I have been a Chase customer with excellent credit for many years and like to think of myself as a valued customer. However, my recent experience in resolving a credit card dispute proves otherwise.

I ordered a recliner sofa from XXXX XXXX, an on-line company, using my Chase Freedom card to make the deposit in XX/XX/XXXX and the second and final payment in XX/XX/XXXX, the amount totaling {$5600.00}. At the time of the order, the XXXX XXXX salesperson assured us that it would fit through our front door. On XX/XX/XXXX, the sofa was delivered and arrived damaged. We observed this 300-pound sofa being unloaded from the truck on its arm. After unloading, it was forced through our front door. Although the recliners were functional, the sagging lower panels and bent-in arms were visible to the naked eye. We suspect at least some of the damage occurred trying to get the sofa through the door, which caused {$480.00} in damages to our doorframe. ( This was paid for by the delivery company, XXXX XXXX. ) We took pictures of all of the issues with the sofa using a ruler to prove that the sofa sagged on each end and a level to show that the arms bent in and were not perpendicular to the floor. In addition, the arms were loose. We refused delivery and the sofa was sent back to the warehouse.

The next day we contacted XXXX XXXX by phone and sent an email to them with reasons for our refusal of delivery and pictures to support our claims. We also initiated disputes for the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments with Chase Freedom.

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received an email from XXXX XXXX advising that the inspection was completed and the sofa operated normally. None of the items documented in our letter and pictures were addressed in this email except their assertion that the arms were not loose. ( We disagree. ) It should be noted that the inspection was performed by XXXX XXXX senior technician. We believe XXXX XXXX had a vested interest in ensuring the sofa passed their inspection, as they would be held responsible for damaging the sofa in shipment. We also believe that the damage occurred during shipping or when it was forced through our doorway, causing the {$480.00} damage to our doorframe. We were given two options : 1. redelivery of the same sofa or 2. pay a 50 % restocking fee for the damaged sofa that we refused delivery on. We did not want redelivery, as the sofa would still be damaged and more damage would occur to the sofa and our doorframe when forcing the sofa through our door. They also stated we could order another sofa from them, but we had no desire to repeat the experience with this merchant or XXXX XXXX.

In a letter from Chase dated XX/XX/XXXX ( received on XX/XX/XXXX ), we were advised by Chase to provide our response to them by XX/XX/XXXX. We compiled a detailed response including pictures to support our claim and sent via USPS Priority Mail on XX/XX/XXXX. We sent Chase a secure message via their site advising them of our actions. According to the US Postal Service, our response was received on XX/XX/XXXX, a day before the XX/XX/XXXX deadline On XX/XX/XXXX, we checked our balance on our card and discovered the disputed amounts totaling {$5600.00} had been charged back to our account. When we called Chase, we were advised that they made the decision before our paperwork arrived at the correct department. The reasons given for denying the disputes were that we didnt return the merchandise or make arrangements for the merchant to pick it up. This is totally untrue, as we refused delivery of the sofa. All correspondence from the vendor and myself clearly states this. We were also advised that the merchant stated we did not like the sofa, which was the reason for the return. That is also totally untrue ; we refused shipment because of the damage.

We verified with Chase that they did receive our response and they advised that we could reopen the disputes, which we did on XX/XX/XXXX. We also sent a secure message via Chases website expressing our concerns that no one was looking at the information specific to our case when making their determination. We asked Chase to use all available information when resolving our dispute.

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received correspondence from Chase ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) denying our dispute. The reasons cited were the merchant is not willing to credit our account and isnt required do so because the charge took place too long ago.

We immediately called Chase to discuss this and were told by a supervisor that we did everything correctly and in a timely manner but there was nothing she could do because we ran out of time. We didnt run out of time ; Chase did. They provided a bogus reason for denying the dispute on XX/XX/XXXX, citing we didnt return the merchandise, which is untrue. When we reopened the dispute because of Chases error, even more time had passed and shortened the time available to review our case. The lack of urgency and failure to review our case within the time limits must be born by Chase. Instead, it was easier for Chase to blame it on time limits rather than take responsibility for their failure to act in a fair, timely manner. The first decision based on the untruth of our not returning the sofa, and the second decision based on the merchant not being willing or required to credit our account because of the time limits, indicates that the facts of the case as outlined in our detailed response were never reviewed by Chase or considered when issuing their dispute denial. Our case deserves more than that.

We intentionally use our Chase credit card to protect ourselves in situations like this. Chase did not provide that protection and did not even thoroughly review our case but basically rubberstamped their decisions.

The reason for the first denial was that we didnt return the merchandise it is obvious that Chase did not even read the paperwork.

The second denial was based on the merchant being unwilling to credit our account. Leather Shoppes untruthfully stated that we didnt like the sofa and asserted that the sofa was not damaged, even though we provided pictures that show otherwise. Chases decision is based on the XXXX XXXX ' untruth and the word of XXXX XXXX technician, who is contracted by the merchant. Chase chose to believe those with a vested interest in protecting XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX rather than the evidence provided by the customer who they are supposed to protect.

In addition, Chase said that the charges were too old, even though we did everything in a timely manner. If there was any delay, it was Chase not responding to us promptly after we reopened the dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. And, if Chase had used the information they had available on XX/XX/XXXX, the time limits may not have been an issue. We were never advised of any time limits except having our response to them by XX/XX/XXXX.

This case has been mishandled by Chase from the first denial. It is not our responsibility to pay any amount for damaged goods. Chase should have protected us and did not.