Consumer complaint received 06-03-2017 about Credit card or prepaid card (General-purpose credit card or charge card) with BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE (VA).
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint: STATEMENT OF FACTS On  XX/XX/XXXX , I was driving a vehicle rented from   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . of   XXXX   XXXX   (  XXXX  ), in  XXXX , D.C. At approximately   XXXX   XXXX   I stopped the car in front of the   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   and  XXXX  at   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   (   XXXX   ) to try to find a parking space to attend a lecture. I got out of the vehicle to read the parking sign to determine if parking was permitted in that location. Many vehicles were parked on the street and the signage was confusing. As it turned out, I quickly found a parking enforcement officer and specifically asked him if parking was permitted during that time. He informed me that it was not, that he was in the process of issuing tickets, and that I needed to move the car. I thanked him and proceeded to move the car to the   XXXX    parking garage. On  XX/XX/XXXX , my Barclaycard credit card statement shows a charge for {$23.00} for the   XXXX   Parking Garage at the time in question. At no time did the officer issue a ticket to me either by serving it to me in person while I was standing there speaking to him or by placing a ticket on the vehicle. In fact, the officer never indicated that any ticket would be issued to me.
<P/>
The first indication that there was any issue was a letter from  XXXX  dated  XX/XX/XXXX , and received on  XX/XX/XXXX , indicating that I was being charged {$210.00} on my Barclaycard for an alleged parking ticket during the period of my rental and an administrative fee ( they later waived the {$10.00} administrative fee ). At no time prior to this letter did   XXXX    contact me to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding this alleged ticket to determine its validity. Instead, it elected to proceed on its own and pay the fee to the District of Columbia ( D.C. ) without determining whether it was a legal charge. In doing so, it cut off my rights to challenge the ticket, a challenge that would have been successful.
<P/>
I immediately contacted  XXXX  on  XX/XX/XXXX  to notify them that the charge was invalid. A long and unfruitful correspondence began in which I explained to them why the charge was invalid, how  XXXX  could rectify the issue, and offered to assist them in doing so.  XXXX  was not only unwilling to consider resolution but offered misleading recommendations that it knew or should have known were unavailable. That correspondence is available if necessary.
<P/>
At no time has   XXXX   or the District of Columbia provided a copy of the actual ticket purportedly issued, because no ticket was issued. Only copies of electronically generated facsimiles or electronic records have been provided.
<P/>
Despite being provided all of this information, Barclaycard refuses to remove the charge from my account and has not responded to my explanation as to why the charge is illegal.
<P/>
ARGUMENT  XXXX  claims to rely on the contracts term that the renter is responsible for legal violations, parking incurred during the rental. For a charge to be valid, therefore, it must be legal. That is not the case here. A renter is not responsible for an invalid charge. For example, if D.C. had issued a proper {$100.00} ticket and mistakenly charged {$1000.00} and  XXXX  paid it, the renter could not be charged {$1000.00} for the error on the part of D.C. and  XXXX . Likewise, here, both D.C. and   XXXX    are in error, and therefore the charge is not legal.
<P/>
As stated above, no ticket was provided to me in person or placed on the vehicle. The Code of the District of Columbia Section 50-2303.03 ( c ) states : Except as provided in subsection ( c-1 ) of this section [ which is inapplicable here ], a notice of infraction shall be served personally upon the operator of the vehicle who is present at the time of service or by affixing the notice to the vehicle in a conspicuous place.
<P/>
Section 50-2303.03 ( c ) provides the legal method of service. A ticket is invalid if not legally served. Legal service of process was never accomplished here, rendering the ticket invalid. Indeed, the parking enforcement officer had every opportunity to serve the ticket because I was speaking to him directly, and he chose not to do so. Instead, he warned me to move the vehicle indicating that otherwise it would be ticketed. Barclaycards records indicate that is exactly what I did by moving it to the   XXXX   parking garage. It is possible that the parking enforcement officer had been prepared to issue the ticket and perhaps had the information in his system. We will never know because   XXXX   cut off all rights to contest the record. Instead, what is beyond dispute is that he chose not to issue and serve it in accordance with Section 50-2303.03 ( c ).
<P/>
Had   XXXX    contacted me instead of paying the alleged ticket when it first learned about it on  XX/XX/XXXX , I could have provided the above information to them enabling them, me, or both, to contest it and get it dismissed because D.C. was in error in sending the notice.   XXXX   chose another route. Without contacting me, in error it elected to presume that the charge was legal.   XXXX    error of presuming a charge to be legal does not magically make it so.  XXXX  has been offered a copy of the charge of the use of the  XXXX  parking garage and a sworn affidavit of the events that transpired as evidence that no ticket was issued ( or if one was physically issued it was never legally served ).
<P/>
In addition, even though I was not obligated to do so, I offered to assist  XXXX  in its filing of a Motion to Vacate with the District of Columbia to get its funds back that it paid in error.  XXXX  did not take me up on this offer.
<P/>
On a disturbing note, in my correspondence with   XXXX   it recommended to me on three occasions that I should contest the issue directly with the District of Columbia.  XXXX  knew or should have known, however, that by paying the alleged ticket without notifying me it was cutting off my rights to contest the issue with D.C.  XXXX  has entered into arrangements with localities to automatically pay tickets and, as the legal owner of the vehicle, knows that it is waiving any right the Renter might have to contest the ticket. The District of Columbia acknowledges this fact on their website : " Note : If you are issued a ticket while driving a rental car, rental car agreements provide that a rental party is responsible for all tickets issued to the rental vehicle during the rental period. DC  XXXX  has discovered that some rental car companies will automatically pay any ticket ( s ) incurred on vehicles and charge the customer the ticket fine plus administrative fees. They will not provide you with the opportunity to adjudicate the tickets, as the adjudication process ends once a ticket is paid even if it going through the adjudication process. As the legal owner of the vehicle, rental car companies are within their rights to use this process. ''   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( emphasis in original ).
In this case, of course, the ticket was not even issued. The fact that   XXXX    would repeatedly attempt to divert me to a process that it knew was futile is disturbing. Furthermore, and importantly, this demonstrates that  XXXX  took onto itself the risk that the charge was not legal, as is the case here, and that it could not recover from the Renter the fees it mistakenly paid.
<P/>
Because there was no legal charge, Barclaycard is precluded from continuing to attempt to collect the funds from me.
<P/>
CONCLUSION Because no parking ticket was issued to me by the District of Columbia ( or, if a ticket was issued it was not legally served pursuant to D.C. law ) there is no legal charge under the contract with  XXXX . Rather,   XXXX   by its own decisions acted in a way that amounted to an admission without information resulting in a cutting off of both its and my rights to contest the invalid charge from the District of Columbia.   XXXX   can not escape liability for its mistakes by attempting to pass them off to the Renter under a provision of the contract, because that provision does not apply to charges that are not legal. Because the charge is not legal, Barclaycard is not permitted to attempt to collect it. Furthermore, Barclaycard was immediately notified of this dispute when the charge appeared on the card, and was subsequently provided all of the information detailed above.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief