Consumer complaint received 2021-09-11
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE (GA)

BNY Mellon is the " processor '' for Visa Cardholder disputes. They received the Claim from XXXX 's XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on or around XX/XX/XXXX for processing. They have received other supporting documents including a police report, detailing the claim of fraud and the extenuating circumstances causing the claim to qualify for an extension of the 60 day notification timeframe as the nature of the transaction itself prevented compliance with the timeframe. They have contacted both XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Issuers involved in the transaction ) to agree on the unlawful denial of my claims without offering me an official determination letter with a signature and contact information, and they have not commented on the fact that they are allowed to extend the timeframe, but offer no reason as to why they refuse to extend it considering the extenuating circumstance. They have also unlawfully denied my claim of fraud despite the documentary evidence that shows dishonest and misleading statements were used to obtain this {$17000.00} from these accounts. They have not presented anything that lawfully negates the claim of fraud other than their own personal opinions as my card does not have to be lost or stolen for me to file a valid dispute. I have sent an Affidavit to XXXX XXXX as follows : I, XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ], hereafter referred to as the " Affiant, having firsthand knowledge of the facts stated herein, and being competent in mind and body to testify, declare and affirm that the facts stated herein are true, correct, and complete in all material fact, not misrepresented and made under the penalties of perjury of the laws of The United States of America and The State of Georgia. Affiant submitted, to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, hereafter referred to as XXXX, a Cardholder Dispute Form for chargeback/credit due to a fraudulent transaction with a Merchant, XXXX, hereafter referred to as the Merchant, on XX/XX/XXXX, for the development of a technology product, hereafter referred to as the application. 

1. Affiant submitted a Cardholder Dispute Form according to the lawful justifications for disputing a transaction, which included two selections : a. Non-Receipt of Merchandise : Merchandise not received, Merchant unwilling or unable to provide service, even after attempting to resolve the dispute. 
b. Quality of services or goods dispute. ( Exhibit A, pg. 1-4 ).

2. Documentary evidence showing proof of these justifications were attached to the dispute form. Which included a wealth of documents to show that the merchandise was not received, and that the application product itself was defective as it did not meet the specifications of the Service Agreement, and he application was unsuitable for my needs, offering no benefit to me whatsoever. ( Exhibit A, pg. 6-28 ) 3. The dispute form was transmitted to Visa processor, BNY Mellon, hereafter referred to as BNY, for processing the chargeback/credit. 
4. A representative of BNY, XXXX XXXX, Senior Dispute Analyst, communicated information from a misleading VISA Disclosure Statement which says we must hear from you no later than sixty days after we sent you the first statement on which the problem or error appeared. When Federal Regulation states that if the Affiant did not lose the card or PIN, and extenuating circumstances that prevented me from notifying the bank within the timeframe allowed did occur, the dispute notification period must be extended. The law does not stipulate what the extenuating circumstance must be. ( Exhibit B ) 5. XXXX XXXX, of BNY, was notified that the regulation allows for the notification period to be extended ( indefinitely ) when certain extenuating circumstances exist. Evidence was provided to detail the applicable extenuating circumstance, as the nature of the service provided, offered no feasible way to attempt a resolution, as the law requires, within the timeframe of 60 days. ( Exhibit C & Attachment 3 & 7 of Exhibit A, pg. 11-12, and pg. 28 respectively ) 6. The law states that fraudulent activity is to be construed as anything misleading or dishonest which results in financial loss. Documentary evidence was provided to demonstrate where the Merchant maintained misleading and dishonest statements to receive multiple payments from me, resulting in my complete financial loss, in the total amount of {$17000.00}, while using VISA debit cards. ( Exhibit A, Attachment 4, pg. 12-17 ) 7. XXXX XXXX did not make an official determination, nor was I sent any officially signed determination letter, as required by law, from any BNY or XXXX representative within the 10-day investigation period allowed by Federal regulation. XXXX & BNY have failed to lawfully and officially investigate, conclude, determine, and/or settle the dispute, despite evidence of extenuating circumstances which lawfully validate the claim for the allowance of refunded debits, or credit to be applied to the accounts in question.