Product: Credit card or prepaid card

An impartial review of any complaints submitted to a company is what a consumer who submits a complaint to the CFPB however, when the identical company and the unrelated complainant is assigned to the identical representative to review a mater the independent is marred. { It is what a high ranking officials calls circuit shopping. } It is highly questionable to assign the same individual to the same customer, so I ask my previous and present complaints be overturned. It appears that my complaints are assigned to the same person ( XXXX ) who denies each claim. XXXX rejects my claims by means of inaccurate accounts of the events and manipulating the standards of dispute resolution so as to favor the merchant. Congress passed TILA in XXXX to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him [ and ] to avoid the uninformed use of credit. 15 U.S.C. 1601 ( a ). In XXXX, Congress amended TILA through the passage of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices. Section 302 of the FCBA, Pub. Law 93495 ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Codified at 15 U.S.C. 1601 ( a ) Under the FCBA, as implemented in Regulation Z, credit card issuers have two separate obligations that may apply to merchant disputes. First, under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ), issuers must investigate and resolve certain billing errors, including a transaction reflected on a periodic statement involving goods or services that the consumer ( or representative ) did not accept or was not delivered or was not delivered as agreed. Comment 13 ( a ) ( 3 ) -1 of the official staff commentary ( commentary ) for Regulation Z provides these examples for this type of billing error : the appearance on a periodic statement of a purchase when the consumer refused to take delivery of the goods because the goods did not comply with the contract ; delivery of property or services different from that agreed upon ; delivery of the wrong quantity ; late delivery ; or delivery to the wrong location. A credit card issuers compliance obligation under 1026.13 ( a ) is triggered when the consumer sends a written notice to the issuer within 60 days after the issuer provides the periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error. 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( b ) ( 1 ) The consumer is not required to notify the merchant and attempt to resolve the dispute, assuming the consumer did not accept the goods. 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 CFPB Official interpretation of Paragraph 13 ( a ) ( 3 ). I reasoned with XXXX that was not delivered as agreed and it did not comply with the contract. XXXX contends that the bumper was delivered damaged and was sent back this caused a delay. I stated that was not true. I called the company and they said they have no record of this bumper. I further reminded her of the fact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misrepresented a document claiming it was an authorization to work on the vehicle ; in actuality it was a document stating I was satisfied with the work. The false and deceptive evidence would satisfy a reasonable minded person that XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regularly participate in dishonest and fraudulent business practices. It is obvious to a duck that the dates on this document are several days apart in addition the date the vehicle was delivered several weeks earlier evincing deceptive business practices. I received a copy of that document from Capital One several weeks after I filed a dispute and requested the information. 
Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, I have the right to withhold payment of the disputed amount while the dispute investigation was pending. Capital One XXXX did not withhold payment and credit my account while she investigated the dispute. XXXX predetermined biased opinion decided against crediting my account, and did not afford my right to withhold payment until the matter was resolved ; this is in violation of 12 CFR 1026.13 ( d ) ( 1 ). 
XXXX requested information she knew did not exist nor could be produced without manufacturing it. A reasonable minded person would know that after repairs to any object one may only  SPECULATE what it would take to repair it. An estimate from another body shop other than the submitted ALL STATE ESTIMATE taken during the time of the incident and XXXX XXXX XXXX is all that can accurately depict the damages and offer a precise estimate including time ; any other estimates would be speculation. XXXX should demonstrate some empathy and consider herself in this situation with these criminal minded law breakers and XXXX XXXX XXXX. Until a billing error is resolved, I am entitled to withhold payment to the card issuer for the amount owed the merchant and any associated finance charges, and the issuer is prohibited from reporting negative information about the consumers credit standing ( for example, to a consumer reporting agency ) because the consumer failed to pay this amount. When I pointed out the flaws in her decision to uphold the {$500.00} deductible she indicated regulation importance or irrelevance or otherwise simply shrugged it off. The regulations for a dispute are found and these regulations are uniform and each creditor are bound by its undeviating guidelines. 
XXXX informs me she was assigned also to the {$3800.00} dispute for an air conditioning unit. I said that is interesting as she was assigned to each complaint mentioned and she unscrupulously denied each as she manipulated the contents of the investigation so as to favor the merchants. Capital One and Master Card have determined that the AC Unit does not qualify for reimbursing as they have defined it a permanent fixture. The term permanent fixture is unconstitutionally vague and is broad in scope. I have submitted documentation regarding my position. The issue is the reason for denial the term permanent fixture any other rejoinder on the matter is closed as card issuer ( s ) had an opportunity to include this in their initial denial, as such the only issues is the term permanent fixture. XXXX is and should declare herself to be disqualified to review any of my complaints because of possible bias or personal interest. I feel any decision XXXX made should be investigated to determine if she observed the regulations or her on selfish interest. 
XXXX stated she would be seeking information from the credit bureau ( s ) regarding the issue of 61 point drop in my credit score.  XX/XX/XXXX XXXX stated she was not authorized to provide any information on my credit score even though she sought and received such information. She was reminded that she said she would provide this information and she refused, citing she would forward the contact information so I would contact the credit bureau ( s ). This was not the promise. XXXX rely on the CFPB does not take any immediate action. XXXX, Master Card and Capital One gross regulatory violation will perhaps one day be fully investigated but not today so they do not respect CFPB or dispute regulations as described above. I informed her I would be seeking a court decision in the future as the evidence as stated above and in prior complaints prove irregularities regarding regulation observance and prejudiced dispute resolutions favoring the merchant. XXXX response that is my right and is there anything else. I said no thank you and good bye. 

It is obvious that Capital One and their representative ( s ) refuse to  comply with current regulations and further have demonstrated prejudice to me a customer. In addition a reasonable minded person is a " thoughtful observer rather than... a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person. '' Finally, a reasonable person is able to appreciate the significance of the facts in light of relevant legal standards and judicial practice and can discern whether any appearance of impropriety is merely an illusion. One of the fundamental rights of consumer is that he is entitled to a fair investigation in a fair tribunal, and that fairness requires an absence of actual bias or prejudice in the investigation of the case. The right to a fair and impartial investigation is fundamental to the me the consumer ; fundamental to the dispute process and it fosters the public 's confidence in the impartiality investigations over which they manage.