Product: Credit card

This is a complaint against Macys American Express for denying my dispute of a charge made to my account wholly without my consent and knowledge. 

Macys American Express ( Macys Am Ex ), issued by Citibank , N.A . :.

1. Failed to send me an alert when a Merchant was charging a large sum ( {$3400.00} ) to my account without the card being present ; and XXXX. Failed to conduct a bona fide investigation of my dispute, and found that the charge was authorized by me, even though I was not aware the charge had been made to my account and Merchant had not produced any documents showing that I had consented to this charge, or even an invoice showing how Merchant had arrived at the amount of this charge. 

In mid XX/XX/year>, I was checking my Macys Am Ex account online and was shocked to discover that a charge had posted to my account on XX/XX/XXXX for {$3400.00}. I had never authorized this charge, and was not even aware that it was going to be made to my account. I had never received an invoice or a bill from Merchant asking me to pay this amount.

Furthermore, I had never received an alert from Macys Am Ex that a Merchant was attempting to charge my account a very large sum without the card being present. If Macys Am Ex had sent me such an alert, which is what other credit card companies do as best practice, I would have told them that the charge was not authorized by me and this whole situation would have been avoided. 

After discovering this charge on my Macys Am Ex account, I reached out to Merchant PURE Property Management, a national housing provider corporation for an explanation, but Merchant refused to communicate with me. On or about XX/XX/year>, I called Macys XXXX XXXX and disputed the charge as having been unauthorized. 

I explained to Macys XXXX XXXX, in writing, that when I had given my credit card number to Merchant back in XX/XX/year>, it was meant for a one-time transaction ( NOT a recurring charge ), for a one-month rental of a house ( for {$5600.00} ), which transaction was supported by an invoice and a lease agreement that I had signed authorizing the one-time charge in XXXX. There was a second small charge in XXXX ( {$720.00} ), which was also supported by an invoice and another lease agreement that I signed authorizing the second charge ( the second charge was shown on second lease agreement as {$6400.00} - {$5600.00} ( already paid ) = {$720.00} ). Therefore, the first and second charges were authorized by me and supported by lease agreements I had signed and invoices stating the exact amounts I had agreed to pay. 
I had NEVER authorized Merchant to store my credit card information or to use it as it saw fit for future charges without my consent. Merchants privacy policy also did not state that credit card information would be stored to be charged in the future by Merchant without the credit card holders consent.

The third disputed charge ( for {$3400.00} ) that Merchant made to my account without my knowledge was never authorized by me and was not supported by an invoice or an agreement signed by me. Merchant never presented me with an invoice for this amount and never asked me to pay it. After making this charge, Merchant did not even have the decency to send me a notification that it had made this charge to my account, or any invoice showing how it had arrived at the amount of this charge.

Initially, Macys Am Ex granted my dispute and credited my account for {$3400.00}. But then reversed its decision when Merchant threatened it with arbitration and provided a false statement claiming that I had paid this amount ( when in fact I had no knowledge of this charge ). ( Merchants chargeback response attached ). Merchant falsely implied to Macys Am Ex that the contracts I had signed when I authorized the first and second charges, also authorized the third charge, which was false. Merchant stated to Macys Am Ex : we understand the cardholder made this payment [ {$3400.00} ] in relation to a vacation rental Please see the attached booking information. Merchants statement that I had paid the {$3400.00} was false I had not paid that amount and was not even aware that Merchant had charged my account for that amount. Merchants reference to " booking information '' was also designed to confuse Macys Am Ex personnel. The booking information Merchant was referring to consisted of the first 2 contracts I had signed agreeing to pay the first 2 charges. The information that Merchant attached had NOTHING to do with the third unauthorized charge. If Macys Am Ex had bothered to look over the first and second contracts and the corresponding dates and amounts of charges, it would have found that the booking information only corresponded with the first and second charges, and that there was NO contract supporting the third charge.

I provided Macys Am Ex with 2 sworn declarations and several documents showing the first 2 charges were authorized by me as they were supported by invoices and contracts that I had signed. However, the third charge was not supported by an invoice or an agreement signed by me. ( My declaration and documents attached ).

Macys Am Ex failed to ask Merchant for proof that I had ever agreed to pay the third charge ( {$3400.00} ) or even any invoice or accounting showing how Merchant arrived at that amount.

Macys Am Ex denied my dispute on or about XX/XX/year> ( denial letter attached ). Macys Am Ex stated the reasons for denial of my dispute were that : i ) I had received a benefit ; and ii ) I had failed to prove the charge was unauthorized.

Their first reason, that I had received a benefit is irrelevant to the dispute. Without an agreement or an invoice, whether or not I received a benefit is a question for a court of law to decide, not for Macys Am Ex. Even if I had received a benefit, Macys Am Ex would not know the value of this benefit. Merchant never produced an invoice showing how Merchant arrived at this number. Macy 's Am Ex wouldnt know if the value of such alleged benefit was {$3400.00}, or {$500.00}, or {$1000.00}.

Their second reason, that I had not proven that the charge was unauthorized is similarly flawed. The charge was made without my knowledge and without the card being present. I proved to Macys Am Ex that the 2 previous transactions with Merchant involved contracts that I had signed and invoices showing exactly how much I was agreeing to pay. But there was NO contract or invoice supporting the third charge.

There were disagreements between me and Merchant regarding the quality of services rendered under the first 2 transactions. I had informed Merchant that it had violated CA landlord tenant laws and the Fair Housing Act. I had counterclaims against Merchant for refund of the first 2 charges because of Merchant 's violations of state and federal laws. The disagreements that existed between me and Merchant were issues to be decided in a court of law. Instead of resorting to the courts, Merchant had the audacity to charge my credit card surreptitiously, without my consent and knowledge, for an amount that Merchant had unilaterally decided on. To this day, Merchant has refused to communicate with me and provide me with an invoice to show how it arrived at the sum of {$3400.00}. Merchant also holds a security deposit that I had paid it with the first transaction, and has refused to give me an accounting of what it did with my security deposit, in clear violation of CA landlord tenant laws. ( My most recent email to Merchant attached ).

Macys Am Exs denial of my dispute is wrong because Merchant has not provided any evidence showing : i ) how Merchant arrived at the amount of {$3400.00}, ii ) whether I signed any contract to agree to pay this amount, and iii ) whether I authorized Merchant to store my credit card information and to use it for a future transaction without my consent and knowledge.

Merchant made this charge ( {$3400.00} ) to my account surreptitiously, knowing that I had not agreed to pay it. Later, Merchant made willful and false representations to Macys Am Ex in response to my dispute. Merchants conduct was egregious, and Macys Am Ex, by denying my dispute, now stands in the shoes of Merchant and is liable for Merchants conduct.