Product: Credit card

Obj : Pay Bill on XX/XX/2024 from XXXX, XXXX for XXXX based account while traveling for XXXX days. 

At XXXX XXXX XXXX time XXXX. Log on to chase.com 2. Enter username/password.

3. Page asks for One-Time Password to be sent via SMS or phone call.

Neither option is available as I am traveling internationally ( 1 week abroad ). Day pass from XXXX XXXX XXXX costs $ XXXX. This is effectively a hidden fee, borne by the consumer but paid to a third party. 

Please note that SMS is fundamentally insecure for XXXX 

Page also offers " call Chase '' at XXXX, but how do you call Chase while traveling? 

4. Log in to XXXX year old XXXX account. 
XXXX offers free international calling to XXXX toll free numbers. 

Issue 1/Concern 1 : Should Chase be required to offer XXXX for XXXX?

4a. There is no prompt for XXXX This is a general line. 
On the first call, it asked me to verify my credit card number twice. ( Why?! ) After that, to verify my identity, it asked me to provide the credit card number of *another* credit card that the bank has with me. *Why must I have greater mind and wallet share with Chase bank for a fundamentally insecure procedure?! * On my second call ( to test the system ), I insisted that I verify using another method, which was two security questions, one of which asks where you lived when the SSN was issued ( SSN were recently breached, and it is possible to reverse engineer a state from a SSN. This seems like a lot of trouble for dropping email for XXXX ) Issue 2 : AT A MINIMUM, Chase should market on their website that ( a ) travel notices are no longer needed, but ( b ) you should take the numbers of all of your accounts- even the ones you don't usually use- with you so that you can verify your self for an XXXX that is fundamentally broken. 

5. After verification, the third option for " I have a code '' does not work. Function is temporarily unavailable.

6. Customer Service Rep transfers to Web support. Unfortunately, process took XXXX m, and I have a meeting. CSR suggested clearing cache and cookies just before transfer. 

Repeated process at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX on XX/XX/2024. 

This time, used XXXX instead of XXXX. XXXX points to a different verification number XXXX. 
CSR asks me to close XXXX ( why ) and rejoin XXXX. ( Have they never heard of incognito browsers? ) This option works. 

However, because I am traveling abroad and this is ridiculous, I insist that we make XXXX  work. 

CSR says I should reset cache and cookies. 

Issue 3 : You don't reset cache and cookies for the entire browser unless you absolutely have to. 

I insist on WHICH site would you have me clear. The sign-on page is secure.chase.com, but rep says www.chase.com. 

Process now works in XXXX. 

I didn't let the issue drop saying, I know need to know why you are telling me to clear my entire browser to fix an issue ( why wasn't it the default to only clear one site 's data?! ) This could be a problem for the overall browsing experience for OTHER WEBSITES. I don't live and die by only using banking on my computer. I have a job. 

I then insist on talking to a manager and getting the runbook fixed. Call lasted XXXX. 
The statements, near the end was : 1 ) " Can't transfer to a manager ''. I mentioned that I plan to file with the CFPB ( after a similar action with the FCC ). 

2 ) Does come back, manager is busy, call again. Also gives story of " we just assumed that you could figure it out. '' Lipservice doublespeak that might work on employees who can't complain, but not on a consumer, and definitely not a consumer that spends $ XXXX on a Chase Sapphire Reserve card for XXXX service. 

Issue 3 : Force Chase to refund every sapphire customer who has traveled abroad 1hour of time or {$12.00} for mobile charges abroad. Round it up to {$100.00}. 

Fundamentally, they need to update their runbooks to not do stupid things. ( Also, why would I remove XXXX  on my own when the login website is secure.chase.com? Makes no sense ). 

It's also true that after clearing one set of cookies for one site, the phone number offered was different.