Product: Credit card or prepaid card

Dispute Barclays Bank Jet Blue credit card charges related to Perfect Body Image on XX/XX/XXXX {$5000.00} and XX/XX/XXXX {$5000.00}. 

Per Barclays My case numbers XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The basis of my dispute is that the company egregiously mispresented the services that I would be receiving. My partner and I were told we were going to receive lase based services, while it subsequently found out after the advance payment was made and partial services were provided that the services were actually XXXX XXXX which we told the saleswomen prior to signing the agreement and paying we were not interested in. 

Barclays Bank had closed my initial dispute in favor of the merchant solely on the merchant providing a sales agreement, which I informed Barclays was based on misrepresented services. I sent my dispute on XX/XX/XXXX and dispute credit was posted to my account on XX/XX/XXXX. Without notification Barclays reversed the chargeback on XX/XX/XXXX and posted the original charges back to account. I requested via a letter on XX/XX/XXXX that my original dispute be reopened and provided additional support for my claim that the merchant misrepresented its services to us ( a 3rd party complaint that had a very similar experience ). Barclays Dispute Center per a letter date XX/XX/XXXX received XX/XX/XXXX denied my by request to reopen my dispute or submit to it MasterCard arbitration, which effectively eliminated my ability to further negotiate a settlement or have MasterCard arbitration consider my dispute. Barclay managers have stated that unless I have on merchant letterhead that it essentially misrepresented and lied about it services, in order to get me to sign the agreement and prepay for the services. Without this proof they would not take the time or incur the costs to have it submitted to arbitration. I believe this requirement is unrealistic and in reality is unattainable. However, Barclays said that it is the threshold required by MasterCard guidelines, which I do not know to be fact.

My complaints with Barclays include : I believe Barclays breached its fiduciary responsible to protect me the cardholder from charges stemming from misrepresentation/lies. I believe my complaint should have been enough to have the dispute closed in my favor. I then provided a 3rd party complaint, which should have at least resulted in : my case to be reopened, consider negotiating a partial settlement, especially since less than half of the services were provided prior to us discovering we were subject to a bait and switch tactic to sign and prepay for the services or submitted to arbitration being that could not properly address this claim due to either incompetence or self-imposed guidelines. 

Due to Barclays effective refusal to further support me regarding the egregious misrepresentation and lies regarding my dispute with this merchant, I am now having to sue the merchant in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, NY on XX/XX/XXXX, with a cap of {$5000.00} and requested the dispute be reinstated on my account pending the result of the case. Dispute department personnel originally told me that by doing so, they could put a chargeback on my account pending the outcome of the case. However, after I followed the directions to submit the same, Barclays refused to reopen the case to issue the chargeback and said will not do anything further. 

These following issues may be breaches in the credit agreement terms or state guidelines : I had asked Barclays more than once for a copy of what the merchant submitted in response to my dispute, including the sales agreement ( as mine is illegible and the Company was unwilling to provide a clean copy ), which is its stated policy. I never received any documentation. 

I was also told I would receive notifications for any decisions made. I did not, I only found out the dispute reversed in the merchant favor and the case closed after receiving emails that my account was over the limit, as a result of charges being restated. 

This dispute also lagged over several month and may have not exceeded established guidelines that may have further impacted the outcome, which I would also like reviewed.