Although the following is connected to CFPB case number XXXX, it is in fact an entirely new issue. Although I am including background information in order to present a clear and complete picture, please note paragraphs 4 ( especially sub-paragraph 4.D ) and 5 ( especially sub-paragraphs 5.B and C ). 1. As stated in my feedback, the original complaint ( XXXX ) was that U. S. Bank refused to properly address a dispute against two charges of {$32.00} made on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2017. 2. The process that credit card companies normally use is to ( 1 ) notify the vendor of the specifics of the complaint in a timely manner ( within 60 days of the charge date ), ( 2 ) receive any response from the vendor within the proper time frame, ( 3 ) request any additional information and/or documentation from the complainant necessary to make a determination, ( 4 ) make a determination as to whether or not the bank considered the dispute to be valid, ( 5 ) uphold or deny the dispute and notify the complainant ( presumably also the vendor ) of the determination. U.S. Bank did none of that ; they just refused to take the complaint and hoped I would go away. 3. A complaint on that specific issue was made to the CFPB on XXXX XXXX, 2017 ( CFPB case number XXXX ) requesting, in part, for US Bank to properly administer the dispute. 4. U. S. Bank responded in a letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2017 stating, in part, that that " have concluded our investigation and the case ( s ) were found in your favor. The provisional credit we issued to your account is now permanent ... .. '' A. Those statements were arbitrary boiler-plate as well as willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact. B. They could not have " concluded '' an investigation since they never started one in the first place ; all they did was to respond to an inquiry by the CFPB in a manner that they hoped would absolve them of any accountability and satisfy CFPB. C. They did not, as they falsely state, make a provisional credit permanent because there was no credit issued in the first place. D. Not only was there no billing correction, but U. S. Bank " found in [ my ] favor '' additional billings from the same vendor, XXXX XXXX, that have not been disputed. i. I will not receive the billing statement for another two weeks so can not dispute the bill at this time. It is still possible for the matter to be corrected. 5. The response from U. S. Bank is totally unacceptable and serves as an example of the modern tendency in the banking industry to treat customer concerns in a dismissive, condescending and marginalizing manner. In this specific instance, U. S. Bank continues to operate in an unacceptable manner in this instance by : A. Refusing to give the dispute the serious consideration warranted ; and B. Making a determination respecting an item for which no dispute has been issued. C. In addition, U. S. Bank has now taken a situation that could have been easily and quickly remedied had they acted in accordance with their duty respecting disputes and made it far worse by their outrageous actions. As a result I may now be in jeopardy of being disconnected from my cell phone service because of the willful negligence of U. S. Bank.