Consumer complaint received 2019-07-10
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: WA
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: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
We are filing a complaint against Chase Bank for denying multiple disputes of an unauthorized charge to our Chase MasterCard for {$2900.00}, made by XXXX XXXX XXXX   Car ( XXXX ) on XX/XX/19 for alleged damages and costs related to a car we rented from XXXX that was stolen and recovered. The XXXX Police Department ( XXXX ) file on this case indicates that there was no damage to the vehicle, recovered on XX/XX/19,  and that the car was drivable. Despite repeated calls from us and our insurer XXXX, XXXX has repeatedly refused to provide documentary evidence to support the {$2900.00} charge sufficient for XXXX to process our claim. All XXXX has received is a one-page " subrogation demand '' listing costs with a discrepant total of {$3000.00} and a photo of a damaged wheel rim on the ground, though alleged expenses include replacement of a broken windshield and damaged rims, and tracking and surveillance of a car that XXXX told us lacked an electronic tracking device. Without evidence to support these and other expenses on the subrogation demand, we are left to conclude that the charges are fraudulent. 

However, Chase continues to assert that no billing error or fraud has been committed, despite the lack of documentary evidence of the charge and despite the XXXX report. Chase bases this decision on the fact that we declined the collision damage waiver ( CWD ), even when the laws of the state of Hawaii ( XXXX, see below ) specify that when a renter declines CWD, car rental agencies must still discuss and receive agreement from the renter and prior authorization before putting a credit card charge through. XXXX did not notify us ever that the car was recovered, let alone discuss a charge and get our authorization for it. Chase also asserts that it can not require XXXX to provide the clarifying evidence we and XXXX have requested, which appears to violate federal law as well, the Fair Credit Billing Act. This decision by Chase appears to be in violation of U.S. Public Law 93-495 : The Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). According to Chapter 4, Section 161 : Correction of Billing Errors of the FCBA.  paragraph ( b ) ( 2 ), '' For the purpose of this section, a 'billing error ' consists of any of the following ... ( 2 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit for which the obligor requests additional clarification including documentary evidence thereof. '' https : //www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/fcb.pdf Hawaii Revised Statute HRS437D specifically states in no uncertain terms that a lessor ( XXXX ) can not require the lessee ( us ) to pay for damages to a rental car without explicit agreement ( authorization ) from us : [ 437D-12 ] Deposit or advance charge prohibited ; payment for damages to rental motor vehicle. No lessor shall require a deposit or an advance charge against the credit card of a lessee, in any form, for damages to a vehicle which is in the lessee 's possession, custody, or control. No lessor shall require any payment for damages to the rental vehicle, upon the lessee 's return of the vehicle in a damaged condition, until after the cost of the damage to the vehicle and liability therefor is agreed to between the lessor and lessee or is determined pursuant to law. [ L 1988, c 251, pt of 2 ] https : //www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrsarchive/hrs2000/Vol10_Ch436-471/hrs437d/HRS_437D-12.htm This statute is restated on State of Hawaii 's Department of Commerce and Consumer Affair 's web page on car rentals : What happens if you dont purchase the collision damage waiver and you do damage the rental car? Hawaii law states that no car rental agency can require payment for damages until the cost of the damage and the customers liability have been established and agreed to by both the rental agency and the consumer. If a private agreement can not be reached, payment for damages is to be determined by a court of law. Furthermore, a rental company can not require the customer to remain within the specified boundaries, such as within the rental office or within the state, until the cost of the damages have been paid. [ Emphasis added. ] http : //cca.hawaii.gov/blog/car-rentals By agreeing to honor XXXX XXXX charge without discussing it with us and without obtaining our authorization for it, Chase is aiding and abetting XXXX in breaking the law, Hawaii Revised Statue 437D : Motor Vehicle Rental Industry ( HRS437D ), and in committing fraud until such authorization and adequate documentation of the alleged damages and repairs is provided by XXXX ( HRS437D is cited below ). Chase is also violating the FCBA by denying that XXXX has committed a billing error by not providing documentary evidence of the unauthorized {$2900.00} charge. Nothing in the rental agreement or our decline of the CDW changes this, Without this evidence, without our authorization of the charge, and with the contradiction between the recovery report and the damages and related costs alleged by XXXX, we can draw no other conclusion except that the {$2900.00} charge is fraudulent. 

We have urged Chase to uphold our dispute of this undocumented, unauthorized charge from XXXX. The burden of proof is on XXXX to provide documentary evidence of the charges listed on the subrogation demand. All the time, trouble, and distress of this fraudulent claim would have been avoided if XXXX had provided the necessary documentation to validate its claim and if Chase observed the state and federal laws regulating car rentals. HRS347D and the State of Hawaii 's Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs state that absent our authorization of XXXX 's claim of costs, XXXX may seek payment through a court of law. If XXXX 's claim is not fraudulent, let XXXX provide the documentary evidence to us and our insurer XXXX, or to a court of law, and all will be resolved quickly. But until such documentation is provided, Chase is participating in a criminal act along with XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation