Consumer complaint received 2021-04-22
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: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA (CA)

Between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Apple Card support and spoke with Goldman Sachs representatives to notify them of 13 transactions that needed to be disputed because I never received the items I paid for and was no longer successful in reaching the sales agent whom handled my purchases. I specifically recall providing detailed information about my disputes such as, items I was expecting to receive and the dates I expected for my items to arrive, to the Goldman Sachs team member who was processing my disputes. It was clear that the nature of my disputes was not fraud, but a dispute of purchases never received or delivered. By the end of day on XX/XX/XXXX I had been notified that my disputes have been processed and credits for my disputes were applied to my account. The transaction amounts were {$520.00}, {$1000.00}, {$1000.00}, {$1000.00}, {$530.00}, {$1500.00}, {$1500.00}, {$450.00}, {$1500.00}, {$960.00}, {$1500.00}, and {$1500.00}. 

Beginning on XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, I received emails from Apple Card support informing me " Your transactions was not resolved in your favor. Goldman Sachs Bank has investigated your transaction dispute and it has been resolved in favor of the merchant because : The merchant provided sufficient evidence that you made the purchase. '' I received this same response for 11 out of the 13 disputes I had filed with Goldman Sachs Bank. It seemed absurd and certainly made no sense to me why my disputes for items not received would be resolved in the merchants favor by simply confirming that I made the purchases. It was already evident at the time I processed the disputes, that I was indeed the one who made the purchase, but the nature of my dispute was not receiving my purchase. 

Today on XX/XX/XXXX, I called Goldman Sachs Bank to inquire about their decision and to ask them to revise their decision because it simply did not seem logical or make much sense. The original customer service representative refused to acknowledge that there was some sort of mistake and was adamant that the reason that they could not change the decision is due to the fact that my account is closed and no longer active. She also insisted that we are now outside the timeframe to take further actions with my dispute. Frustrated by her ineptitude, I immediately requested a supervisor, to which a supervisor by the name of XXXX from the fraud department, answered by call. I explained the nature of my disputes to XXXX along with my reasoning for why Goldman Sachs decision to resolve the dispute against was in error that needed to be corrected. I then asked XXXX to confirm the nature of my disputes to ensure that my disputes were indeed processed correctly as items not received rather than as a fraud dispute. XXXX did confirm to me over the phone that my disputes were processed correctly as items not received, however, she also insisted that there was nothing Goldman Sachs could do at this time because we are now outside the timeframe to pursue the dispute further. I was terrified by XXXX response, because she made it clear that there was nothing more she can do for me despite acknowledging the fact that the decision to resolve the dispute against me was questionable. Even after I explained that this mistake is Goldman Sachs fault and that Goldman needs to take responsibility for its negligent actions, because their mistake is causing me significant financial harm. She wished me good luck, and we ended our conversation. 

To my understanding, my disputes were valid, and the disputes should have been resolved in my favor unless the merchant provided documentation to support the fact that the items purchased were in fact delivered. This would include tracking numbers from a carrier, or a signature from someone confirming services delivered. The fact that the merchant provided evidence to confirm that I made the purchase should not have been considered the same as providing information to confirm that the items/services purchased was delivered.