Product: Credit card or prepaid card

I initiated a dispute for a charge on XXXX for {$1600.00} through the online portal ; the dispute date is acknowledged by the company. 
On either XXXX or XXXX I was granted a temporary credit for the charge pending the investigation. 
On XXXX I was notified that the charge was determined to be valid and that the credit would be reversed. 

No communication was received in the meantime. My billing cycle is on the first of the month, meaning that two billing cycles passed after the conclusion of the current cycle at time of complaint, as well as most of a fourth before the dispute was resolved, totaling 109 days if I count correctly.

Comment for 1026.13 - Billing Error Resolution Paragraph 13 ( c ) ( 2 ) 1. Time for resolution. The phra

se two complete billing cycles means two actual billing cycles occurring after receipt of the billing error notice, not a measure of time equal to two billing cycles. For example, if a creditor on a monthly billing cycle receives a billing error notice mid-cycle, it has the remainder of that cycle plus the next two full billing cycles to resolve the error.

2. Finality of error resolution procedure. A creditor must comply with the error resolution procedures and complete its investigation to determine whether an error occurred within two complete billing cycles as set forth in 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ). Thus, for example, 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ) prohibits a creditor from reversing amounts previously credited for an alleged billing error even if the creditor obtains evidence after the error resolution time period has passed indicating that the billing error did not occur as asserted by the consumer. Similarly, if a creditor fails to mail or deliver a written explanation setting forth the reason why the billing error did not occur as asserted, or otherwise fails to comply with the error resolution procedures set forth in 1026.13 ( f ), the creditor generally must credit the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable, to the consumer 's account. However, if a consumer receives more than one credit to correct the same billing error, 1026.13 does not prevent a creditor from reversing amounts it has previously credited to correct that error, provided that the total amount of the remaining credits is equal to or more than the amount of the error and that the consumer does not incur any fees or other charges as a result of the timing of the creditor 's reversal. For example, assume that a consumer asserts a billing error with respect to a {$100.00} transaction and that the creditor posts a {$100.00} credit to the consumer 's account to correct that error during the time period set forth in 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ). However, following that time period, a merchant or other person honoring the credit card issues a {$100.00} credit to the consumer to correct the same error. In these circumstances, 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ) does not prohibit the creditor from reversing its {$100.00} credit once the {$100.00} credit from the merchant or other person has posted to the consumer 's account. 


I would also argue that the documentation provided didn't not fulfil the obligations laid out in 1026.13 ( f ). Subsection 1 states : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; The attached document offers no reasoning for it's decision, and is simply a boilerplate letter with documents from the other party attached.

From the official interpretation of 13 ( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred : ii. Nondelivery of property or services. In conducting an investigation of a billing error notice alleging the nondelivery of property or services under 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ), the creditor shall not deny the assertion unless it conducts a reasonable investigation and determines that the property or services were actually delivered, mailed, or sent as agreed. 

I contested that the terms outlined in the service agreement were never delivered, namely that the merchant would make every effort to reach a reasonable outcome, and yet when I needed them to make a single phone call they refused. The verbal explanation I was given today ( XXXX ) was that because the merchant had a non-refund clause there was nothing the credit company could do. This flies in the face of the above guidelines that the claim only be denied after a reasonable investigation, determines that services were delivered, and then the results of that investigation be explained to the consumer.