Consumer complaint received 2017-06-04
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. (CA)

On or about XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Chase Bank in reference to a purchase in the amount of {$250.00}. I was informed that I needed to wait for the merchant to " take the money from cue '' before I could initiate a formal dispute. Several days later I contacted the bank back to initiate a dispute. I informed them that under California law, the merchant " could '' but did not allow me to take an unfinished bottle of alcohol I purchased from the restaurant. In fact, the restaurant poured out approx. 90 % of the bottle because my party could not consume it on the night in question. I asked the restaurant to either give me the bottle top ( so I could take the bottle with me ) or to refund me for the portion they poured out. They refused. <P/>When I initiated the complaint with Chase I included the receipt, the CA law that protects me as a consumer, and the merchant information. <P/>On XX/XX/XXXX Infinitee, a Senior Dispute Resolution Specialist, informed me " XXXX '' ( not Chase ) denied my claim. When I asked the reason, she informed me " XXXX '' erred because they denied the claim stating " CA law did not stipulate a restaurant could give unconsumed alcohol to consumers ''. But she noticed from the original complaint that I included the CA law. She said it did n't look like " XXXX '' considered all of the information I provided concerning the claim. She apologized and assured me I should not have lost the dispute. Allegedly, she re-asserted the dispute and told me to expect a refund in about 15-30 days. <P/>However, on XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Chase 's dispute resolution department to inquire about the {$250.00} refund only to be antagonized by several representatives. In fact, I wasted almost 4.5 hours being given the runaround by Chase concerning the refund. During one phone call I was harassed and asked, " Why I signed the receipt? '' During another phone call, a Senior Dispute Specialist tried to convince me " XXXX  '' made the decision and not Chase. The call lasted over 30 minutes and he repeated over and over that Chase had no power to change " XXXX XXXX '' decision to deny the claim. When I asked for XXXX XXXX contact number he gave me a wrong number. I called Chase several more times that day and to my dismay each call got worse. One representative named XXXX told me to contact my local branch if I had issues with the dispute process. I asked how the local branch could assist me and she said they would. I asked who was over the dispute department and she said, " your local branch ''. <P/>Undaunted by Chase 's tactics and attempts to mislead me, I found XXXX XXXX number online and contacted them again. This time a representative was nice enough ( and patient enough ) to conference me into Chase 's dispute resolution center. Once XXXX  and I were on the line with a Chase representative the entire story changed. To my surprise -- not really -- it was not " XXXX '' who denied the claim rather " Chase lost the recovery rights ''. I inquired about when recovery rights were lost and was told that information could not be discussed. I was astonished that I was led to believe " XXXX  '' made the final decision when in fact, Chase ( and the merchant bank ) " agreed '' to the outcome. <P/>After speaking with XXXX  ( and confirming I had been lied to by the dispute resolution department ) I contacted Chase 's Executive Office and spoke with XXXX. I was directed to write a complaint to their email address ; which I did. <P/>As a consumer I should not have to pay for merchandise that is destroyed by the merchant. This is not a difficult dispute so I 'm bewildered at why Chase has given me the runaround. I supported my dispute with the applicable documentation and even included the current California law. Ironically, Chase informed me the merchant did not have to abide by the law if their " company policy '' says they can pour out the alcohol. Are they serious? Since when does a company 's policy override state or federal law?