Product: Credit card

On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute with Bank of America for two transactions made on my credit card. These transactions together represented a single order with the merchant, XXXX XXXX. The first transaction was the initial deposit, and the second was the final payment. The order was managed through XXXX, a marketplace platform similar to XXXX XXXX, which facilitates communication between buyers and sellers but does not directly handle transactions. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a request from Bank of America to submit documentation supporting my claim. I promptly provided all requested details along with a 32-page comprehensive document that included extensive evidence, such as written confirmation from the vendor ( XXXX XXXX ) acknowledging multiple issues with the order, including missing products and defects. Despite this thorough submission, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another request for additional documents. Upon reviewing this new request, I noticed that most of the information being asked for had already been submitted in my initial filing. 

I contacted the dispute department on XX/XX/XXXX ( call logged at XXXXXXXX XXXX ) to address this issue. During the call, the representative confirmed that all required documents were indeed submitted with my initial response and that no further documentation was needed. However, to expedite the case, I recompiled the requested materials and submitted them again, organized in the format specified in the second request. 

Despite my efforts, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a final decision letter from the bank stating that my claim had been denied. The reason provided was that the funds were deducted by XXXX, not XXXX XXXX, making any documentation from the vendor irrelevant. However, this rationale is flawed for several reasons : XXXX. XXXX XXXX : XXXX serves as a payment processor ( similar to XXXX or XXXX ) and a communication platform but is not the merchant in this transaction. The vendor, XXXX XXXX, used XXXX XXXX  XXXX  to charge my card. 
XXXX. Vendor Admissions : The vendor has explicitly acknowledged the issues with the order, including missing products and defects, in writing, which I submitted as part of my evidence. 
XXXX. Inconsistent Rationale : The bank dismissed my vendor-related evidence by claiming that XXXX collected the funds and is therefore the merchant of record. However, when I proposed changing my claim to reflect that XXXX failed to deliver any product, the bank stated that product issues must be addressed with the vendor. This contradictory stance undermines the legitimacy of their decision. 
I believe Bank of America failed to thoroughly review the evidence I provided. The decision to disregard the vendors admissions of fault and to incorrectly assign responsibility to XXXX is both unreasonable and unjustified. The role of XXXX as a payment processor should not obscure the fact that the claim is between myself and XXXX XXXX, the actual merchant. 

I request that the CFPB compel Bank of America to conduct a fair and thorough review of my claim, focusing on the evidence provided and disregarding the irrelevant role of XXXX as a payment processor. If the bank continues to treat XXXX as the merchant, it must provide proof that XXXX delivered the products in question. 

This matter involves a significant financial amount, and I can not accept being defrauded without receiving the products I paid for. I ask for your assistance in ensuring that my claim is reviewed properly and justly resolved. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.