Product: Credit card or prepaid card

On and/or around XX/XX/XXXX, the Complainant discovered an erroneous charge on the Barclay account for the amount of {$71.00}, made on XX/XX/XXXX, from merchant. 

Therefore, Complainant opened a dispute claim through credit card Dispute Department ( Case # : XXXX ). Complainant contents that merchant erroneously charged Complainants Mastercard {$71.00}, for a service that was under a false account and under an address in error. In fact, according to merchants Customer Care/Services determined that the account was not established and was non-existent and should not have generated any charges for the non-existent account and against Complainant. During repeated phone conversations between the merchants various operators, merchant stated to refund Complainant {$71.00} immediately and/or by XX/XX/XXXX. 

Notwithstanding, merchant had failed to refund the Complainant for said {$71.00} and as promised by the merchant. Based upon a priori circumstances, merchant is a complex service and comprised of various sectors and levels when faced with customer service. According to merchant, there are more than one customer service representative and more than several sectors to each merchants client. Therefore, it is common for merchant to make a simple error as information is mixed up, through various channels in the business service sector. Merchant contents that once an error is identified through its quality control department, merchant will make all necessary adjustments to correct the error. 

In this case, the error was discovered by Complainant however, merchant failed to make proper correction/s for their own error and failed to refund Complainants Mastercard ( {$71.00} ). As Complainant presented this matter to the merchant, merchant stated that a refund would be provided within a week and/or up to a months time. Despite merchants statement/s, merchant NEVER refunded Complainant.

Therefore, Complainant opened a dispute claim with Respondent Mastercard Dispute Services in an effort to rightfully reverse the erroneous charge/s back to merchant. Respondent credit card dispute investigated Complainants claim and during a phone conversation on XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent investigator requested any proof that service was not rendered on the account and that Complainant did not authorize any service on the account. 

Hence, on XX/XX/XXXX Complainant provided Respondents Dispute Department with the following to support Complainants claim/s thereof, EXHIBIT 1 - Renters contract Complainant resided in XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX and moved to XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX EXHIBIT 2 - Utility Bills show that Complainant resided at an address of XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Complainant moved from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, evidence shows that Complainant NEVER resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX as merchant wrongfully claim/s, EXHIBIT 2 - Utility Bills show that Complainant resided at an address of XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Complainant moved from address on XX/XX/XXXX ), EXHIBIT 3 - Text messages show that Complainant refused service at address in error, XXXX  XXXX XXXX, EXHIBIT 3a - Recorded phone conversations between Complainant and Merchant Merchant admitted error and promised to reimburse charge for {$71.00}, EXHIBIT 4 On XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant provided Respondent with details proving that Merchant was in error and charged Complainants account based on frivolous claim/s, and, EXHIBIT 5 On XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant provided Respondent with additional information details proving that Merchant was in error and charged Complainants account based on frivolous claim/s. 

The documented evidence provided by the Complainant and delivered to Respondent Dispute Department, Respondent did take into consideration supporting documentation and failed to include the evidence that would disprove merchants claim/s and support Complainants position in the case overall. Evidence provided by the Complainant such as ; Complainants Renters Agreement, Utility Bills and Text Messages prove that Complainant did not authorize to service the address in question ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Text Messages, Recorded Phone call conversation/s between the merchant and the Complainant prove that Complainant did not authorize and/or refused any service at the address in question yet, the merchant proceeded to create and generate a bill as if service were rendered at the error address from XXXX of XXXX and through XX/XX/XXXX. During recorded statement/s between Complainant and/or merchants service operator/s, merchant admitted that merchant was responsible for the error and merchant would reimburse Complainant {$71.00} on and/or before XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, merchant admitted that merchant mistakenly billed the Complainant {$71.00} identified a wrong address of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

According to the Respondents Dispute Department, by conjecture it appears that during Respondents investigation into the dispute claim, merchant purposely misled and provided false information to Respondents despite evidence gathered and collected by Complainant that would prove otherwise. At any regard, merchants tort feasance represent a level of depravity and prevarication in this case. Therefore, Complainant has followed through and opened a separate Consumer fraud case against merchant and currently seeking a third-party assistance into this separate case matter. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence to support Complainants claim, Barclays Dispute Department closed the dispute case based on merchants terms and conditions. Notwithstanding, the Respondent failed to take into consideration the preeminent factors and circumstances of the case. Instead, Respondent Dispute Department based their determination on a non sequitur in reference to merchants terms and conditions. Furthermore, on the basis of Respondent 's determination, the " merchant 's terms and conditions '' DO NOT SUPPORT MERCHANT 'S CLAIM WHATSOEVER! THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT MERCHANT CREATED AND ENACTED UPON A FALSIFIED ACCOUNT AND/OR " ACCOUNT IN ERROR '' THAT WAS USED TO WRONGFULLY CHARGE AGAINST CLIENT AND ILLEGALLY TAKE CLIENT 'S MONIES UNDER FALSE PRETENSE/S. Hence, Respondent 's reference to merchant 's terms and conditions do not support nor satisfy any reasonable reasoning to disprove Complainant 's claim and/or " close '' Complainant 's dispute case thereof and/or hereof.

Although Complainant provided the Respondents Dispute Department with viable evidence in support of Complainant, the Respondent failed to follow the basic standard of principles when evaluating, analyzing in determining a justifiable decision based upon preeminent factors and/or viable evidence to consider in parity. Complainant admonishes the fact that a decision that is based upon nonpareil terms and conditions only presents a level of quandary to the investigating party ( Respondents Dispute Department, et. al. ) and opens a grievance pertaining to ( but not limited to ) ethical and/or moral conduct under merchant fair business practices and standards, under Federal and State regulatory statutes thereof and/or hereof. With respect to investigating any and/or all fraudulent claim/s, careful attention must be given to the strict procedural requirements under Federal regulatory mandates that involve the investigative processes and/or procedural practices overall. Concomitant to Federal and State guidelines against fraudulent charges by the merchant, a decision that is proven to be nonpareil and/or based upon frivolous reasoning corollary may and/or may not impede upon the Consumers rights overall.

( Note : Merchant is engaging in illegal activity under falsified pretense by charging and taking monies from Client. ) Complainant asked merchant to disengage in illegal, fraudulent charges against complainants account and to lawfully return both credit/s of each at {$71.00} ( combined total of {$140.00} ) back to complainants Mastercard account and owed back to the complainant.