Consumer complaint received 2025-12-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint because Bank of America has denied my dispute twice for Dispute ID XXXX, even though I provided complete documentation showing that I am entitled to a refund under standard chargeback rules. The three items I purchased through XXXX, from an entirely separate third-party seller, arrived to me in damaged condition. After reviewing my photos documenting the damage, the seller approved all three return requests and issued prepaid return labels. I returned all three items exactly as instructed, yet only one of the three items was refunded, even though all three were delivered back to the merchants facility. In my initial submission, documented in XXXX, I provided XXXX tracking confirmation showing that the two items still in dispute were delivered on XX/XX/year> and were signed for at the sellers warehouse. I also included a full explanation showing that these items were never refunded despite being properly returned. This evidence clearly established that the merchandise was received by the seller. According to the rules governing chargebacks for merchandise received damaged, once the items are returned using the seller-provided shipping labels, the customer is entitled to a refund. Bank of America denied the claim by stating that I had not provided sufficient proof that the merchant received the returned merchandise. Because of this, I submitted additional documentation in XXXX. This submission included a detailed written explanation as well as a critical piece of evidence : an official email from an XXXX supervisor confirming that all three items I returned were delivered to the seller. The supervisor stated that they personally contacted the seller, and the seller acknowledged receiving all three returned items. The supervisor also confirmed that the seller refused to issue the remaining refunds solely because the items were damaged. Importantly, XXXX verified that the items arrived to me already damaged, which they confirmed by comparing my original photos to the photos the seller uploaded into the return case. The damages matched exactly. This proves the seller knowingly sent damaged goods, approved the return after seeing the condition, received the items back, and still refused to issue the required refunds. In addition to this, the seller submitted documentation to my bank falsely claiming that my XXXX account had been suspended due to improper returns or return abuse. This statement is not true. My account is only temporarily restricted because of the ongoing chargebacks involving this particular seller, and this is standard procedure during a chargeback investigation on XXXX. It is unrelated to my return history and not due to any rule violation. I will be including communication from XXXX that clarifies this fact and confirms that the statement submitted by the merchant to my bank is false. 
Despite all of this evidence, which directly addresses the reason Bank of America denied my claim, the bank issued a second denial using the same reasoning as before. This indicates that the bank did not review or consider the new documentation I submitted, including XXXX  written confirmation that the seller received all three items and acknowledged doing so. I have followed the instructions provided by the seller, returned all items through the prepaid labels they issued, and supplied comprehensive documentation showing the return delivery, the sellers acknowledgment, the confirmed damage, and the sellers refusal to refund the remaining balance. Both XXXX tracking and XXXX  internal investigation support my claim. The sellers refusal violates both XXXX  return policies and standard chargeback rules for damaged merchandise. For these reasons, I am requesting that Bank of America reopen and properly evaluate my dispute using the evidence contained in all three PDF submissions, as the bank failed to review material evidence demonstrating that I fully complied with the return process and am entitled to a refund for the damaged merchandise received.

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 explanation