only help they can provide is a number for usps to open a case or to file a police report. ( The package was not stolen, Its possible it was mis delivered but since the Merchant has ignored all pleas for help since XXXX proves to me its fraud ) Im contacting your agency to see if theres anything you or I can do to keep this from affecting my credit as I should not have to pay for an Item that was never sent to me, Especially when I have reached out to the seller for three months and been ignored all while they updated their website since my complaint to provide easier customer service. \n\nI was told by Affirm that I am responsible to pay and my loan will default on XX/XX/XXXX, Any information on what my options are to seek further help is appreciated. Thank you in advance! \n\nThe session is timing out so if any additional proof is required I will attach more if I have it.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-22T22:30:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"90815","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19693305","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-02-22T21:53:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I since contacted <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX  and they <em>performed</em> a <em>chargeback</em> while they <em>perform</em> an <em>investigation</em>, Now Affirm says my payments are 95 <em>days</em> past due ( Which they are not since the loan was fully paid untill the <em>chargeback</em> on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and the loan will default and only help they can provide is a number for usps to open a case or to file a police report. ( The package was not stolen, Its possible it was mis delivered but since the Merchant has ignored all pleas for help since <em>XXXX</em> proves"],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"]},"sort":[15.186758,"19693305"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17846078","_score":14.910395,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I have been using XXXX XXXX as my merchant service provider for the past XXXX years. Recently, XXXX of my clients paid for services through XXXX merchant platform under my XXXX  ID XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The payment was successfully deposited into my account, and I began performing the contracted work. \n\nA few days later, XXXX abruptly closed my merchant account without providing any explanation. On todays date, XXXX began repeatedly withdrawing funds from my business account at XXXX Bank. A total of {$2900.00} was withdrawn XXXX times, without authorization and without any valid reason. \n\nWhen I contacted XXXX, I spoke with XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX department. He refused to provide any explanation and stated that the funds would not be returned to me or to my client. \n\nI am in direct communication with my client, who is fully satisfied with the completed work and has no disputes or complaints. The client did not request a refund or chargeback. Despite this, XXXX froze my account and withdrew funds multiple times for their own benefit, without justification or notice. \n\nI believe these actions are unfair, unreasonable, and potentially unlawful. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance in investigating this matter and ensuring that XXXX returns the funds that rightfully belong to my business, as well as preventing further unauthorized withdrawals. \n\nThank you for your attention and support","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-08T21:14:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"91201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17846078","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2025-12-08T21:08:02.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have been using <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> as my merchant service provider for the past <em>XXXX</em> years. Recently, <em>XXXX</em> of my clients paid for services through <em>XXXX</em> merchant platform under my <em>XXXX</em>  ID <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. The payment was successfully deposited into my account, and I began <em>performing</em> the contracted work. \n\nA few <em>days</em> later, <em>XXXX</em> abruptly closed my merchant account without providing any explanation. On todays date, <em>XXXX</em> began repeatedly withdrawing funds from my business account at <em>XXXX</em> Bank."]},"sort":[14.910395,"17846078"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21471243","_score":14.396023,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Inaccurate Credit Reporting, Failure to Validate Debt, and Collection on Paid Account I am filing this complaint against Midland Credit Management ( MCM ) for violations of federal consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nThis complaint involves MCMs attempt to collect and report a debt that was previously paid to the original creditor, failure to provide legally required validation, and furnishing inaccurate and misleading information to credit reporting agencies.\n\nPayment to Original Creditor On XX/XX/year>, I paid the original creditor in full. I have retained proof of this payment.\n\nChargeback Removal A chargeback in the amount of {$740.00} appeared on my credit report but was removed within approximately 15 days, indicating the account had been resolved.\n\nMCM Collection Activity Approximately one month later, Midland Credit Management contacted me claiming ownership of the account and asserting that I owed a remaining balance of {$120.00}.\n\nValidation Request Ignored Within 30 days of initial contact, I formally requested validation of the alleged debt. MCM failed to provide any validation documentation as required by law.\n\nConflicting Ownership Timeline MCM later claimed they purchased the debt in XX/XX/year>. However : I paid the original creditor in XX/XX/year> MCM did not appear on my credit report until XX/XX/year> This creates a clear inconsistency regarding ownership and enforceability of the debt.\n\nCredit Bureau Disputes I disputed this account with XXXX  multiple times via phone and written correspondence. XXXX  verified the debt without conducting a reasonable investigation and refused to perform a human review despite being provided with dispute details.\n\n1. FDCPA Violations 15 U.S.C. 1692g Failure to provide validation of the debt upon timely request Continued collection activity without validation 2. FDCPA Violations 15 U.S.C. 1692e False and misleading representation of the character, amount, and legal status of the debt 3. FCRA Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Furnishing inaccurate and unverifiable information to credit reporting agencies Failure to properly investigate disputed information 4. FCRA Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681i Failure of credit reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.\n\nKey Dispute Issues : 1.The debt was paid prior to MCMs collection efforts 2.MCM failed to provide any validation of the alleged balance 3.The reported balance is inaccurate and unsupported 4.The timeline of ownership is inconsistent and unreliable 5.Credit bureau verification was procedurally deficient","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T04:33:49.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"94506","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21471243","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2026-04-22T03:37:16.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Credit Bureau Disputes I disputed this account with <em>XXXX</em>  multiple times via phone and written correspondence. <em>XXXX</em>  verified the debt without conducting a reasonable <em>investigation</em> and refused to <em>perform</em> a human review despite being provided with dispute details.\n\n1. FDCPA Violations 15 U.S.C. 1692g Failure to provide validation of the debt upon timely request Continued collection activity without validation 2."]},"sort":[14.396023,"21471243"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9777677","_score":14.133433,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XX/XX/2024 RE : DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION ON DISPUTE CLAIM ID : XXXX Account Number Ending In : XXXX Primary Claim ID : XXXX Original Dispute Amount : {$2400.00} Revised Dispute Amount : {$2400.00} Date of Initial Dispute Filing : XX/XX/2024 Type of Dispute : Debit - Unauthorized Transactions To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my severe frustration and outright dissatisfaction with Chime 's handling of my dispute, which I initially filed on XX/XX/2024. It is appalling that a financial institution like Chime would repeatedly fail to uphold its obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E. Your institutions behavior in this matter has been nothing short of egregious, demonstrating a clear pattern of unfair and deceptive practices that will not be tolerated. \n\nTimeline of Dispute XXXX : XX/XX/2024 : I filed an initial dispute for unauthorized transactions totaling {$2400.00} across 92 transactions. Despite providing clear evidence that my account was compromised, Chime denied my claim in less than 24 hours. It is impossible for any reasonable investigation, let alone one involving coordination with other financial institutions and merchants, to be completed in this timeframe. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : I requested documentation of the supposed \" investigation. '' Chime responded by providing only my Intake Form and the evidence I submitted. There was absolutely no indication that a proper investigation, including the filing of chargebacks, had been conducted. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : After submitting a rebuttal, Chime once again produced the same incomplete documentation, confirming that no actual investigation was carried out. Your institutions negligence in this matter is unacceptable. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : After directly contacting XXXX of the merchants involved, I received a credit of {$31.00}, which Chime conveniently acknowledged separately, reducing the disputed amount to {$2400.00}. Chimes decision to isolate this transaction and revise the claim amount reeks of an attempt to downplay the severity of the issue. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : Chime again erroneously closed my dispute, claiming no error occurred, despite my ongoing communications with multiple merchants conducting internal fraud investigations. This demonstrates a clear disregard for the truth and a deliberate effort to avoid your responsibilities under Regulation E. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : I filed a second rebuttal, providing further evidence of unauthorized transactions and communication with merchants. Chimes continued refusal to address this information and coordinate with merchants as you are obligated to do, is a blatant violation of my consumer rights. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : Just days before the 10-business-day deadline to avoid issuing the provisional credit I am entitled to, Chime once again denied my dispute, failing to perform chargebacks or investigate properly. This is a deliberate attempt to evade your legal responsibilities. \n\nAdditional Example of Unfair Practices : Claim ID XXXX XX/XX/2024 : I filed a separate dispute for 12 unauthorized transactions totaling {$95.00} ( Claim ID : XXXX ). As expected, Chime denied this claim without conducting any investigation or coordinating with the merchant, XXXX, which is also involved in Claim ID XXXX. However, after I reached out to XXXX directly, they confirmed fraud and issued a full refund. \n\nXX/XX/2024 : Chime then reversed its position on this claim, acknowledging the error and crediting my account. This pattern of initially denying disputes only to acknowledge them after I, the customer, do your job for you, is absolutely unacceptable and further illustrates Chimes unfair and deceptive practices. \n\nDEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION : It is beyond clear that Chime has failed in its duty to protect its customers from unauthorized transactions. I am demanding that Chime : XXXX. Reopen Dispute Claim ID XXXX and properly investigate unauthorized transactions. This investigation must include the filing of chargebacks and coordination with the merchants involved. \n\nXXXX. Issue Provisional Credit* for the full disputed amount of {$2400.00} immediately**, as you have failed to resolve this matter within the timeframe required by law. \n\nXXXX. Provide a Written Explanation : detailing all actions taken, including chargebacks and communications with merchants, to resolve these disputes. \n\nI am filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) today, using this letter as the basis for my complaint. Your actionsor lack thereofdemonstrate a clear pattern of unfair and deceptive practices that violate consumer protection laws, including the EFTA and Regulation E. If I do not receive a satisfactory response within **5 business days** I will escalate this matter further, including filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and exploring all legal avenues available to hold Chime accountable. \n\nI expect a prompt and comprehensive response to this letter. Failure to address these issues will result in further action, and I will ensure that Chime 's practices are brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory bodies. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX [ Account Number Ending In : XXXX ] [ Claim ID : XXXX ]","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-11T17:02:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"07103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9777677","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2024-08-11T16:46:19.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XX/XX</em>/2024 : Just <em>days</em> before the 10-business-day deadline to avoid issuing the provisional credit I am entitled to, Chime once again denied my dispute, failing to <em>perform</em> <em>chargebacks</em> or <em>investigate</em> properly. This is a deliberate attempt to evade your legal responsibilities. \n\nAdditional Example of Unfair Practices : Claim ID <em>XXXX</em> <em>XX/XX</em>/2024 : I filed a separate dispute for 12 unauthorized transactions totaling {$95.00} ( Claim ID : <em>XXXX</em> )."]},"sort":[14.133433,"9777677"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16192693","_score":13.235881,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This is essentially my complaint against Sofi Bank ( Social Finance LLC ). \n\nWhen it came to my particular chargeback dispute with XXXX, Sofi had allowed for XXXX to infringe upon my protective rights as a consumer. \n\nActually, by Sofi not taking the proper action under the chargeback process they in effect, had advanced harm to me while allowing for this merchant 's deceptive business practices to remain uncorrected.\n\nTherefore, Sofi is equally liable for it's wanton failure to mitigate damages hence, needs to be held fully accountable under the CPFB 's authority.\n\nThe facts presented herein, will show among other vital factors, precisely how Sofi disregarded the layer of security for customers like me, while failing to perform the proper action after their investigation. It further shows how Sofi disregarded my consumer protection rights and crucial procedures under the chargeback process.\n\nAccordingly, but not limited to, these are the facts : On XX/XX/year>, I used my Sofi Bank XXXX XXXX to make an {$180.00} online purchase from XXXX for a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Upon receiving the mattress I realized shortly thereafter that the item was not as described and of much inferior quality. \n\nSo, on XX/XX/year>, I requested a refund and pick-up return via XXXX and they indicated that XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) will make 3 attempt by XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year>, after a 3rd attempt wasn't made by XXXX to pickup the item I called XXXX Customer Service and spoke to XXXX XXXX, to reschedule another pick-up date while requesting a refund. \n\nXXXX XXXX said he sees that I timely made a request within 30-days to return the item, and no 3rd attempt was ever made. Therefore, he will note the account and someone from XXXX will email me within a few days to follow-up on the matter. \n\nXXXX neglected to contact me nor did they refund my {$180.00}, neither did XXXX make another attempt to pickup the mattress after XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute for the charge with Sofi Bank via chat with Agent XXXX, for XXXX 's refusal to honor the return and refund policy, whereby she initiated the chargeback process. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Sofi emailed me to say they reached a final decision and after conducting a thorough investigation they determined that no error had occurred, and as a result my claim was denied. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I chatted with Sofi requesting the documents they reviewed for the investigation. In reply, SoFi provided a link to XXXX of XXXX 's XXXX entitled \" XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( a copy is attached hereto ). \n\nSofi also provided me with an option to respond and appeal, whereas, on XX/XX/year>, I emailed SoFi making a formal request to appeal the denial of my claim and to maintain the provisional credit \" status quo '' during the process. I added that XXXX 's rebuttal didn't address its refusal to honor the return and refund policy. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, SoFi replied that they received my request to appeal the decision and wanted me to provide new information that was not previously provided on the claim stating \" Without new information, this claim will remain closed. '' On XX/XX/scrub>XXXX I responded with an email and attached an invoice for the item along with additional facts. On XX/XX/year>, Sofi replied \" Please provide Proof Of Return of merchandise, or attempt to Return merchandise. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I emailed Sofi a screenshot of my Call Log thereby, showing a call to XXXX on XX/XX/scrub>XXXX and an XXXX Online Return Center Confirmation along with additional facts. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Sofi emailed me stating \" Despite further investigation, we still do not find that an error occurred ; therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this matter is considered closed. \n\nAlso on XX/XX/year>, Sofi reversed the {$180.00} provisional credit issued to me on XX/XX/year>, wording it as miscellaneous debt along with reversing a {$0.00} interest adjustment. \n\nFurther, on XX/XX/year>, I chatted with Sofi disputes Representative XXXX XXXX and requested the documents from the appeal, She said that she will put in a ticket to order the recent documents and a link will be provided via email from their escalations dept. \n\nIn addition, on XX/XX/year>, XXXX, I further replied by email to SoFi 's 2 emails sent on XX/XX/year>, XXXX and XXXX along with a response to their secure inbox message and document entitled 'XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nI also raised XXXX some of which are as follows : - Upon review of the XXXX pages of XXXXXXXX XXXX rebuttal. it revealed that aside from what XXXX has been refuting all along about a return not being made, to the contrary \" Mattress products are nonreturnable because they may pose potential health and safety risks once sold. '' - Thus, XXXX offers \" returnless refunds '' while allowing the customer to keep the item and still receive a full refund. \n\n- For Mattresses, XXXX 's own \" RETURNS AND REFUNDS ACCEPTANCE POLICY '' on page 13 says \" You can request a return or refund for any reason within 100 days of receipt of shipment. '' - Furthermore, as is the case here, unboxed, expanded, and full size mattresses are not returnable, but are eligible for a refund ''. \n\n- So, I am fully entitled to a 100 % refund, regardless of whether or not I returned the mattress. \n\n- This now raises the question as to : \" How can Sofi conduct a further investigation, and still find that no error occurred, when clear facts SHOWED HOW XXXX WAS ACTING IN BAD FAITH BY REFUSING TO HONOR IT'S VERY OWN RETURN POLICIES ''? \n\n- XXXX had further breached the terms of their policies ; yet for Sofi not to address that on appeal nor conduct a true investigation only shows they're acting unjustified especially with their 2 unfair denials in this case. \n\n- Sofi neglected to perform the minimum standard of review as they failed to see that XXXX was incorrectly rebutting the wrong issue about the Mattress not being returned, when the real issue was their refusal to abide to it's Return Policy ( s ). \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I emailed Sofi putting them on notice that I intend to contact the proper authorities, if my {$180.00} plus applicable interest is not credited back to my account. On XX/XX/year>, SoFi emailed me saying they receive my appeal request and wanted new information that was not previously provided on the claim. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I emailed Sofi Bank my response with 2 Screenshots of XXXX 's Policy on Returnless Refunds and Mattresses ( taken from page XXXX of XXXX 's rebuttal, document to Sofi ) along with additional facts upon my dispute. \n\nIronically, 10-days later, on XX/XX/year>, SoFi replied that they wanted me to provide prior to XX/XX/year>, a copy of the XXXX  tracking information or XXXX 's shipping label which shows that no pickup attempts were made with proof of re-submission of the new return request including XXXX 's Order Return History of the item. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I emailed Sofi requesting a full refund along with reiterating that since its a returnless refund, there is no need for an Order Return History nor proof of re-submission of the new return request. \n\nAfter all was said and done, on XX/XX/year>, SoFi emailed .me back to state they have made a final determination and despite further investigation they still did not find that an error occurred ; therefore, no funds will be credited to my account and closed the matter. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I emailed Sofi to request copies of all documents submitted and used in determining their final outcome of the appeal and investigation. I also added that because Sofi didn't performed a proper investigation into my dispute, nor resolved my claim in a fair and just manner, I will be filing my complaint ( s ) against Sofi as previously advised. \n\nFinally, On XX/XX/year>, SoFi ) replied \" attached is the documentation we used in completing our investigation ''. \n\nThat was our last series of communications. \n\nUpon my review of the document, it was the same rebuttal that XXXX first submitted with no reply to anything that was updated. \n\nFor further proof of the above facts attached hereto are the thread of emails between Sofi and myself that prove what I stated herein. Such indeed, are a true and accurate account of the vital facts that supports my position.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-27T01:11:10.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10038","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16192693","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-26T23:20:35.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The facts presented herein, will show among other vital factors, precisely how Sofi disregarded the layer of security for customers like me, while failing to <em>perform</em> the proper action after their <em>investigation</em>. It further shows how Sofi disregarded my consumer protection rights and crucial procedures under the <em>chargeback</em> process."]},"sort":[13.235881,"16192693"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18265055","_score":13.235172,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"MASTER DEMAND & CIVIL COMPLAINT PACKAGE ( PayPal , Inc. Business Account Misconduct ) PLAINTIFF XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX NY XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX DEFENDANT PayPal , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX JURISDICTION & VENUE This action is brought in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX pursuant to CPLR 301, 302, and 210. \nThe amount in controversy is {$25000.00}, exclusive of costs and interest. \n\n\n\nNATURE OF THE ACTION This action arises from unauthorized deductions, improper chargeback enforcement, failure to investigate fraud, continued withdrawals after revocation of authorization, and systemic misconduct by PayPal , Inc., resulting in financial loss, emotional distress, reputational damage, and business disruption.\n\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND ( CHRONOLOGICAL ) 1. Plaintiff operates a legitimate small business utilizing PayPal for payment processing.\n\n2. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff paid {$300.00} via PayPal ( Account : XXXX ) for a 30-day music promotion campaign that was never performed.\n\n3. Fraudulent actors later generated fake transactions and traffic, triggering a PayPal chargeback of {$500.00}, for which Plaintiff was wrongfully held responsible.\n\n4. PayPal subsequently issued a bill for {$520.00}, later reduced to {$470.00}, while continuing to deduct funds without authorization. \n5. Plaintiff sent multiple certified letters demanding cessation of deductions on : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Despite written revocation of authorization, PayPal continued deductions including : XXXX deductions : {$7.00}, {$5.00} XXXX deductions Misc. administrative offsets 7. During the week of XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff spent over two hours on the phone with PayPal representatives, including senior personnel who admitted the situation was not right but claimed the system could not be overridden.\n\n8. Plaintiff was repeatedly told PayPal could do nothing demonstrating reckless disregard and systemic failure.\n\n9. Plaintiff never authorized continued deductions and explicitly demanded they stop.\n\n10. Plaintiff has suffered business disruption, stress, reputational harm, and financial loss.\n\nSYSTEMIC MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS PayPal maintains an automated dispute and chargeback enforcement system that prioritizes internal convenience over consumer protection, treating small business users as expendable assets. Even after notice, documentation, and verbal admissions of error, PayPal refuses corrective action constituting institutional negligence and systemic misconduct.\n\nCAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I Unauthorized Withdrawals/ Conversion PayPal deducted funds without authorization after express revocation.\n\nCOUNT II Negligence Failure to properly investigate fraud and prevent continued harm.\n\nCOUNT III Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith PayPal knowingly enforced improper deductions.\n\nCOUNT IV Unfair & Deceptive Business Practices Violation of consumer protection principles.\n\nCOUNT V Emotional Distress Prolonged financial stress tied to Plaintiffs livelihood.\n\nDAMAGES ( ITEMIZED ) Direct Financial Loss Chargebacks & deductions : {$1000.00} Lost Productivity & Business Interruption 10+ hours @ $ XXXX = {$1500.00} 10 days disruption @ $ XXXX = {$2500.00} Administrative Costs Certified mail, printing, compliance : {$300.00} Pain & Suffering Emotional distress, anxiety, reputational harm : {$5000.00} Statutory / Equitable Damages Failure to investigate , continued enforcement : {$4700.00} Injunctive Relief Valuation Accounting, correction , prevention XXXX {$5000.00} Punitive / Exemplary Damages Reckless disregard after notice : {$5000.00} TOTAL DAMAGES DEMANDED {$25000.00} INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff seeks an order : 1. Permanently prohibiting PayPal from making deductions without express written authorization.\n\n2. Requiring immediate restoration of Plaintiffs account to good standing.\n\n3. Mandating a full accounting of all deductions and reversals.\n\n4. Enjoining further automated enforcement of disputed transactions.\n\nRESERVATION OF RIGHTS All rights reserved without prejudice pursuant to UCC 1-103, 1-207, 1-308. Plaintiff does not waive constitutional, statutory, or equitable protections.\n\nSETTLEMENT DEMAND Plaintiff offers to resolve this matter for {$25000.00} within 30 days. \nFailure to resolve will result in civil litigation, arbitration, discovery, and regulatory complaints. \n\n\n\nVERIFICATION I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. \n\n\n\nDATED : ______________________ SIGNED : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( All Rights Reserved ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Authorized Representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\n\nNotary","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-24T01:16:45.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"10031","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18265055","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-12-24T00:55:18.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["DAMAGES ( ITEMIZED ) Direct Financial Loss <em>Chargebacks</em> & deductions : {$1000.00} Lost Productivity & Business Interruption 10+ hours @ $ <em>XXXX</em> = {$1500.00} 10 <em>days</em> disruption @ $ <em>XXXX</em> = {$2500.00} Administrative Costs Certified mail, printing, compliance : {$300.00} Pain & Suffering Emotional distress, anxiety, reputational harm : {$5000.00} Statutory / Equitable Damages Failure to <em>investigate</em> , continued enforcement : {$4700.00} Injunctive Relief Valuation Accounting, correction , prevention <em>XXXX</em>"]},"sort":[13.235172,"18265055"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15051381","_score":13.218777,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Purchased tickets for an event at XXXX ( thru XXXX ) using a Citi Credit card on XXXX XX/XX/year> for an event on XXXX XX/XX/year>. The tickets were purchased for this specific event ( out of several events ) due to the specific performing XXXX. \n\nEverything started on the day of the event as expected, and instead of bringing the stars out, they played a TV show. After the nearly hour long TV show, the venue announced that the star would not be present and they had other attendees instead. \n\nI checked the website and saw that this star was quietly removed a few days before the event ( I used the wayback machine to verify when the star was removed ). I contacted the venue complaining about this issue and never received a reply. I then filed a chargeback with Citi and they investigated, requested information ( and proof ) and then stated on XXXX XXXX 2025 that \" They were unable to assist since I used these services with the knowledge that they were not what I originally agreed upon. '' I refiled the dispute and then Citi responded on XXXX XXXX 2025 stating that the charge was valid. Again, this was a bait-and-switch dispute, not an invalid charge. \n\nI refiled again and then Citi responded on XXXX XXXX stating they didn't have enough information to support my claim. \n\nI refiled again and Citi stated they were reaching out to the merchant. Citi gave the merchant 60 days to respond and the merchant responded on the XXXX day. On XX/XX/XXXX, Citi responded that the information they had wasn't enough to support the claim. I contacted Citi and found they told the merchant I never received the tickets. Of course, this was not true, so I OPENED THE DISPUTE AGAIN. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX and then XXXX XXXX, Citi said that they \" Have no recourse with the merchant for this issue. '' On XXXX XXXX, Citi responded that they will support my claim if I can provide a credit slip from the vendor. Of course, this is nothing I have, and I can not supply. \n\nCiti is no longer responding to my claims for support. \n\nAt no point did the venue attempt to notify attendees that this star would not be present.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-04T02:07:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92508","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15051381","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-08-04T01:42:48.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I then filed a <em>chargeback</em> with Citi and they <em>investigated</em>, requested information ( and proof ) and then stated on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> 2025 that \" They were unable to assist since I used these services with the knowledge that they were not what I originally agreed upon. '' I refiled the dispute and then Citi responded on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> 2025 stating that the charge was valid. Again, this was a bait-and-switch dispute, not an invalid charge."]},"sort":[13.218777,"15051381"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20105303","_score":12.912134,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Truist Bank Issue : Credit Card Dispute Failure to Render Services / Breach of Refund Guarantee Financial Institution : Truist Bank Case Number : XXXX Client Advocacy Case : XXXX Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding Truist Banks handling of my credit card dispute involving a merchant called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from whom I purchased consulting services intended to secure business funding. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I entered into a written agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX and paid {$5500.00} upfront for consulting services intended to assist in obtaining business credit funding. \n\nThe written agreement explicitly states that if funding is not secured, the client will be refunded in full. \n\nThe contract states : Client agrees to pay XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dollars ( {$5500.00} ) up front If there is failure to secure funding ; the client will be refunded in full for their investment. \n\nDespite this guarantee, no funding was ever secured and the promised services were never delivered. \n\nOver the following months I maintained ongoing communication with the company through XXXX channels, text messages, and other communications requesting updates on funding progress. The company repeatedly assured me they were working on the process but ultimately failed to deliver any funding or meaningful services. \n\nEventually the company stopped responding and appears to have ceased operations entirely. As a result, the refund guarantee in the contract was triggered, yet no refund was ever issued. \n\nBecause the merchant failed to deliver the promised services and did not honor the refund guarantee, I filed a dispute with Truist. \n\nHowever, Truist denied the dispute and maintained that it could not proceed because the dispute was not filed within 60 days of the original transaction date. \n\nThis reasoning ignores the nature of the dispute. \n\nThe issue is not the validity of the original transaction, but rather the merchants failure to perform services and failure to honor a contractual refund guarantee once those services failed. \n\nThe service purchased was ongoing consulting services intended to secure funding over time, not a one-time product delivered on the transaction date. \n\nThe dispute should therefore be evaluated based on : Failure to render services Breach of a written refund guarantee Merchant non-responsiveness / apparent closure By focusing only on the transaction date and ignoring the contract and timeline of non-performance, Truist failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the dispute.\n\nI provided documentation including : The signed contract showing the refund guarantee Screenshots and transcripts of communications with the merchant Evidence of repeated attempts to resolve the matter Evidence that no funding was ever obtained Despite this documentation, Truist maintained its denial solely based on the XXXX rule tied to the original transaction. \n\nI am requesting that Truist be required to conduct a proper investigation into the failure to deliver services and breach of the refund guarantee, rather than relying solely on the transaction date. \n\nThe merchant has not delivered the services promised, has not issued the contractually required refund, and is now non-responsive. \n\nI am requesting regulatory review of Truists investigation and reconsideration of the chargeback under the appropriate standard for services not rendered and breach of contract. \n\n\n\nDesired Resolution I request that Truist : 1. Reopen the investigation into this dispute.\n\n2. Evaluate the dispute based on failure to render services and breach of refund guarantee, not solely the original transaction date.\n\n3. Process the chargeback for the {$5500.00} payment made to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\nDocuments Attached Signed contract with refund guarantee Communication transcripts and screenshots Timeline of communications and non-performance Evidence of merchant non-responsiveness / closure","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-09T20:43:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30188","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20105303","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-09T20:36:35.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting regulatory review of Truists <em>investigation</em> and reconsideration of the <em>chargeback</em> under the appropriate standard for services not rendered and breach of contract. \n\n\n\nDesired Resolution I request that Truist : 1. Reopen the <em>investigation</em> into this dispute.\n\n2. Evaluate the dispute based on failure to render services and breach of refund guarantee, not solely the original transaction date.\n\n3. Process the <em>chargeback</em> for the {$5500.00} payment made to <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[12.912134,"20105303"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4778247","_score":12.688597,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"BNY Mellon/XXXX XXXX was properly notified of a dispute regarding a contract for a product/asset that became collateral on a security interest when I initiated/authorized ( held to ensure future payment ) a transfer in the amount of {$6000.00}. ( Contract & evidence provided ). The merchant did not perform on the contract so I have requested BNY Mellon to reverse/void the transfer.\n\n( Pages 1-6 ) This exhibit is an examination of the Debit Card Agreement and Disclosure Statement Terms and Conditions for my Visa Debit Card Account provides that BNY Mellon is responsible for the Administration of the Debit Card Service for said account, via XXXX Bank , a national, or any successor bank. The terms and conditions also show me exactly what Federal Regulations and Statutory laws apply to the governing of the contract. The contract tells me that I need to report my disputes within 60 days, unless I have a good reason for that time to be extended. It says the timeframe will be extended. The contract also makes a shaky attempt to make me liable for losses that the FDIC is responsible for, but loss must be placed with the proper entity based on the laws of Equity. I will not be held responsible for any loss that is insured. It can not be shifted through contract agreement and must be amended. I reserve all my rights. Especially to those related to the value of the Equity I have secured interest in.\n\n( Page 7 ) This exhibit is a letter that was sent to me from an ambiguous party called \" Card Services '' in an unofficial attempt to notify me of a determination for a dispute that was never investigated. The notations indicate the issues taken with the entire letter, including its contents and lack of signature.\n\n( page 8 ) This exhibit shows my complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of Currencies for reference only. The complaint is being resubmitted with these details. \n( pages 9-11 ) This exhibit shows the currently posted procedures for the payment processor the Merchant used in this transaction. I did not employ any processor service, I simply used the method of payment provided to me. The obvious way to resolve my dispute is to complete the chargeback process with the payment processor as their guidelines clearly allow for the bank to execute its duty to service my account as stipulated in my Debit Card Agreement.\n\n( page 12 ) This exhibit is an unofficial description of the Visa Claims Resolution process. It is simple enough to comprehend. \n( pages 13-14 ) This exhibit shows the applicable statutory law governing the Debit Card Agreement in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They clearly stipulate that this transaction can be voided. Further explanation is provided on the exhibit.\n\n( pages 15-16 ) This exhibit shows the chargeback process for the Merchant which BNY Mellon never initiated to gather any evidence from the Merchant. \n( pages 17-25 ) This exhibit shows the email exchange I had with XXXX XXXX , Sr. Dispute Analyst, who completely failed/refused to provide the requested service to my account. I advised her several times that my request is within the regulations, yes she has regurgitated the same invalid response repeatedly.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-10-04T20:34:56.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30294","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4778247","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2021-10-04T20:30:04.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["BNY Mellon/<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> was properly notified of a dispute regarding a contract for a product/asset that became collateral on a security interest when I initiated/authorized ( held to ensure future payment ) a transfer in the amount of {$6000.00}. ( Contract & evidence provided ). The merchant did not <em>perform</em> on the contract so I have requested BNY Mellon to reverse/void the transfer."]},"sort":[12.688597,"4778247"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2466494","_score":12.143186,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"MY REASONS FOR DISPUTIN G AMEX CREDIT CAR D CHARGE On  XX/XX/XXXX  I called the CFPB and spoke to  XXXX  at   XXXX   XXXX   PST. I told her tha t AMEX had  violated the FCBA repeatedly in the  XX/XX/XXXX  letter  AMEX sent to me. In this letter AMEX falsely stated they did NOT have the power to issue a credit for a technically unauthorized charge. AMEX stated, The decision to issue credit is solely at the discretion of the Merchant.       XXXX  read the letter  AMEX sent to  the FCPB ; the letter also stated  AMEX is in capable of issuing a credit for an unauthorized charge that I did NOT sign for.  XXXX  CONFIRMED  AMEX IS IN  VIOLATION OF THE FCBA and told me to contact Legal Aid. She also told me to file this new complaint against   AMEX.\n1. In violation of state and federal credit card laws, AMEX fals  ely stated in their attached letter, dated  XX/XX/XXXX , they LACK the authority and power to issue a credit for an unauthorized and disputed chargeback charge.    XXXX   . In violation of state and federal credit card laws, AMEX is holding me liable for unauthorized charges.\n3. In AMEX     XXXX   XXXX   letter to the CFPB and to me ( attached ), in violation of state and federal credit card laws  AMEX stated they lack the ability/authorization to issue a credit fo r this unauthorized charge. In my  XX/XX/XXXX  letter   AMEX made the false claim, The decision to issue credit is solely at the discretion of the Merchant.\n4. The signature on the charge slip is NOT mine.\n5. I did NOT receive all the services   I paid for. On   XXXX   I fired the merchant. On   XXXX   I had to hire merch  ant # 2 for {$10000.00} to perform the services merchant # 1 never performed.\n6.   On   XXXX   I fired this merchant. On   XXXX   I hired new merchant and had to pay him {$10000.00} to do all the work merchant #   1 had never done.\n7. I never authorized merchant to bill me {$7500.00} for services that were falsely advertised, grossly deficient, deceptive, unfair, & misrepresented.\n8. The contract I signed   with merchant in   XXXX   XXXX   was null and voided.     9. The money I paid was REFUNDABLE.\n10. Merchants services were deficient.\n11. The quality of the services I received w  ere not the quality of the services merchant promised or advertised.       AMEX VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS 1. Per federal credit card laws, I am not liable for charges I did not authorize and sign for. I did not authorize this charge ; nor did I sign for it.\n2. In contradiction to what AMEX wrote i  n my    XXXX    letter and in their   XXXX   letter sent to CFPB,  Section 161 of the FCBA states the credit card company has the legal and binding duty to make Correction of billing errors within 2 billing cycles, or no later than 90 days ; AMEX must make appropriate corrections. AMEX clearly failed this duty when they stated, The decision to issue credit is solely at the discretion of the Merchant.       3. AMEX had repeatedly FAILED to make appropriate corrections for the past 6 months  ; this is documented in their  XX/XX/XXXX  letter to meand in their   XXXX   letter to the CFPB. Per the  FCBA, AMEX mu st release me from any   debt obligation related to this disputed charge. Per section ( e ) of the FCBA, the law states, any creditor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or section 162 forfeits any right to collect from the obligor the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ) of this section, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed {$50.00}.\n4. The FCBA states AMEX has a legal duty to investigate and prove that I received all the services I paid for. For the past 6 months, AMEX has failed to properly investigate this matter. AMEX has failed to prove that merchant delivered all the services I paid for. AMEX has ignored the fact that the contract signed with merchant is null and void. AMEX has ignored the fact that I had to pay another merchant {$10000.00} to do all the services that merchant # 1 failed to deliver. In the attached letter from the CA State Bar, it clearly states the money I paid to merchant/lawyer IS REFUNDABLE. In the CA State Bar 2017 letter, it clearly states merchant gave AMEX incorrect information.\n5. I have properly exercised my legal rights regarding my claims of : 1 ) billing errors ; 2 ) claims and defenses ; 3 ) chargebacks ; 4 ) false advertising/deceptive and unfair business practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-04-25T21:40:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92691","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2466494","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2017-04-25T21:29:53.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On   <em>XXXX</em>   I had to hire merch  ant # 2 for {$10000.00} to <em>perform</em> the services merchant # 1 never <em>performed</em>.\n6.   On   <em>XXXX</em>   I fired this merchant. On   <em>XXXX</em>   I hired new merchant and had to pay him {$10000.00} to do all the work merchant #   1 had never done.\n7. I never authorized merchant to bill me {$7500.00} for services that were falsely advertised, grossly deficient, deceptive, unfair, & misrepresented.\n8."]},"sort":[12.143186,"2466494"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18582733","_score":11.695676,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union for violations of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), unfair and deceptive acts ( UDAAP ) under Dodd-Frank , and failure to properly resolve an electronic funds transfer dispute. \nSummary of Facts : I filed a dispute on a credit card transaction that involved a refund from a XXXX purchase. \nI have documented proof from the restaurant that the refund was issued back to my Navy Federal credit card, with the amount of including ARN and correspondence. \nNavy Federal denied my dispute of XXXX and told me to contact XXXX myself, which is improper. Under Regulation E, the financial institution is responsible for investigating EFT errors, not the consumer. \nI provided all requested documentation. XXXX has not responded to me or to Navy Federal.\n\nNavy Federal denied my dispute and stated that I must obtain documentation directly from XXXX, even though I submitted merchant documentation showing a refund. \nI was told by a supervisor that when I appealed the denial, my case was allegedly reviewed and denied again within two minutes because it came from the merchant, not XXXX, which does not constitute a proper investigation. \nNavy Federal continues to claim in their secure Message Center that they sent emails to me regarding the dispute, but I have not received any such emails. The only communication I received was the initial denial.\n\nNavy Federal has not provided any written explanation of the investigation, nor what documentation was reviewed, nor the basis for a denial.\n\nNavy Federal failed to ( 1 ) complete a proper investigation, ( 2 ) issue provisional credit, and ( 3 ) provide clear written findings as required by law. \nWhen I questioned their refusal to credit my account and stated that I would escalate to CFPB, the representative became hostile and attempted to end the call without resolution. \nAnother representative later confirmed that XXXX has not responded. Under card network rules, non-response from merchant should result in credit back to the consumer. \nRegulatory Violations : This situation contains multiple violations : Reg E Investigation Violation ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Navy Federal forced me to investigate with the merchant instead of performing their own investigation. \nFailure to Provide Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) Navy Federal did not issue provisional credit within 10 business days while they continued to investigate. \nFailure to Provide Written Findings Navy Federal provided no written investigation results or explanation as required under Reg E. \nUDAAP Violations ( XXXX XXXX ) Refusal to investigate, misleading explanations, and rude/retaliatory behavior constitute unfair and deceptive practices. \nRetaliation/Obstruction When I stated I would escalate to CFPB, the representative attempted to terminate the call instead of addressing the dispute. \nConsumer Harm : I am being improperly charged for a transaction that was refunded.\n\nNavy Federal is withholding funds I am entitled to.\n\nTheir failure to follow Reg E has caused financial hardship, stress, and unnecessary work on my part. \nTheir refusal to issue provisional credit or proper chargeback leaves me without access to my own money.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T23:10:44.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"328XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18582733","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-01-08T22:41:45.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to Provide Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) Navy Federal did not issue provisional credit within 10 business <em>days</em> while they continued to <em>investigate</em>. \nFailure to Provide Written Findings Navy Federal provided no written <em>investigation</em> results or explanation as required under Reg E. \nUDAAP Violations ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) Refusal to <em>investigate</em>, misleading explanations, and rude/retaliatory behavior constitute unfair and deceptive practices."]},"sort":[11.695676,"18582733"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2864848","_score":11.587302,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX I filed a dispute to Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) for two charges : ( 1 ) {$2200.00} and ( 2 ) {$1300.00} to vendor ( XXXX XXXX ).\n\nThey were charged to develop a high-end luxury marketing branding package to include a custom website design and its functionality with XXXX XXXX for XXXX. WE EXPLAINED TO THE VENDOR - ANYTHING WOULD NOT MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS. WE SENT THE VENDOR \" QUALITY '' EXAMPLES THAT WOULD MEET OUR EXPECTATION. Which, the vendor agreed to adhere to our designing quality requirement.\n\nWe hired XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX with a delivery timeline for ( 7 ) Weeks. An approx. delivery date of XX/XX/XXXX. However, they did not adhere to our contract ; making it voided.\n\nOutside of this now voided contract - we extended to the vendor 4 additional opportunities to deliver - the vendor failed to perform. At this time we requested a refund. Our contract was voided by the vendor on XX/XX/XXXX\n\nWe consulted with our bank ( NFCU ) and was instructed to file a credit card dispute claim. Which was filed on XX/XX/XXXX.\n\nOnXX/XX/XXXX, we received a written communication via USPS from NFCU, stating they would be conducting an investigation and to provide information by XX/XX/XXXX. However, we had already provided detailed documentation to their attention via the online messaging system at NFCU.org and via their fax number - XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX.\n\nNFCU had no knowledge of our documentation.\n\nOnce again, we re-faxed our documentation and uploaded our documents in their messaging system.\n\n-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NFCU 's messaging system communication on XX/XX/XXXX reflected the following information : **** [ Navy Federal Response XX/XX/XXXX : Thank you for your eMessage. The chargeback was submitted onXX/XX/XXXX. The merchant has 45 days to respond from that date so you will not have anymore correspondence via mail with us until we hear back from the merchant. If you have further questions, please let us know. ] If you notice : they reflected aXX/XX/XXXX chargeback submission date. THIS IS AN ERROR. We submitted our chargeback dispute on XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX EST ( XXXX XXXX  ).\n\nWhen I asked them to clarify this wrong date -- they failed to respond.\n\n-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - NFCU 's messaging system communication onXX/XX/XXXXreflected the following information : [ Navy Federal Response XX/XX/XXXX : Thank you for your follow-up eMessage, XXXX XXXX. The dispute process may be lengthy. As soon as we hear back from the merchant, we will communicate the information to you. The merchant has 45 days from XX/XX/XXXX to respond. If you have any additional questions, please let us know. ] Again, they are using the wrong date of XX/XX/XXXX. The merchant should have been given 45 days from XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX would be the 45 day end period.\n\n-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - From XX/XX/XXXX to Today,XX/XX/XXXX, I have received NO formal written communications via USPS or any other mail delivery services. In addition : there has only been two e-Messages from NFCU ; as shown above.\n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX I called NFCU to obtain a status update on the chargeback dispute and I was told that the case had been closed. At this time, I asked to speak with the handler of this case and I was denied. I was able to speak with a XXXX  and a XXXX and both told me - that the case could be re-opened. At this time, XXXX  transferred me to a XXXX. They stated : they sent me documents to respond to ; yet, no documents were received and when I kept asking them ... what was required - they could not tell me.\n\nXXXX initially stated, she would need to get a statement from me on this day to proceed forward ; then I was placed on hold and upon her return - she stated, the case was closed and that she would \" send '' a communication to me.\n\nI disagreed and requested further assistance - yet, I was denied.\n\nIn addition, I tried to resolve this issue via their e-messaging and I was told the following : [ Navy Federal Response XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX, thank you for your follow-up eMessage. At this time, we have fully researched and addressed this matter. We are happy to assist you with other issues via this eMessaging system. Any additional correspondence in reference to this matter can be submitted in writing. If you'd like to contact the executive office, you may mail a letter to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. ] _____________________________ On XX/XX/XXXX, I resubmitted my dispute. I was verbally told by XXXX  ... the case was closed.\n\nHowever, in speaking with XXXX, I was told to return to NFCU and resubmit the dispute ; I can legally dispute this charge again and the process will restart.\n\nI fear, NFCU.. .will not represent me for my best interest.\n\nI have sent 3 communications via email to XXXX XXXX, CEO of NFCU ; his office has not responded and the emails, have not been rejected. This email included 10 other executives. No response for resolution from NFCU.\n\nPlease help me resolve this issue. My bank has failed me and are denying me the right to challenge this charge.\n\nThey expect me to pay thousands of dollars for No Service or No Product for payment. THIS IS NOT RIGHT NOR FAIR AS A CONSUMER. I TRUSTED THIS VENDOR AND ALLOCATED THEM OPPORTUNITIES WHEN THEY VOIDED OUR AGREEMENT. Please visit : XXXX  - there is no website - image attached.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-04-05T00:01:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"298XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2864848","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2018-04-04T23:10:19.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If you have further questions, please let us know. ] If you notice : they reflected aXX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> <em>chargeback</em> submission date. THIS IS AN ERROR. We submitted our <em>chargeback</em> dispute on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> - <em>XXXX</em> EST ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  )."]},"sort":[11.587302,"2864848"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1336608","_score":11.501169,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Ordered a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX smartphone from XXXX. I had to do this XXXX times because the first XXXX I purchased were either not as described ( opened box when item was sold as new/unopened box ) or blocked on my carrier ( seller financed phone and stopped payments ). The last of the XXXX phones that needed to be returned worked fine for a few days and then became blocked with my carrier ( seller non-payment ). It was shipped back as the previous ones were : I contacted XXXX, informed them that the phone was not as described, and they then approved and issued a return label to return the phone at their expense. The first XXXX returns were credited back to me. The final return was never credited. After 30+ days after the return, I attempted to contact XXXX but they make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to find their contact phone number or even send them an email. After XXXX mins after trying to find their contact info, I instead called my card issuer and disputed the item for failing to credit me for the return. Instead of XXXX responding to the chargeback, XXXX responded that the item was never returned and that it was as described. XXXX of course has never seen the item and had no idea of its condition, it was simply a defensive tactic they use the absolve themselves of accountability ( they probably paid the fraudulent seller and then got left holding the bag ). I responded to my card issuer explaining and providing documents indicating from XXXX 's own website that the item in question was returned. My card issuer, Chase, performed no investigation of any kind and simply took XXXX at their word. Despite all the evidence I provided, and XXXX having a complete accountability of the return, they refused to remove the charge. I finally found XXXX 's phone number and contacted them to ask why they never credited me back. The rep told me that the item was returned \" late '' so there is no refund. XXXX only provided XXXX to return the item. Because the phone being returned contained all of my mobile data ( it worked for a few days before the carrier block took effect ), I had to procure a replacement phone and copy all of my data over before I could return the phone. Again, this was the seller 's fault as they knowingly sold me a phone they knew would be blocked at some point. So I explained this to the XXXX rep and he reiterated that they will be keeping the money and the seller will be keeping the phone, and I am due no refund. However, my card issuer is supposed to act as the fail-safe in this type of situation, and did not adhere to the XXXX. Perhaps they have a cozy relationship with XXXX or simply do n't care. The evidence I provided them was overwhelming and they did n't seem to review or follow-up on any of it. Additionally, you should be aware of issues like this where the consumer does business with XXXX but it is XXXX that responds to the billing dispute. This allows XXXX to be unaccountable and XXXX to play ignorance.","date_sent_to_company":"2015-04-20T18:21:41.000Z","issue":"Billing disputes","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"02864","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1336608","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2015-04-20T18:21:40.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> of course has never seen the item and had no idea of its condition, it was simply a defensive tactic they use the absolve themselves of accountability ( they probably paid the fraudulent seller and then got left holding the bag ). I responded to my card issuer explaining and providing documents indicating from <em>XXXX</em> 's own website that the item in question was returned. My card issuer, Chase, <em>performed</em> no <em>investigation</em> of any kind and simply took <em>XXXX</em> at their word."]},"sort":[11.501169,"1336608"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17753610","_score":11.290417,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally dispute a charge on my Capital One credit card for auto repair services that were not performed properly and caused further damage to my vehicle. The disputed transaction details are as follows : Merchant : XXXX XXXX Merchant Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/XXXX Transaction Amount : {$2400.00} Cardholder Name : XXXX XXXX Last Four Digits of Capital One Card : XXXX Summary of Events : On XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX XXXX XXXX  was towed to XXXX XXXX for repair of a coolant leak. I specifically requested detailed documentation and photos of all repairs for my records, but the dealership failed to comply with them. I was informed that several coolant components and the water pump required replacement. Although I offered XXXX parts that I had already purchased, XXXX XXXX refused to use them and required use of their own XXXX parts. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that my vehicle was fully repaired and ready for pickup. When I arrived, no service representative was available to review the work performed. I disputed the unexpectedly high repair total of {$2400.00} but was told I had to pay in full to retrieve my vehicle. I paid the amount using my Capital One credit card. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX less than XXXX week later my check engine light illuminated, and the vehicle began overheating. I immediately returned to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and met with Service XXXX XXXX XXXX. Despite a stated XXXX repair warranty, XXXX XXXX refused XXXX provide service, claiming the new issues were unrelated and that the dealership prefers not to work on vehicles over XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nAs the vehicle became undrivable on XX/XX/XXXX, I had it towed to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Their inspection determined and documented that XXXX XXXX had incorrectly rerouted the coolant reservoir during the XXXX repairs, directly causing the overheating, check engine warnings, and melting of previously serviced components. I attached a copy of XXXX XXXX diagnostic report, which conclusively links the failure to XXXXXXXX XXXX improper workmanship and submitted it to Capital One. \nReason for Complaint : The services rendered by XXXX XXXX were defective and not performed as agreed, resulting in additional mechanical damage and expenses. I made a good-faith effort to resolve this issue directly with the dealership within XXXX week of the transaction, but the agency refused to assist or honor their XXXX repair warranty. \nIn accordance with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Visa Reason Code 13.3 Services Not Rendered as Described / Defective Workmanship, I requested a chargeback for the full amount of {$2400.00}. I provided supporting documentation, which was the diagnostic report and findings from XXXX XXXX citing a faulty repair from the previous agency. I also provided photos. \nAs soon as I was made aware of the faulty work performed by XXXX XXXX and the subsequent damage caused. I then immediately contacted Capital One and explained the situation and provided supporting documentation for their poor workmanship resulting in further damages to my vehicle. A representative informed me that I was well within my right to file a dispute for the charge, however my claim was denied citing an internal XXXX limit for all credit disputes on XX/XX/XXXX. I immediately appealed the decision on XX/XX/XXXX when I received the notice in the mail. Capital One denied my claim again on XX/XX/XXXX citing an internal XXXX limit for all credit disputes. \nI filed a complaint with the office of to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) on XX/XX/XXXX because my credit card dispute with Capital One was unfairly denied on XX/XX/XXXX, despite the extenuating circumstances surrounding the discovery of the issue. The initial transaction for vehicle repairs occurred in XXXX ; however, the significant issues with the provided goods and servicesspecifically, faulty repairs and poor workmanshipwere not discovered until a new mechanic inspected the vehicle months later. While federal law under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) generally requires consumers to notify their creditor of an error within 60 days of the statement date, it also makes provisions for \" claims and defenses '' related to the quality of goods or services, which can extend the timeframe for assertion, in some cases up to a year. Furthermore, Capital One 's own policy, detailed in their online help center, states that customers can file a dispute by phone at any time, even after the XXXX digital filing window has passed, though the outcome is not guaranteed. The nature of my dispute, involving latent defects in service that could not have been reasonably detected sooner, warrants an investigation that considers the discovery date of the error, not just the transaction date. The OCC reported back that I request the CFPB investigate Capital One 's handling of my claim to ensure that the bank 's internal policies and federal regulations are applied fairly in situations where the full extent of merchant failure is not immediately apparent.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-04T17:24:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30310","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17753610","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-12-04T17:12:10.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In accordance with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Visa Reason Code 13.3 Services Not Rendered as Described / Defective Workmanship, I requested a <em>chargeback</em> for the full amount of {$2400.00}. I provided supporting documentation, which was the diagnostic report and findings from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> citing a faulty repair from the previous agency. I also provided photos. \nAs soon as I was made aware of the faulty work <em>performed</em> by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and the subsequent damage caused."]},"sort":[11.290417,"17753610"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13469863","_score":10.967657,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing another formal complaint against Bank of America for their mishandling of my fraud claim, which I initially submitted earlier this year and reopened on XX/XX/year>, after providing new, material evidence, including a police report, a detailed explanation of the events, and evidence that I am being actively targeted. As of XX/XX/year> ( 10 business days later ), no provisional credit has been issued, in violation of Regulation E requirements.\n\nBank of America representatives continue to insist that reopened claims are not subject to Regulation E, which is misleading. Regulation E allows for new evidence to trigger a new error resolution process. Yet despite the new information I submitted, the bank has failed to fulfill even the most basic steps of an actual investigation.\n\nTheir original denial letter claimed they used merchant information such as signed receipts or contracts to determine that I had authorized the transactions. However, I have sent in multiple written and verbal requests for these supposed merchant documents, and Bank of America has failed to produce them. All phone representatives Ive spoken to have confirmed that NO merchant contact was ever made. This raises a serious concern : how can they claim I authorized these transactions without any documentation or confirmation from the merchant? The thorough investigation was and I quote the transactions matched customers spending pattern and that customer may have been aware of transactions. Like are we being serious?\n\nThis appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the investigation. They are falsely referencing merchant documentation in their denial letters, but never actually initiated a chargeback or contacted the merchants. This is unacceptable and a violation of consumer protection laws. It shows a pattern of denying legitimate claims without performing due diligence, solely based on speculative data like account history or logins, which I have already addressed in my police report and personal statements.\n\nThis fraud has left me financially devastated, with no access to critical funds. Ive explained that Im being targeted, and while I acknowledge I could have been more cautious, that does not absolve the bank of its duty to investigate thoroughly and fairly. I am currently relocating for my safety and working to secure my personal information, but I urgently need my funds returned.\n\nI already filed a complaint with CFPB.The individual assigned by Bank of America to my initial complaint, XXXX XXXX, has not responded and the number provided to reach her does not work. It seems like theyre only contacting and providing this number and information to act like theyre acknowledging your complaint but arent actually doing anything to help nor answer any questions. Ive already escalated this to the OCC, CFPB, and the Office of the State Attorney of Florida. If this is not resolved immediately, I will pursue legal action and permanently close my account with Bank of America.\n\nAnybody reading this please stay away from Bank of America, they arent actually conducting thorough and fair investigation. Theyre stating one thing on their denial letter but never did it. They never actually even attempted to get merchant documents to prove them. I have been requesting these documents for weeks and they have not provided anything because THEY DONT HAVE THEM, which makes sense because I didnt make the transactions, if they conducted a thorough investigation and had them why can nobody provide that to me? Please make it make sense. \n\nBank of America, Assume your responsibility, conduct a thorough investigation and actually provide a real phone number that works for the complaint acknowledgment not the one that XXXX XXXX has been providing. My claim ID : Claim ID XXXX. GET ME MY FUNDS BACK.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-12T19:19:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33174","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13469863","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-05-12T18:24:17.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank of America, Assume your responsibility, conduct a thorough <em>investigation</em> and actually provide a real phone number that works for the complaint acknowledgment not the one that <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> has been providing. My claim ID : Claim ID <em>XXXX</em>. GET ME MY FUNDS BACK."]},"sort":[10.967657,"13469863"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3156484","_score":10.117674,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"After many phone calls to XXXX XXXX they refuse to answer the phone on a Charge that i never sign or had any dealings with! From a Merchant with no consent nor was any card swipe or used!!!!  THIS MERCHANT STOLE FUNDS MY ACCOUNT CALLED XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY Transportation Edit - $ XXXX-Under the FCBA, your liability for unauthorized use of your credit card tops out at {$50.00}. However, if you report the loss before your credit card is used, the FCBA says you are not responsible for any charges you didnt authorize. If your credit card number is stolen, but not the card, you are not liable for unauthorized use.If your credit, ATM, or debit card is lost or stolen, federal law limits your liability for unauthorized charges. The XXXX XXXX place a fake charge on the account. But Why??? Credit Card Loss or Fraudulent Charges Under the FCBA, your liability for unauthorized use of your credit card tops out at {$50.00}. However, if you report the loss before your credit card is used, the FCBA says you are not responsible for any charges you didnt authorize. If your credit card number is stolen, but not the card, you are not liable for unauthorized use.If you report an ATM or debit card missing before someone uses it, the EFTA says you are not responsible for any unauthorized transactions. If someone uses your ATM or debit card before you  report it lost or stolen, your liability depends on how quickly you report it : The liable for those transactions are XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY not so superior! \nPlease Note : Most fraud prevention features are designed for card-present environments. Visa, for example, has deployed a number of anti-fraud measures designed to make card reproduction extremely difficult, including holograms and embossed security characters on the face of the card. Moreover, the signature and magnetic strip on the back of the card are designed to ensure that the person using the card is the actual cardholder. Merchants are not liable for fraud when card-present transactions are properly authenticated. \nOnline platforms, however, typically facilitate card-not-present transactions ( card payments made without physically swiping a card ). On a website, buyers enter credit card data into a form they do not hand their card to a cashier. Unfortunately, card-not-present transactions are highly susceptible to fraud and abuse, for which merchants and payment facilitators are held liable. \nChargebacks. \nWhen a cardholder disputes a charge with their bank ( the issuing bank ), the bank may reverse the payment and refund the cardholder, after an investigation. This is called a chargeback. \nCardholders are protected from the financial liability of unauthorized credit card transactions by Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act and unauthorized debit card transactions by Regulation E of  the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Card Associations have even broader rules with further added protections. When fraudulent transactions do occur, a well-defined chain of liability determines who is ultimately responsible for making restitution to the cardholder. Payment facilitators must recover chargebacks from merchants who generate them, or else write off the full amount of the chargeback as a loss. \nFor chargebacks resulting from card-not-present transactions, the issuing bank recovers the funds from the merchants bank ( the acquiring bank ), and the acquiring bank recovers the funds from the merchant. \nSince most chargebacks are received weeks or months after the original payment, it is sometimes difficult to recover the funds from the merchant. This is why acquirers are so conservative in their underwriting : an acquirer will typically research the financial stability, creditworthiness, and underlying riskiness of a business ; it will implement special funding policies ( such as reserves or holdbacks ) to  mitigate loss ; and it will require personal guarantees from business owners, whom it will hold personally liable for the businesss financial obligations. \nConsumer Protections Available Regulation Z The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), as implemented by Regulation Z, provides a billing error dispute process for open-end credit, such as credit cards. In order to take advantage of the protections offered by Regulation Z, you must notify the lender of any billing errors by : providing the notice in writing, enabling the lender to identify your name and account number, stating why you believe there is a billing error, including the type, date, and amount of the error, and sending the notice in a timely manner so that the lender receives it, at the address specified for billing inquiries, no later than 60 days after the lender sent the first billing statement reflecting the error. \nOnce you properly notify the lender about an error on your statement, it must acknowledge that it received this notification within 30 days, unless the problem has been resolved. The lender must investigate and resolve the issue within two complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving the billing error notice.\n\nWhile the lender conducts its investigation into the billing error : You may withhold payment of the disputed amount and related charges ( but any part of the bill not in question, including finance charges on undisputed amounts must be paid in accordance with account terms ).\n\nThe lender may not take legal or collection action on the disputed amount.\n\nThe lender may not report your account as delinquent, accelerate your debt, restrict your account, or close your account.\n\nIf the lender confirms there is a billing error on your account, it must send you a written explanation of the corrections made to your account. In addition to crediting your account for the disputed amount, the lender must also remove all finance charges, late fees, or other charges related to the error. If the investigation reveals no error occurred, it must send you a written explanation of the amount you owe, and you are responsible for paying the disputed amount, plus any finance charges that accumulated during the investigation. \nYou may request copies of relevant documents used in the lenders investigation. If you disagree with the results of the investigation, you may write to the lender within 10 days after receiving the explanation, and you may indicate that you refuse to pay the disputed amount. The lender may begin collection procedures and may report your account as delinquent to credit reporting agencies, but it must also note that you disagree with the amount owed.\n\nIn addition to the consumer protections associated with billing errors, Regulation Z also contains special credit card provisions that limit your liability for unauthorized use of a credit card. A credit card holders liability is limited to {$50.00} for unauthorized use before the cardholder notifies the card issuer. Notification may be given in person, by telephone, or in writing.\n\nRegulation E The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), as implemented by Regulation E, provides basic protections for consumers with electronic direct deposits or who use debit cards to access their deposit account held directly or indirectly at a bank. These protections include timeframes by which a bank must investigate and determine whether an error occurred when you notify your bank of an error and, in some cases, requirements to provide provisional credit while the investigation is performed. \nFor example, if you notify your bank of a potential account error, Regulation E requires a bank to investigate and determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving your notice ( or 20 business days for new accounts ). If a bank is unable to complete its investigation within the appropriate timeframe, it may take up to 45 days to determine whether an error occurred. But in these cases, banks must generally provide consumers with a provisional credit to their account within 10 days of the bank receiving the error notice. Also, banks must notify consumers about the provisional credit within two days of providing the credit.\n\nSome banks may require you to submit an error notice in writing after you provide notice orally. If the bank does not receive written confirmation within 10 business days of receiving the initial notice of an error, the bank is not required to provide provisional credit. The time period for the investigation may be extended to 90 days if the error involved an electronic transfer initiated outside of the United States, a point-of-sale debit card transaction, or a transaction involving a new account within 30 days of being opened.\n\nIf the bank determines there is an error on your account, it must correct the error within one business day after confirming it and report the results to you within three business days after completing its investigation ( including, if applicable, notice that a provisional credit has been made final ).\n\nIf a bank determines that no error occurred or that an error occurred in a manner or amount different from that described in your notice, the bank must send a written explanation of its findings and note your right to request the documents the bank relied on for its investigation. When the bank debits the funds provisionally credited to your account during the investigation, it must provide you with the date and amount debited. In addition, the bank must inform you that it will honor checks, drafts, or similar instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized transfers from your account ( without charge as a result of an overdraft ) for five business days after the notification.\n\nDisputing a Credit Card Billing Error Many credit card issuers have policies against sellers charging a credit card account before shipment. If you think a seller charged your account too soon, report it to the credit card issuer. Otherwise, the issuer has no way to know the seller isnt following its policies.\n\nTo dispute the billing error with your credit card issuer, you must : write to the credit card issuer at the address given for billing inquiries, not the address for sending your payments, and include your name, address, account number, and a description of the billing error. Use our sample letter.\n\nsend your letter so that it reaches the credit card issuer within 60 days after the first bill with the error was mailed to you. Its a good idea to send your letter by certified mail ; ask for a return receipt so you have proof of what the credit card issuer received. Include copies ( not originals ) of sales slips or other documents that support your position. Keep a copy of your dispute letter.\n\nThe credit card issuer must acknowledge your complaint, in writing, within 30 days after receiving it, unless the problem has been resolved. The issuer must resolve the dispute within two billing cycles ( but not more than 90 days ) after getting your letter.\n\nYou may withhold payment on the disputed amount ( and related charges ) during the investigation. You must pay any part of the bill not in question, including finance charges on the undisputed amount.\n\nThe credit card issuer may not take any legal or other action to collect the disputed amount and related charges ( including finance charges ) during the investigation. While your account cant be closed or restricted, the disputed amount can be applied against your credit limit.\n\nBut what if You placed an order with a catalog company and they charged your credit card immediately. The catalog company contacts you two weeks later and says the shipment will be delayed 60 days. You agree to the delay. The 60 days have passed, and you may be outside of the time to dispute the charges. Can you still dispute the charge?\n\nMaybe. When a shipment is delayed, credit card issuers often are more generous when they calculate the time for allowing disputes, and may extend the 60-day period. To take advantage of this flexibility, include the following information in your dispute letter.\n\nTell the credit card issuer if you didnt expect to be charged for the merchandise before it was shipped. Some credit card issuers make an exception to the general industry rule against sellers charging before shipping if the seller tells you about its practice at the time of sale. If youre sure the seller said nothing or wasnt clear about its charge practice, the credit card issuer is more likely to allow the dispute.\n\nTell the credit card issuer when delivery was expected. Some issuers use the expected date of delivery rather than the charge date as the start time for you to dispute charges. If you dispute the charge within a reasonable time after the expected delivery date passes, chances are good that the card issuer will honor the dispute. When you order or when a seller notifies you of delayed shipment, its important to keep a record of the promised shipment or delivery date. Include a copy of any documentation of the shipment or delivery date when disputing the charge with your card issuer.\n\nDisputing a Debit Card Charge The consumer protections for a debit card differ from protections for a credit card. You may not be able to dispute a debit and get a refund for non-delivery or late delivery. Still, some debit card issuers may voluntarily offer protections and solutions to problems like not getting merchandise you bought with a debit card. See our sample letter, and contact your debit card issuer for more information.\n\nYour Rights When Shopping by Phone, Mail or Online The Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule applies to most goods you order by mail, phone, fax, or online. It requires sellers to have a reasonable basis for claiming they can ship an order within a certain time and details what sellers should do if there is a delay.\n\nShip Dates By law, a seller should ship your order within the time stated in its ads or over the phone. If the seller doesnt promise a time, you can expect it to ship your order within 30 days.\n\nThe shipment clock begins when the seller receives a properly completed order. That includes your name, address and payment ( check, money order or authorization to charge an existing credit account whether the account is charged at that time or not ).\n\nIf the seller doesnt promise a shipping time, and you are applying for credit to pay for your purchase, the seller has an additional 20 days ( 50 days total ) to establish the account and ship the merchandise.\n\nDelays If the seller is unable to ship within the promised time, it must notify you, give a revised shipping date and give you the chance to cancel for a full refund or accept the new shipping date. The seller also must give you some way to exercise the cancellation option for free for example, by supplying a prepaid reply card or staffing a toll-free telephone number.\n\nIf you dont respond and the delay is 30 days or less its assumed that you accept the delay and are willing to wait for the merchandise.\n\nIf you dont respond and the delay is more than 30 days the order must be canceled by the 30th day of the delay period and a full refund issued promptly.\n\nIf the seller cant meet the revised shipping date, it must notify you again by mail, email or telephone and give you a new shipping date or cancel your order and give you a refund.\n\nThe order should be canceled and a refund issued promptly unless you indicate by the revised shipping date that you are willing to wait.\n\nIf you dont respond to the second notice, the seller should assume that you are not willing to wait issue a full refund promptly.\n\nRefunds If you pay by cash, check or money order, or a non-seller credit card, the seller must give you a refund within seven working days after the order is canceled.\n\nIf you pay by credit card where the seller is the card issuer, the seller must credit your account within one billing cycle after the order is canceled.\n\nShopping Tips Follow these tips for hassle-free shopping.\n\nConsider your experience with the company or its general reputation before you order. If youve never heard of the seller, enter its name in a search engine with words like complaint or scam, and read about other peoples experiences with the company. In addition, contact your state Attorney General, and local consumer protection agency to see if any complaints are on file.\n\nCheck out the companys refund and return policies, the items availability, and the total cost of your purchase before you place your order.\n\nGet a shipment date.\n\nKeep records of your order, like the website, ad or catalog from which you ordered ; the companys name, address and phone number ; any promises the company made about shipping and when they were made ; the date of your order ; and a copy of the order form you sent to the company. If youre ordering by phone, keep a list of the items, their stock codes, and the order confirmation code ; your canceled check or the charge or debit statement showing the charge for your order ; and any communications to or from the company.\n\nTrack your purchases. When you order online, keep printouts of the web pages with the details of the transaction, including the sellers return policies, in case youre not satisfied.Complaints help the FTC and other law enforcement agencies bring scam artists to justice and put an end to unfair and misleading business practices. If you have a complaint, file it online or call XXXX. \nCredit Cards, Personal Finance At XXXX, we adhere to strict standards of editorial integrity to help you make decisions with confidence. Many or all of the products featured here are from our partners. Heres how we make money. \n\nIf you see a purchase on your credit card statement that you didnt make, be sure to correct the mistake right away. It could be a simple mistake like a double swipe of your card, for example or it could be someone trying to make a little extra money off of a restaurant bill. Heres how to fix a mistake on your statement, and to make sure youre safe. \n1. Talk to the merchant Before you get yourself involved in a lengthy formal dispute, speak with the merchant. Bring your receipt and credit card statement, and take the time to explain the discrepancy. The merchant may clear up the mistake without having to involve the credit card company. If not, take your complaint to the next level. \n2. Prepare your paperwork While the error on your statement might seem obvious to you, you still need to make a strong case. Keep a record of the receipts, credit card statement and anything else that can add to the paper trail. Errors to look out for include : Returns that didnt lead to a credit on your statement.\n\nErroneous dates.\n\nBills sent to the wrong address ( so long as youve notified your creditor of your address change within 20 days ).\n\nMathematical errors. \nAnd, of course, charges for purchases you didnt make. \n\nGather any relevant receipts and documents supporting your claims and make copies. Keep the originals for your records, and gather the copies for your creditor. \n\nRemember : Never give your account information to someone you dont know, and avoid emailing sensitive data like your account number or Social Security number. Also, never give your information when a caller claims to represent your bank or card issuer. Instead, say youll call back, then call the customer service number listed on the banks website or the back of your card. Dont fall victim to a scam! \nWrite to your creditor Within 60 days of receiving the bill in question, send a letter outlining your objection and copies of your proof in an envelope addressed to your creditors department for billing inquiries. To be on the safe side, send the letter by certified mail, so you receive a receipt when it arrives at your creditors headquarters. Save the receipt proving they received your dispute with the other documents youre using to make your case. \n\nYou can also choose to dispute electronically, if the creditors website allows for that. Save any emails you get in return saying your dispute was received. \nFinal stretch : waiting for a response You creditor is required to respond within 30 days of your complaint, and the dispute must be resolved within 90 days, or two billing cycles.\n\nIn the meantime, you dont have to pay for the purchase in question, you must only pay for everything else on your statement. However, keep in mind that if your creditor finds your evidence insufficient, youll have to pay for the purchase in question, plus any interest that has accrued since. \n\nIf your creditor accepts your claim, all charges related to the error will be removed from your statement. If it does not accept your claim, it has to explain to you in writing exactly why the mistake is in fact a not a mistake, and youll have 10 days to challenge that conclusion.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-02-20T07:42:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"14228","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3156484","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2019-02-20T02:03:12.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These protections include timeframes by which a bank must <em>investigate</em> and determine whether an error occurred when you notify your bank of an error and, in some cases, requirements to provide provisional credit while the <em>investigation</em> is <em>performed</em>. \nFor example, if you notify your bank of a potential account error, Regulation E requires a bank to <em>investigate</em> and determine whether an error occurred within 10 business <em>days</em> of receiving your notice ( or 20 business <em>days</em> for new accounts )."]},"sort":[10.117674,"3156484"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16161971","_score":10.075324,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This is a new, subsequent, and independent complaint from the first. Navy Federal is now stating, without specifying a date or time period, that they concluded their investigation XXXX days ago and performed a chargeback. Now, it has been XXXX XXXX and NFCU states that I am again not receiving a provisional credit because they are waiting to see how the other bank and vendor will react. I have requested and captured all requests, both present and prior, made for the NFCU policy and procedures, as well as the standard operating guidelines, and have been denied every time. This is not the first instance where NFCU has treated me inequitably, denying services and products without cause. XXXX things can not be true here : either the Navy Federal Credit Union offers services and products under uniform, industry standard, equitable, \" as to all, '' equitable opportunities, based on \" DOCUMENTED, NFCU XXXX, XXXX, and/or XXXX, '' including the permanently XXXX, and other protected classifications, as well as the overall customer base, or they are making discriminatory, XXXX, CFPB, XXXX, XXXX, protected. If NFCU does not provide, or can not provide, documents maintained by every business and corporation within consumer finance, * * Complaint Concerning Discriminatory Practices and Failure to Provide Equitable Treatment by Navy Federal Credit Union * * This complaint delineates distinct and newly articulated grievances that are independent from my previous submissions. Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) has announced that its investigation concluded XXXX days ago, without specifying the exact timeframe involved, and has reportedly executed a chargeback. Despite this, it has now been XXXX XXXX, and NFCU asserts that I am still not receiving provisional credit as they await the reactions from the merchants bank and the vendor. \n\nI have meticulously documented all requests made to procure NFCUs policy and procedures, standard operating guidelines ( SOP ), and other operational protocolsall of which have been systematically denied. This ongoing situation is not an isolated incident ; it echoes prior experiences where NFCU has exhibited inequitable treatment, restricting access to services and products without justifiable cause. \n\nThe crux of the matter lies in the inconsistency of NFCUs application of its own policies, which are ostensibly designed to ensure equitable service to all customers regardless of their status, including those who are permanently XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  mandates that individuals with XXXX receive equitable opportunities in all areas of public life. The treatment I have experienced raises significant concerns regarding compliance with XXXX provisions that prohibit discrimination against individuals based on XXXX. \n\nXXXX. * * Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) * * : Under 15 U.S.C. 1666, consumers are entitled to provisional credit during the investigation of billing disputes. NFCUs failure to provide such credit contravenes federal law, especially when they have already acknowledged possession of the funds recovered from the merchant. \n\nXXXX. * * Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ) * * : Notably, Section 1005.11 establishes requirements for creditors regarding provisional credit. NFCUs refusal to issue provisional credit or disclose the chargeback filing date constitutes a violation of this regulation, as they have not provided valid grounds for withholding funds that are rightfully mine. \n\nXXXX. * * Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) * * : The ECOA, found at 15 U.S.C. 1691, prohibits discrimination in credit transactions. The regulatory framework outlined in 12 C.F.R. 1002.4 reinforces this prohibition by requiring creditors to abstain from any form of discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics. The disparity in how NFCU handles disputes potentially contravenes these standards and suggests a pattern of discriminatory practice that undermines fundamental tenets of equitable treatment. \n\nXXXX. * * Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAAP ) * * : The actions of NFCU in withholding funds while acknowledging their existence provide a basis for a claim of engaging in unfair or deceptive practices. This behavior has resulted in an ongoing injury, given that I, as a permanently XXXX individual, am being denied access to funds that are crucial for my day-to-day living. \n\nXXXX. * * Common Law Principles * * : Recognized principles of good faith and fair dealing necessitate that financial institutions operate in a manner that upholds the trust and confidence placed in them by their clients ( UCC 1-302 ). The disproportionate treatment of my case by NFCU signals a potential breach of this duty, raising questions about their commitment to ethical banking practices. \n\n* * Conclusion and Request for Remedial Action : * * In light of the outlined legal infractions and ethical considerations, it is evident that Navy Federal Credit Union has violated my rights as a permanently XXXX consumer by withholding funds, failing to provide necessary documentation, and not affording me the equitable treatment mandated by law. Therefore, I seek immediate remediation, including the release of the withheld funds, provision of all requested documentation about my case, and an assurance that NFCU will re-evaluate its practices to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations in the future. \n\nThe persistence of these issues necessitates an urgent and thorough review of NFCUs operational policies and their alignment with federal consumer protection laws, particularly those aimed at safeguarding the interests of individuals with XXXX. \n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions Repeated Denial of Equitable, Standard, and Treatment of a Permanently XXXX Individual, Refusal to Provide Documents of Policy, Procedures, and Standard Operating Protocols, and Ineffective, Dismissive, and Uninformative Communications : This complaint presents distinct and novel issues that are not merely duplicative of existing complaints. The concerns arise specifically from Navy Federal Credit Unions actions after XX/XX/year>, where it wrongfully withheld funds that had already been retrieved from the merchant, coupled with a glaring lack of transparency regarding its processes. Such conduct constitutes new violations that have inflicted additional harm, thereby distinguishing this complaint from my initial grievance. \nKey Facts ( New Developments ) : On XX/XX/year>, Navy Federal informed me that it had already debited the merchants bank ( initiated chargeback ). \nAt the same time, Navy Federal stated it would not credit my account and was only waiting to see if the merchant disputes. \nAs of XX/XX/year>, Navy Federal continues to withhold the funds, despite acknowledging that it already controls the money. \nWhy This Is a Separate Violation : My first complaint covered the missed XXXX provisional credit deadline under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ).\n\nThis complaint concerns Navy Federals XXXX XXXX conduct : XXXX. Refusing to release funds already recovered from the merchants bank. \nXXXX. Refusing to disclose the chargeback filing date, the merchants response deadline, or any merchant documentation, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ).\n\n3. Engaging in an unfair and deceptive practice ( UDAAP ) by admitting it has the funds but denying me access, creating an ongoing injury. \n\nRepresentatives from NFCU, including XXXX frontline staff and a supervisory agent, have dismissed my inquiries, claiming that NFCU is not obligated to provide provisional credit or documentation regarding our decisions. This stance represents a clear violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1666, which affirms the consumer 's entitlement to provisional credit during the investigation of disputes related to unauthorized charges. Furthermore, as stipulated in 12 C.F.R. 1026.13, creditors are required to grant provisional credit unless they can unequivocally establish a favorable resolution within the mandated investigation period. NFCU 's non-compliance with this regulatory obligation is both unlawful and untenable. \nThere is compelling evidence that NFCU has handled similar disputes in a manner that reflects bias and potential discriminatory practices. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691, prohibits discrimination in any aspect of credit transactions. The relevant regulatory framework, as outlined in 12 C.F.R. 1002.4, requires creditors to refrain from engaging in discrimination based on arbitrary factors. The inconsistent application of policies observed at NFCU raises serious concerns about their adherence to the ECOA and suggests a troubling disregard for principles of fairness and equitable treatment. Moreover, common law principles regarding good faith and fair dealing require financial institutions to treat their customers fairly ( see UCC 1-302 ). The evident inconsistencies in NFCU 's treatment of disputes underscore a potential breach of this fiduciary duty, which threatens the trust fundamental to the banking relationship. \nNavy Federal Credit Union XXXX NFCU ) violated federal law and consumer protection by withholding funds already recovered from the merchants bank while refusing to disclose relevant dates or documentation, thereby breaching obligations under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and imposing inequitable treatment on a XXXX consumer. This complaint differs materially from my earlier CFPB filing ; however, it is not precluded in its entirety. In combination with all the facts, NFCU conducts its business practices recklessly, autonomously guided by its own interests, openly undermining regulatory and governmental oversight. Representatives from NFCU, including XXXX frontline employees and a supervising agent, dismissed my inquiries with the assertion that NFCU is not required to provide provisional credit ( XXXX ) or documentation regarding our decisions. This dereliction is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), especially 15 U.S.C. 1666, which establishes the consumer 's right to receive provisional credit while disputes concerning unauthorized charges are under investigation. According to 12 C.F.R. 1026.13, creditors are mandated to issue provisional credit unless they can conclusively demonstrate a resolution favoring their position within the stipulated investigation timeframe. NFCU 's refusal to adhere to this regulatory requirement is both unlawful and indefensible. \nI have formally submitted XXXX requests for documentation that elucidates the rationale behind NFCUs decisions regarding my dispute. To date, the responses received have been markedly insufficient and evasive. As stipulated by 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( b ), a creditor is obligated to provide documentation once it determines that the charge in question is not erroneous. NFCU 's vague assertions that decisions are made internally without corresponding documentation are wholly unacceptable and represent an apparent infringement of consumer rights. I hereby demand immediate remedial action to address these violations. I expect a comprehensive response from NFCU, including all pertinent documentation that justifies its actions, along with the prompt issuance of the provisional credit that is due to me, inclusive of all fees paid for returned items during the period from XX/XX/year>, through XX/XX/year>. Should there be a continued failure to meet these requests, I will be compelled to explore further legal remedies. \n\nThere is compelling evidence that NFCU has handled similar disputes in a manner that reflects bias and potential discriminatory practices. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691, prohibits discrimination in any aspect of credit transactions. The relevant regulatory framework, as outlined in 12 C.F.R. 1002.4, requires creditors to refrain from engaging in discrimination based on arbitrary factors. The inconsistent application of policies observed at NFCU raises serious concerns about their adherence to the ECOA and suggests a troubling disregard for principles of fairness and equitable treatment.\n\nMoreover, common law principles regarding good faith and fair dealing require financial institutions to treat their customers fairly ( see UCC 1-302 ). The evident inconsistencies in NFCU 's treatment of disputes underscore a potential breach of this fiduciary duty, which threatens the trust fundamental to the banking relationship.\n\nVII. Conclusion : In conclusion, the actions and policies of Navy Federal Credit Union in relation to my dispute reveal significant failures in their adherence to consumer protection laws and in providing equitable treatment to their members. The glaring inconsistencies in their practices, lack of transparency, and potential bias require immediate action. I demand a comprehensive review of my case, focusing on consumer rights, equitable procedures, and strict adherence to applicable legal standards, to address these issues and rectify any discriminatory practices, thereby ensuring fairness in financial services for all consumers. \n\nXXXX. XXXXlectronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. Implemented by Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and imposing inequitable treatment on a XXXX consumer. \nXXXX. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) : If the institution determines no error occurred, it must provide an explanation and copies of documents relied upon. \nXXXX. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536.\n\nFinancial institutions supervised by the CFPB are prohibited from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, including failing to provide clear disclosures or withholding funds without a valid legal justification. \nXXXX. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 ; ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101. \nRequire financial institutions to provide fair and equal treatment without discrimination, including to XXXX consumers relying on public assistance. \nXXXX. Common Law Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. \nFinancial institutions must act fairly, reasonably, and in good faith when dealing with members and their funds. \nB. Lack of Transparency Despite repeated requests, NFCU has not disclosed : o The date the chargeback was filed, o The merchants deadline to respond, or o Any documentation received from the merchant. \nUnder 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ), NFCU must explain and provide supporting documentation if it denies a consumers claim. The lack of disclosure is noncompliant and deceptive. \nXXXX Withholding Funds Already Retrieved NFCU admits it already recovered funds from the merchants bank. \nHolding these funds without crediting them to the consumer lacks any statutory or contractual basis. \nThis constitutes an unfair practice under the CFPBs UDAAP authority and a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. \nXXXX Disparate Impact on XXXX XXXX As a permanently XXXX consumer on a fixed income, denial of access to lawfully protected funds imposes disproportionate harm. \nNFCUs refusal to apply standard protections may implicate ECOA and XXXX principles of equity and nondiscrimination, especially if such practices are applied inconsistently across consumer classes. \nFormal Request for Action Against Navy Federal Credit Union : XXXX ) Immediate Release of Recovered Funds : We demand that Navy Federal Credit Union promptly release the funds successfully retrieved from the merchants banking institution. The credit union must uphold its obligation to expedite the reinstatement of these funds to the appropriate account, as this is a fundamental expectation and a critical aspect of its fiduciary duties to its members. Additionally, an immediate refund of all return fees charged during the period from XX/XX/year>, through XX/XX/year>. Following XX/XX/XXXX, I have been systematically denied access to funds that Navy Federal has already recovered. This situation transcends mere delays ; it constitutes an ongoing deprivation of funds to which I have a rightful claim. As a permanently XXXX individual reliant on a fixed income, the compounded effects of this inability to access my resources exacerbate my financial hardship, creating new challenges that are separate from the initial violation regarding provisional credit. \nXXXX ) Documentation of Chargeback Process : We require Navy Federal to furnish a comprehensive account of the chargeback process in writing. This documentation must include the date on which the chargeback was filed, the deadline for the merchants response, and all relevant documentation received throughout the process. Our request is firmly grounded in consumer protection laws that mandate transparency in dispute processes, including the Fair Credit Billing Act and essential provisions of Regulation E. \nXXXX ) Clarification of Fund Retention Practices : We insist that Navy Federal provide a clear and thorough explanation as to why it continues to withhold funds after acknowledging their retrieval. Additionally, we demand an immediate response regarding the refusal to provide the requested documentation that supports its determinations related to the chargeback. This lack of transparency is unacceptable and potentially violates consumer protection statutes and internal compliance standards. Navy Federal must articulate the legal basis for its actions and demonstrate how they align with established regulatory frameworks, particularly Regulation E. \nXXXX ) Review of Dispute-Handling Policies for Compliance : We call for an immediate and comprehensive review of Navy Federals dispute resolution policies to ensure their compliance with Regulation E and applicable fairness standards. This review aims to determine whether Navy Federal 's practices meet regulatory expectations regarding the timely processing of accounts, clear communication, and the ethical treatment of account holders. Evaluating these policies against industrys best practices is essential to protecting consumer rights and maintaining transparency throughout the dispute resolution process. Further, NCUA summarily dismissed my first complaints against NFCU, Conclusion : If NFCU refuses equitable opportunities and fairness to a permanently XXXX individual, and repeatedly, on a \" provisional credit, '' twenty-four days after the dispute was filed, XXXX days after they draw down funds from another bank, having denied me my initial provisional credit twice, and then states they are \" in-waiting '' for the other bank to dispute, and as you will witness attached, offers not a single date, time, estimation, and all while acting and treating me in a manner that clearly is a discriminatory, biased, non-documented lawful or internal policy, when I can not even receive medicine, then by what reasonable discernment does the CFPB believe they operate based on fairness and equitable, uniform and standard treatment? I am requesting a review of NFCU 's internal policies and procedures, which will be analyzed by the actual compliance team. I am requesting that Navy Federal provide me with all the documents, including the reasons why I have been repeatedly denied. every request ever made, while protecting vendors of other banks. Navy Federal has, in a rapid period of time, declined substantially, and I am betting there are thousands of classes of of similar treatment who would love to take action.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-24T12:36:15.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"38053","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16161971","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-09-24T11:22:35.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Navy Federal is now stating, without specifying a date or time period, that they concluded their <em>investigation</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>days</em> ago and <em>performed</em> a <em>chargeback</em>. Now, it has been <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and NFCU states that I am again not receiving a provisional credit because they are waiting to see how the other bank and vendor will react."]},"sort":[10.075324,"16161971"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12918874","_score":9.6854515,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint regarding Chime 's mishandling of unauthorized transactions on my credit account and what I believe to be subsequent retaliatory treatment. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I submitted a dispute to Chime regarding XXXX fraudulent transactions totaling {$2900.00} charged to my Chime credit account ending in XXXX. These transactions were made without my knowledge, authorization, or consent and occurred in foreign locations where I was not present. The details are as follows : {$1200.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date/Time : XX/XX/year> at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXocation : So XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) Category : General services Card : XXXX {$590.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX Location : XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX ) Category : General services Card : XXXX {$1100.00} XXXX Date/Time : XX/XX/year> at XXXXXXXX XXXX Location : XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) Category : General shopping Card : XXXX I have no ties to these merchants or regions and received no goods or services from them. I acted promptly by reporting these as unauthorized merchant charges under the appropriate dispute resolution procedures. \n\nHowever, Chime denied my dispute via written communication ( Claim ID : XXXX ) after XXXX exact business days, stating that no billing error occurred. According to their notice : A review of our systems was performed in addition to information provided during the claim filing process. As applicable, we coordinate with other financial institutions, merchants, and networks as part of the claim review. \nDespite this vague language, Chime failed to provide any documentation, merchant evidence, or proof that I authorized the transactions. To my knowledge, no chargeback was initiated, and no effort was made to contact the merchants to verify the legitimacy of these purchases. I believe this is a clear violation of Regulation Z under the Truth in Lending Act, which outlines a creditors obligations to fully investigate billing errors and resolve disputes fairly. \n\nAfter receiving the denial, I reached out to Chime to request that the dispute be reasserted and to obtain further information regarding the denial. A supervisor informed me that they would not be able to refile the dispute or provide any additional information beyond what was outlined in the email from the Dispute Team. This response further indicates Chimes unwillingness to engage in a meaningful resolution of the issue, reinforcing the lack of transparency and accountability in their dispute process. \n\nFollowing the denial of my claim, I experienced a sudden downgrade in service. I had previously earned and used a Chime premium metal credit card, awarded through consistent transaction use within a specified timeframe and referral requirements. I had this metal card renewed at least once upon expiration. After filing my dispute, my card was reissued as a basic plastic card without explanation. This change occurred only after I exercised my consumer rights, and I believe this constitutes retaliatory behavior and potentially violates UDAAP standards ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ). \n\nThis is not an isolated incident. Chime has faced previous scrutiny and regulatory enforcement actions, including the CFPBs Administrative Proceeding File No. XXXX. My experience appears consistent with a larger pattern of noncompliance, insufficient consumer protection, and mistreatment following valid disputes. This reinforces my belief that their actions towards medenying my rightful dispute, failing to investigate properly, and retaliating against meare part of a broader issue of discriminatory and unfair business practices that have affected not only me but potentially other customers as well.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-10T22:11:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"73159","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12918874","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-04-10T22:01:39.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, Chime denied my dispute via written communication ( Claim ID : <em>XXXX</em> ) after <em>XXXX</em> exact business <em>days</em>, stating that no billing error occurred. According to their notice : A review of our systems was <em>performed</em> in addition to information provided during the claim filing process. As applicable, we coordinate with other financial institutions, merchants, and networks as part of the claim review."]},"sort":[9.6854515,"12918874"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12551940","_score":9.616087,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I submitted the original dispute on XX/XX/XXXX and Amex took their sweet time responding the first time. I can't imagine why since they decided to deny me based on a bogus tort claim. Which means they didn't need to contact the merchant or wait for their response in order to make a decision. When I checked their decision online they had closed my dispute and denied me without even providing a reason initially. So I appealed which required supporting documents that I couldn't add right away. For this reason the appeal was pending and I was directed to go into a chat in order to move the process along. The chat agent seemed confused but he said he would push the new dispute through. So I called their center to make sure the appeal went through and let them know that I had supporting documents and a formal letter I intended to upload in order to complete the process. In the meanwhile I received a postal letter from their dispute dept letting me know I had until the XXXX of XXXX to submit everything. I was able to complete my appeal with the necessary uploads by XX/XX/XXXX. But upon checking my 3 credit reports I had found out that they had already reported this same charge to the bureaus between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX without even a heads up that they had denied my dispute, again. I went to my online account and confirmed my suspicions that they wouldn't have even had time to investigate ; and again they did not list a denial reason at that time. I called AMEX and someone claiming they were the dispute dept told me I was turned down because of the same reason as before. I tried explaining that my reasons did not emphasize misdiagnosis in the appeal, but instead had to do with services expected and not performed when I was charged for essential emergency care and that was considered a billing error. And he told me to just give it up because they werent budging on their decision. I followed up by asking how AMEX expects that I would believe they actually reviewed the letter of appeal and the very large doc I had sent them and also had time to report me to the bureaus by the XXXX of XXXX since I only submitted to them on XX/XX/XXXX. Their billing statement also came in the mail by the XXXX w a closing date of XX/XX/XXXX and a few days after their same reason for denial finally made it to my house without further review of the new evidence. \n\nI disputed a charge of {$1500.00} posted to my American Express account on XX/XX/XXXX, from XXXX XXXX XXXX. The charge is invalid due to failure to render services as described, improper billing practices, and as a side note gross negligence in patient care. The Grounds for Chargeback are for Services Not Rendered & Improper Billing. \n\nThey are guilty of Failure to Provide Essential Emergency Care. In this case, my dog was in XXXX XXXX and required XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which were services XXXX failed to provide despite billing me for emergency medical treatment. XXXX oxygen adapter was not functional, and they failed to notify the transport service that my dog required oxygen, putting her life at further risk. The lead vet also failed to perform a proper XXXX XXXX to relieve my dogs XXXX which was affecting her XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nFurthermore, Incorrect & Unjustified Referral Based on Misleading Diagnosis was made. \nXXXX diagnosed my dog with XXXX XXXX and a XXXX, insisting that she required immediate XXXX XXXXXXXX at another hospital. However, when she arrived at XXXX XXXX XXXX, their specialists determined that she was NOT XXXX  and had NO XXXX. This means XXXX referral was based on a completely false premise, leading to unnecessary and costly procedures. This misdiagnosis led to unnecessary treatment planning and financial loss, as I was quoted $ XXXX {$20000.00} for XXXX that was never needed. \n\nXXXX also XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX failed to provide the correct referral information to the transport driver, resulting in a critical delay in medical care. The driver, who smelled of XXXX, was sent to the wrong hospital with no referral records, wasting precious time that could have been used for life-saving care. \n\nPredatory & Fraudulent Billing Practices are well evident. XXXX billed me for services they did not provide adequately and for a diagnosis that was entirely incorrect. Their failure to deliver proper emergency care resulted in avoidable financial losses and additional suffering for my pet. Most importantly, I was charged for a misrepresented serviceemergency stabilizationwhich was never properly performed. \n\nThis case is a clear Violation of Consumer Protections. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act and American Express ' dispute resolution policies, I have the right to dispute a charge when services were not provided as agreed, falsely represented, or improperly billed. VEGs failure to provide critical care and their false diagnosis meet these criteria. \n\nI requested AMEX show they actually reviewed and investigated the dispute appeal with fresh eyes and show me their supporting documentation pertaining to their second investigation. They were obligated to provide some sort of documentation when the company has denied my dispute twice already. I have the right to ask for docs they used to reach their decision. Amex should also provide a clear and plausible explanation as to why they denied my dispute the second time. Instead, they just used the same excuse to deny me again. I disagreed with their tort claim, and appealed the decision in writing, which should have given me another chance to provide evidence supporting my claim. However they denied my claim based on the same reason as before without even reviewing my new dispute or documents. The second time, I clearly emphasised my dispute is based on services not rendered as described, failure to provide critical care, improper billing practices and a violation of consumer rights. AMEX didn't even have time to investigate the new dispute before they shot it down, between the time I resubmitted and the time they reported the charge back to my credit bureaus. \n\nMay I also mention, the most recent billing statement sent w a closing date of XX/XX/XXXX mentions that this billing inquiry is still under investigation and that I should pay the minimum ( minus the amount being investigated ) by XX/XX/XXXX. However when I talked to the dispute Dept on XX/XX/XXXX they said the appeal was now closed and denied and the same was stated online when I checked XX/XX/XXXX. So as you can see AMEX is providing me with all sorts of conflicting information that's made to confuse at this point. Additionally, their billing statement provides a notice of EFT Error Resolution which mentions that in cases of error if I think my statement is wrong I can report a suspected error and its dollar amount, and they will investigate my complaint and correct any error promptly. An incorrect EFT includes an EFT to or from the consumer 's account that is not in accordance with the consumer 's instructions or the terms of the agreement. Examples of this include a merchant charging the wrong amount which is included in my dispute. Amex never once attempted to investigate the merchant 's billing errors, not once.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-20T04:51:25.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12551940","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-03-20T04:06:46.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The lead vet also failed to <em>perform</em> a proper <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> to relieve my dogs <em>XXXX</em> which was affecting her <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> \n\nFurthermore, Incorrect & Unjustified Referral Based on Misleading Diagnosis was made. \n<em>XXXX</em> diagnosed my dog with <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and a <em>XXXX</em>, insisting that she required immediate <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX at another hospital. However, when she arrived at <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, their specialists determined that she was NOT <em>XXXX</em>  and had NO <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[9.616087,"12551940"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3213038","_score":9.501756,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX - Our XXXX XXXX truck broke down near XXXX, XXXX, approximately four hours  away from home. It was towed to XXXX XXXX XXXX for repair. Discussions with XXXX at XXXX XXXX were to diagnose and repair the problem, investigating the lift pump first. We informed them of a 10 day vacation, using the truck, we had planned for XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - After no word from XXXX XXXX, we called for an update. They said they would not get to the truck until next week. As the seal is the most common cause for the symptoms the truck was displaying, we preemptively ordered the correct seal to be delivered to them just in case. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - After no word from XXXX XXXX, we called for an update. While they had not attempted any real diagnosis, they had recently received a seal and were planning to try it to fix the problem. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX called and said that they investigated and determined that the problem was with the Injection Pump. They attempted to replace the seal on the pump but when that did not work they replaced the entire injection pump ( available for {$800.00}, they charged us {$1600.00} for this part ). This part had been replaced approximately 25,000 miles ago so we were surprised to hear that this was the problem. We suggested the lift pump could be the problem but they assured us that they had looked at it and could not see any fault. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX told us the truck would be ready the morning of XX/XX/XXXX. We drove the 4 hours north to pick up the truck. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - ( XXXX ) The truck was not ready but they finished the repairs while we waited. \n( XXXX ) They charged us {$2600.00} for this repair. We paid, left with the truck and began driving home. Approximately 15 miles south of the mechanics location the truck broke down again with the same problem. \n( XXXX ) It was towed back to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nWe cancelled our vacation. \n\nNearly a month passes with no word from XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX/XXXX/XXXX - We called XXXX XXXX asking for a status on the repair and they told us they decided to send the truck to another mechanic who specializes in diesel engines, an additional 45 minutes away. \n\nNearly another month passes with no word from XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - We called XXXX XXXX asking for a status on the repair and they told us it had been moved to the new mechanic and had been repaired. XXXX XXXX did not take responsibility for the misdiagnosed repair or offer to return any portion of our money. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - We called the new mechanic, XXXX XXXX in XXXX, CA, and they told us the truck had been fixed. After a simple and inexpensive pressure test, they determined the problem was with the lift pump, a part XXXX XXXX assured us was not the cause. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - We drove the 5 hours up to XXXX to pick up the truck. It was determined that the lift pump was indeed bad. The repair cost was {$1300.00}, for a new lift pump and a new seal in the injection pump. \n\nThe work order at XXXX XXXX was in XXXX XXXX name as they asked them to take over their existing job. Unfortunately, XXXX required that we pay this bill before leaving with our truck. Prior to paying the bill, we called XXXX at XXXX XXXX to try and work with them to cover the cost. The conversation was civil, but XXXX would not take ownership of his mistakes, or work with us in any way. He refused to pay for the work order he submitted to XXXX. \n\nXXXX confirmed that while the lift pump was blowing the seal on the injection pump, the injection pump itself would not have gone bad because of the problem. The injection pump XXXX XXXX replaced was not bad, it only had 25k miles on the rebuild. Only the seal needed replacement. \n\nThere are a couple of things XXXX could have done to prevent this situation : A simple pressure test on the original lift pump would have confirmed that indeed that was the problem ( they did not perform this test ). It was the FIRST thing XXXX did. \nStop. While they were trying to do their best to help, they should have stopped when they didnt have the right tools to do the job. This cost everyone time and money on replacing a part we didnt need. \n\nWe were extremely patient and cooperative throughout the whole process, but waiting nearly two months for them just to move the truck to another mechanic is beyond a reasonable time frame. XXXX XXXX charged us a large amount of money yet failed to make any improvement to the original problem. And to add to our costs, we lost a vacation, had to take time off of work to accommodate shop hours , drive even further, and pay more money, to get the truck back. For these reasons, we are requesting a chargeback for the {$2600.00} they took for the ineffective repair. \n\nComments below are correspondence since the initial request to chargeback : XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX   letter of resolution : that XXXX XXXX cover XXXX bill ; by doing so, we will send them the difference ( as chargeback had already occurred ) and clear any issues with Citi. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - Upon signing in to our Citi account, saw that the XXXX XXXX chargeback had been reversed. We received no letter, or email communication on this matter. We had received a letter from Citi saying our email wasnt working, but we have had emails from other senders, so are not sure what the issue is, other than it must be on their end. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX - called Citi about above communication issue, she made a note that we were having communication issues, and should be able to get a rebuttal in by the new year. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX - emailed rebuttal to Citi XX/XX/XXXX - Citi closed our dispute citing a quality issue ( we did not receive an email, nor did we see this until logging in on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - called XXXX XXXX spoke to XXXX XXXX talked him through everything, reiterated last rebuttal email and he reopened the dispute with a different purpose as he thought it was more appropriate. Reopened under services not as described I noted we were only looking for the XXXX amount to be covered, we are not out to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - called XXXX after receiving an email for updated correspondence today. ( online correspondence was dated 1/10 and noted that they were closing the dispute due to it being outside the time frame window ). The first call was around 2pm when they told me that the dispute was closed due to quality of work not being something that can be disputed. Unfortunately, I failed to recall that this was the initial reason for the dispute and not the updated one. I called back around XXXX and was told first that they hadnt received an update from the XXXX, so when I mentioned the letter, XXXX reversed her statement and said that it was indeed because it was outside the window. As this was not our fault, I asked to reopen and she said they had the investigator has  the final word and that it was closed. I asked to speak to a supervisor as the communication issues were on Citis end, and out of my control. I should be getting a call in XXXX hours. XXXX did offer a {$200.00} credit plus {$100.00} cash back to help offset the disputed charge. We should absolutely be within the reasons of quality of work not described as they didnt fix the problem. Once again I noted that we are not out to screw them, just want the XXXX amount back. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - Citi Dispute Supervisor XXXX called me early afternoon. He has confirmed that they are indeed still investigating the partial chargeback ( for the XXXX bill amount ) under the revised service as not described appeal. He said they have reached out to XXXX XXXX who has until either XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, it was hard to hear, to respond. One concern is XXXX claims a letter sent to me about this, and I have no record of it either physically or electronically. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - called Citi to follow up as havent seen anything via mail/email/online about the follow up dispute. Rep ( XXXX? ) that I spoke to said all was closed until I mentioned the XXXX conversations and then she said there was a note about that. So we connected with a Supervisor XXXX XXXX ( Sr Account Manager ), who is filing a complaint about the XX/XX/XXXX call and investigating as it shouldnt have happened that way. He said because they didnt receive any signed authorization letter from us ( never sent/emailed by citi ) they couldnt investigate it under the new reason ( that would allow them to call XXXX to have them verify that XXXX XXXX didnt do the job they should have and been able to do ). So we are past the date. He has extended a {$100.00} cash credit and a {$100.00} refund on our card for troubles/mea culpa ( cant remember the words he used ) - I accepted only under the premise that it doesnt affect the potential for us to receive the full credited amount. \nNext move : Supervisor will review the calls, etc, and follow-up with me about any further info. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - follow-up call as hadnt heard anything. XXXX emailed XXXX XXXX about re-opening the case, but only he can do as I accepted the XXXX XXXX+XXXX refund. I mentioned that I only agreed to that money if it didnt affect me re-opening and receiving the larger amount. XXXX said to expect a phone call from XXXX and that she would do a follow up too. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - No follow ups from Citi as of yet. Emailed follow up to XXXX XXXX XXXX via billingdisputes email ) with the XXXX receipt and another plea for them to make things right and refund us the XXXX amount. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX - No follow ups from Citi as of yet. I called ( specifically to speak to XXXX XXXX ) and spoke to XXXX ( after a 40 minute hold while they transferred me to the US branch ). Then to XXXX in XXXX, and after an additional 10 minutes was told to expect a call from XXXX in 24-48 hours as he was on another call and I wouldnt speak to anyone else as he has the history. XXXX said I promise he will call. I provided my cell for him to call as they had my work number. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - no phone call from Citi as of yet. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - never received the call back from XXXX XXXX. Received followup mail ( in the last few days ) dated XX/XX/XXXX claiming the dispute is closed and they cant do anything about it. And I will need to sue other means to obtain credit.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-04-16T00:21:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94501","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3213038","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2019-04-15T23:51:59.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Comments below are correspondence since the initial request to <em>chargeback</em> : XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> - <em>XXXX</em>   letter of resolution : that <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> cover <em>XXXX</em> bill ; by doing so, we will send them the difference ( as <em>chargeback</em> had already occurred ) and clear any issues with Citi. \n\nXX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> - Upon signing in to our Citi account, saw that the <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>chargeback</em> had been reversed. We received no letter, or email communication on this matter."]},"sort":[9.501756,"3213038"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2558274","_score":9.211871,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX As of the XX/XX/XXXX I am unable to access my money. <P/>XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear After reviewing your PayPal account, we 've determined there is excessive risk involved in doing business with you. According to XXXX XXXX your business ( you initially installed - XXXX ) is in \" dissolved '' status. We 'd like to begin parting ways in a manner that is least disruptive to your business. However, you 'll still be able to use a PayPal account for personal use. <P/>The PayPal accounts are set up for one Legal Entity only. A new PayPal account should be created for the new company. <P/><P/>Your right to appeal : We always perform a thorough investigation before deciding to initiate the closure of an account. However, we appreciate that from time to time misunderstandings can happen. If you wish, you can appeal our decision. You can do so by logging into your PayPal account and sending us a message on our Contact page. Your account balance during the account closure period : This decision means we must oversee the appropriate movement of any money currently in your PayPal account balance. A gradual approach to account closure allows us to part ways, while considering any liabilities that may arise. Our aim is to review any valid buyer claims lodged against you. We must allow enough time for claims to be filed as these can take several months to be reported and resolved. How will the process work? 1. We 'll hold any money currently in your account in accordance with sub-sections ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) below. We do this because it provides sufficient time for most claims, such as chargebacks, to be filed by other parties. These claims can result in financial loss. If your account balance is below zero, you 'll have to settle the amount owing on your account to avoid further action. 2. Our first review at 30 days from the date of this email will calculate our exposure and we 'll release any excess funds to you at that time for withdrawal. We 'll communicate this to you at the time. This review can result in 3 different outcomes as detailed in sub-sections ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) below. We 'll always communicate the outcome of our reviews to you. 1. We 'll release your entire remaining balance to you for withdrawal. Please note that if you choose not to withdraw the money at that point we reserve the right to re-coup any money at the next review ; or 2. we 'll release a part of your remaining balance to you. If this is the case we 'll inform you about how much money can be withdrawn. We 'll then conduct another review 30 days later that will repeat the process detailed under sub-section 1-3 ; or 3. we wo n't release any funds to you if we deem our exposure to be greater than or equal to your available balance. Your account may be reviewed up to 5 times ; at 30 day intervals until day 180 from the date of this email. If any money remains in your account at day 180 it will be made available for withdrawal at that point. Accounts with a balance owing to PayPal : If your account shows an amount owing to us, you must add funds to ensure that the balance returns to zero. Please note that we reserve the right to recover the amount by legal means. A copy of our User Agreement can be found by clicking 'Legal Agreements ' at the bottom of any PayPal page. Our right to close your PayPal account, and the retention of funds, are covered in our User Agreement under sections 10.2 and 10.3. <P/><P/>Yours sincerely, XXXX PayPal","date_sent_to_company":"2017-06-25T14:52:05.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2558274","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2017-06-25T14:34:30.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<P/><P/>Your right to appeal : We always <em>perform</em> a thorough <em>investigation</em> before deciding to initiate the closure of an account. However, we appreciate that from time to time misunderstandings can happen. If you wish, you can appeal our decision. You can do so by logging into your PayPal account and sending us a message on our Contact page."]},"sort":[9.211871,"2558274"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20814305","_score":8.908728,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Company this complaint is about : Goldman Sachs Bank USA XXXX Apple Card issuer ) Related company ( merchant ) : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I was charged {$7500.00} on my Apple Card ( issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA ) by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ), a tax resolution firm in XXXX, California. I hired XXXX to provide IRS tax resolution services and up to two years of tax preparation for a total tax liability of {$29000.00}. \n\nXXXX failed to deliver the services I paid for. Their only actions were filing two routine IRS authorization forms ( Form 2848, Power of Attorney, and Form 8821, Tax Information Authorization ) standard intake paperwork that takes minutes to complete. XXXX did not negotiate with the IRS, did not file any resolution petition ( Offer in Compromise, Penalty Abatement, etc. ), did not prepare any tax returns, and did not achieve any reduction or resolution of my tax liability. \n\nXXXX demanded an additional {$8900.00} via wire transfer just 15 days after charging {$7500.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( \" Attorney Staff Manager '' at XXXX ) emailed me wire transfer instructions requesting {$8900.00} be sent to a XXXX XXXX  account. The shift from credit card to wire transfer, a method with no consumer dispute protections, is a hallmark of predatory schemes. I refused to pay. They said they would not file my XXXX taxes and I would have to do so on my own. \n\nThe IRS confirmed XXXX never contacted them. Alarmed by the additional {$8900.00} demand, I contacted the IRS directly to verify what XXXX had done on my behalf. The IRS confirmed it had no record of XXXX XXXX XXXX contacting them or requesting any documents related to my account. During our initial joint call with the IRS, I had personally requested a 30-day extension while on hold. When XXXX later called me, they were not even aware of this extension, proving they were not tracking my case or communicating with the IRS despite claiming to represent me. \n\nI had to hire a replacement to do the work XXXX was paid to do. On XX/XX/XXXX, I hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX, XXXX  ) and paid them {$1200.00} to prepare my XXXX tax return, a service that was explicitly included in my {$7500.00} agreement with XXXX. \n\nGoldman Sachs denied my dispute twice without adequate explanation and has withheld the merchant 's evidence from me. I have filed two prior disputes with Goldman Sachs regarding this charge. Both were denied without providing me with the specific evidence or reasoning relied upon to conclude the charge was valid. I formally requested a copy of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX response and supporting documentation from XXXX XXXX so that I could meaningfully respond. To date, I have not received this information. I am being asked to defend myself against a charge while being denied access to the evidence used against me. Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ) ( B ) ( ii ), the creditor must provide a written explanation of the reasons for its determination, along with documentation of evidence relied upon. This has not been done. I have now filed a third appeal ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) as a formal Billing Error Notice under the Fair Credit Billing Act. \n\nI note that in XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB ordered XXXX XXXX and Goldman Sachs to pay over {$89.00} XXXX for systematic failures in handling Apple Card customer disputes, including failures to investigate disputes in accordance with federal law. My experience mirrors the patterns identified in that enforcement action : my disputes appear to have been resolved in favor of the merchant based on the existence of a signed contract, without any meaningful investigation into whether the contracted services were actually performed. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX business practices also raise independent concerns. Their contract includes a clause that deems the full {$7500.00} fee \" immediately earned in full '' if the client contacts the IRS directly, designed to prevent clients from discovering that XXXX is doing no work. It also includes a {$1200.00} \" dispute processing fee '' for any client who initiates a chargeback, designed to discourage consumers from exercising their legal rights. Furthermore, XXXX provided me with a link to download my completed, signed contract that link now returns a 40 4 error. XXXX is denying me access to my own signed agreement, raising serious concerns about evidence spoliation. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, and XXXX contain multiple complaints from other consumers d\n\nescribing the same pattern of large upfront fees with minimal or no work performed. I am struggling financially with this {$7500.00} balance on my Apple Card. I paid for services that were never delivered, I was pressured for nearly {$9000.00} more, and I had to pay another\nprofessional {$1200.00} to do what XXXX was already paid to do. I am requesting a full reversal of this charge.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-31T17:45:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20814305","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2026-03-31T17:16:30.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My experience mirrors the patterns identified in that enforcement action : my disputes appear to have been resolved in favor of the merchant based on the existence of a signed contract, without any meaningful <em>investigation</em> into whether the contracted services were actually <em>performed</em>. \n\nXXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> business practices also raise independent concerns."]},"sort":[8.908728,"20814305"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":42,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":42}]}},"product":{"doc_count":42,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":12},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":7},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":3},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":4},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":42,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":18,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":18}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":5},{"key":"Cashing a check","doc_count":1},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Billing disputes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money was not available when promised","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":42,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":38},{"key":"No","doc_count":4}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":42,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":37},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":42,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":42}]}},"company":{"doc_count":42,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":6},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":4},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":4},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":3},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":42,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"NY","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"RI","doc_count":2},{"key":"SC","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2},{"key":"HI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":42,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":15},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":42,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[8.908728,"20814305"]}}}