Product: Credit card

Barclays Credit has violated the Fair Credit Billing Act regarding my credit card transaction dispute involving merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, for a purchase totaling {$560.00}. I paid for services the merchant did not deliver and thus, on XX/XX/23, I contested this charge via phone call to Barclays at XXXXcst. I then notified the merchant via email at XXXXcst on XX/XX/23, that because they had not delivered the services I purchased, I would need to be refunded for my purchase. 

Only AFTER I notified Barclays to dispute/cancel the transaction, and AFTER I notified the merchant of my request for refund, did the merchant deliver via email at XXXXcst on XX/XX/23, 3 of the 5 items that were part of my order. The other 2 items which were services ( XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX ) were never rendered. Despite this, Barclays sided with the merchant 's No Refund Policy and took the merchant 's screenshot of having delivered via email 3 out of 5 items purchased, as proof that the merchant had fulfilled the entire 5 item order and was due payment. 

Barclays determined that I owed payment to a merchant who did not deliver services, and in doing so violated the Fair Credit Billing Act by : 1. failing to perform a proper investigation ( & not requiring the merchant to provide time stamped proof that file items sent were delivered within agreed upon service time frame, nor confirming the other 2 items comprising my order were actually delivered ) 2. failing to consider the evidence I provided 3. permanently reinstating the charge that was previously removed, 4. refusing to provide an adequate written explanation of its decision and supporting documents to justify the reinstated charge, ( the documents Barclays provided me with from the merchant were screenshots that did not accurately display a chronological timeline of correspondence, nor did the screenshots show messages in full ) 5. continuing to demand payment of the charge and associated interest and fees. 

On XX/XX/23 I uploaded a pdf of my email correspondence with the merchant to my Barclays customer account portal for review, per the Dispute Team 's request. Had this actually been read and reviewed Barclays Dispute Team would have seen first hand the merchant 's deceptive business practices and realized that I had been scammed. Instead, Barclays sided with the merchant. 

I made multiple phone calls to Barclays between XXXX and XXXX explaining to Customer Service Reps the situation and detailing what happened with this merchant/transaction, and each time was told that my case would be reviewed again. I was told that given the details I should not owe payment for services I did not receive, or for items that were delivered after I canceled the transaction, despite previous rulings by the Dispute Team. 

On XX/XX/23 I faxed a pdf of my correspondence with the merchant and highlighted timestamps to ( XXXX ) XXXX, a fax number provided to me by a Customer Service Rep. When I called back several days later to check the investigation/receipt status, I was told the Dispute Team did not know where or if my documents had been received. Another fax number was provided to me as a result. 

On XX/XX/23 I faxed a pdf of my correspondence with the merchant this time with both highlighted timestamps and commentary annotations to ( XXXX ) XXXX. I also faxed a screenshot of my XXXX phone record from XX/XX/23 showing my phone call to Barclays Customer Service at XXXXcst, as proof that I canceled the transaction BEFORE the merchant emailed 3 of the 5 items I purchased later that evening at XXXXcst. My timestamped/highlighted pdf showed the merchant sent these items at XXXX/cst on XX/XX/23, and that the other 2 services comprising my order had not been rendered. 

Despite all of this, Barclays still determined that the merchant did not violate their No Refund Policy because " they fulfilled services '' and were owed payment. Barclays also advised - in no uncertain terms - that to be refunded, I would need to work with the merchant who, based on the evidence I provided, had so obviously scammed me.