I have twice tried to resolve a billing dispute for {$2300.00} ( See Receipt ) for a two week cottage rental from XX/XX/2018 through XXXX  and a private merchant on the site. I have proved my case to Citibank credit card billings dispute services based on their criteria that the quality of a rental cottage was significantly different than what was described, most recently onXX/XX/XXXX. My case included a clear certificate of the poor quality as requested by the credit card plus other significant evidence based on their criteria : Proof of what was expected versus what was received. Examples of proof would be a sales slip, certificate of quality, newspaper advertisement, or an itemized bill. ( See XX/XX/XXXX request for docs ) I sent a clear certificate which stated the house was infested with fleas and would be so for the whole of my stay regardless of any treatment undertaken. I was offered only two days refund during my stay which made it impossible for me to leave, and then was offered 4 nights refund on XX/XX/XXXX, a day after I had vacated the property on XX/XX/XXXX at the end of my booked stay. I refused as I was asked to sign a statement saying I would take no further action in complaint. I did leave the property for the last two days of the stay, having had various pieces of rented watersports equipment safely returned to the vendors after which I was able to leave the house and the area overnight. I still have not been compensated for the flea sprays costing {$60.00} and launderette costs of {$60.00} which were necessary in my first week at the merchant 's cottage. I might have been able to leave the cottage earlier had the merchant offered a more appropriate refund but they did not and so I had to stay or incur further unreasonable credit card charges and at that point I had no assurances that the merchant would refund me. I don't see why I should be denied a refund after clearly being sold a bill of goods that I was essentially 'forced ' to receive? The credit card services should refund me based on this. ( See XXXX XXXX proposed refund ) I was told later when the dispute was resolved against me that because I accepted the services ie I stayed in the property, despite the quality, that I can not make a valid claim. We determined that the service for which you were billed was provided. They also stated incongruously that Your dispute involves the quality of service provided and service provided and we have no recourse with the merchant for this type of dispute. Why did they ask me to provide evidence of the quality if this was the going to be deemed invalid? ( See XX/XX/XXXX 1st refusal ) This is unfair, I was not ever offered an adequate refund during my stay in order to allow me to leave the property for the two weeks. Surely having a complaint of this nature involving accommodation in which the refusal of would render one homeless, in effect, for the period is recognized as different from one where a faulty piece of merchandise can be returned immediately with no serious effect on the buyers living conditions or wellbeing. Was I expected to live in my car for the two weeks? If I bought a sweater that was infested with moths, I would clearly deserve a refund. How is this different?

Citibank have stated as the man reason for refusing my claim ( see above and below ) that they were not able to charge back the merchant as a result of their regulation, 'Please contact the merchant directly to resolve this matter, we have no recourse to recover these funds ', however I dont feel this is my responsibility or should have any bearing on my case for a refund. I should be eligible for the full refund as I was sold a bill of goods and have proved my case beyond doubt according to their criteria for a full refund regardless of how they able to proceed with the merchant. ( See 2nd refusal XX/XX/XXXX )