Consumer complaint received 2020-05-28
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: CA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card

Complaint:
My wife, XXXX, and I each have a Chase Explorer United Mileage Plus credit card. We opened our accounts in XXXX. We moved on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX  to a new residence in XXXX. When the bills for our Chase Credit Cards arrived to our new home the first week of XXXX, XXXX 's card showed an improper charge of {$790.00} from XXXX XXXX. The date of the transaction is shown as XX/XX/XXXX. It is a charge of which we have no knowledge. All we know about XXXX XXXX  is information we have gathered since the start of this incident. The charge was for a round trip for a single woman to be made some time in XXXX, XXXX. My wife, XXXX, is XXXX  years of age and our XXXX  years of marriage we have always vacationed together. 

It is important to restate that my wife has never had any form of contact with XXXX XXXX. That includes anything like a trip confirmation or a trip voucher. What we know about the trip we have learned during the complaint process. Immediately after the billing arrived we notified Chase of the fraudulent charge and asked it be removed from her account. We also cancelled her credit card and were issued a new one. 

Chase responded to the fraud charge on XX/XX/XXXX. They referred to the incident as " an unauthorized transaction on her account ''. Chase found that XXXX was responsible for the transaction " because she received benefit from the transaction. '' However, she did not know she was scheduled and she did not know she had paid for it. We can not see how they can maintain this position as no one from Chase or XXXX made any effort to to confirm with or contact the person who supposedly made the purchase. No explanation of the benefit has ever been offered. Prior to the trip no one from Chase or XXXX made contact with XXXX. We were upset with this finding and contacted the Chase Fraud department immediately. After first reluctance by their agent, " XXXX, '' they agreed to review our complaint a second time. 

The outcome of the second review was sent to us on XX/XX/XXXX. We were notified that the second committee found the findings of the first review committee to be valid and XXXX was expected to make payment for a trip to XXXX that had occurred before she learned of it. 

Following the XX/XX/XXXX notification we called the Chase Fraud department at XXXX. The person with whom we spoke confirmed the finding but also notified us that there was a finding from a different Chase department that XXXX should not be found liable. The remedy for the issue was to being the problem back to the third committee for reconsideration. They called the process " reinsertion and overturn. '' We called the fraud department for multiple weeks after the meeting during the month of XXXX. 

We were consistently unable to reach anyone from the fraud department during this period of time. All calls we made to people working in the fraud investigation area were answered with a recording. The recordings uniformly stated that the person being called was very busy assisting with problems related to the Coronavirus, and that the caller could leave a message but it was not likely to be returned. 

We stopped trying to reach persons in the Chase fraud department. A final notification came to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. It stated that the latest review confirmed the previous findings. It also stated the fraud claim is closed unless new information is provided. 

Finally, we feel it is important to address the process used by the Chase fraud department. Each review by separate committees has resulted in a " yes '' or " no '' format. In no case as the department ever provided information about the basis for the decisions of the committee. We have no idea what information was considered when their decision was made, and we wonder if the information was accurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation