Consumer complaint received 2016-12-05
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Billing disputes — 
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE (IA)

This complaint arises from a request to place a charge on my credit card issued by the respondent bank into dispute for failure by the merchant to issue a refund credit for the charge after they represented they would do so upon cancellation of the order for lack of inventory on their part. The dispute was made to the respondent bank on XXXX/XXXX/2016, at which time I provided all requested information through a very time-intensive interview. Upon completion, I was informed I would not receive a chargeback or even a provisional credit until investigation was completed, which could take up to 90 days. Consequently, the charge would be computed into my statement balance and become due prior to any credit irrespective of the fact that I had formally disputed the charge and investigation is still pending. Banking regulations require that when a consumer disputes a charge on their credit card, the charge be removed or provisionally credited pending investigation, at which time such credit could be made permanent or reversed depending on the findings of the banks 's investigation. Upon raising this issue, I was escalated to a supervisor who confirmed for me that the original representative was inaccurate, and a provisional credit would be issued to my account within 3 business days. I accepted this solution. Upon monitoring my online banking XXXX/XXXX/2016, to check for the promised provisional credit, I was alarmed that not only had no credit been issued, but the dispute had been closed entirely. I contacted the bank by phone to inquire, and following a lengthy hold was advised that because the bank could not reach me by phone on XXXX/XXXX/2016 to request additional information the dispute was dismissed. I am perturbed that the bank would dismiss a dispute to a charge after one failed attempt to reach the customer, without providing any notice or reasonable period of time to contact the bank to provide further information. I am further annoyed that after going through such a time-intensive process once, I was required to initiate any further action to avoid being billed for a charge I had already notified the bank was in dispute and why. Moreover, I was required to resubmit to the same lengthy interview I had already given on XXXX to reopen the dispute rather than just supplement my answer with the " further information '' requested giving rise to the improper dismissal to begin with! Even more outrageous, this is because there was no " further information '' actually being requested ; everything I was asked to provide to resolve that had been in my XXXX statement! However, these collateral issues are not the primary focus of this CFPB complaint. After going through all this to get the dispute opened for a second time, the representative -- contrary to the agreement of the supervisor the first time this dispute was made -- repeated the policy that refused me a chargeback or even a provisional credit until investigation was completed, which could take up to 90 days. The charge is still computed into my statement balance and will likely be due prior to any credit irrespective of the fact that I had formally disputed the charge and that investigation is still pending. The person I was transferred to upon escalating this refused to do anything except take down an informal request for someone to call me back another day at an undetermined time. I believe the bank 's policy is non-compliant with the law and with industry norms, as well as purposefully designed to be as cumbersome, inflexible, and requiring constant monitoring follow-up action by the customer before the bank makes any effort to enforce its purchase protections to which the customer is contractually entitled on the logic that most people will opt to assume any losses themselves rather than claim for purchase protection and fraud protection where the bank risks taking the loss.