Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Can't close your account
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
Barclays XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, What follows has already been documented, preserved, identified, confirmed, proven, and explained to Barclays repeatedly over the course of several years. The investigative defects, contradictory records, timeline inconsistencies, and use of unrelated identity data referenced below have already been raised over and over again in prior disputes, correspondence, and escalations. Yet Barclays continues ignoring the same core issues while issuing conclusory statements of accuracy unsupported by any meaningful explanation or reconciliation of the underlying defects. Accordingly, I will state this XXXX final time as clearly as possible. Your response is rejected. It does not address the core facts, the documented investigative defects, or the contradictory records already identified repeatedly over the course of several years. Instead, Barclays continues attempting to divert the issue toward XX/XX/XXXX payment activity while refusing to address the central issue that has been stated repeatedly : This account was effectively shut down and no longer used by XXXX beginning in XX/XX/XXXX during divorce proceedings. Legitimate charges incurred by XXXX were paid. Any subsequent activity that occurred after XX/XX/XXXX was disputed because the account had become compromised. That is why a fraud investigation occurred in the first place. Your office continues omitting that critical context while simultaneously refusing to explain the investigative irregularities contained in Barclays own records. Most notably, Barclays still refuses to explain : Why investigative correspondence referenced XXXX XXXX, an address wholly unrelated to me, my family, or any known associate Why Barclays investigative materials referenced residency periods from XXXX for an account opened in XXXX Why unrelated identity and residency data appeared within the investigative process at all Whether another consumer file was accessed, merged, confused, or relied upon during the investigation Whether Barclays ever properly distinguished legitimate pre-dispute activity from the later compromised activity that became the subject of the fraud investigation Your latest response ignores every XXXX of these issues. That omission is not insignificant. It is the central problem. Because once Barclays own investigative records contain unrelated identity and residency information, the integrity and reliability of the entire investigation becomes suspect. You continue asserting the reporting is accurate while refusing to explain how an allegedly legitimate investigation could simultaneously contain : unrelated addresses, unrelated residency timelines, and references plainly inconsistent with the account chronology itself. Your XX/XX/XXXX response also deliberately mischaracterizes the XX/XX/XXXX payment issue. Those payments were not returned because valid undisputed debt was knowingly unpaid. Those payments were STOPPED knowing we had already paid account in full, the account had already become disputed and compromised. Again, that is precisely why Barclays initiated a fraud investigation. And Barclays itself acknowledged fraudulent activity in writing. Yet even now, Barclays refuses to identify : what charges it deemed legitimate, what charges it deemed fraudulent, when the account was considered compromised, what investigative procedures were used, and how Barclays verified accuracy despite the documented identity inconsistencies embedded in the investigation itself. That is not a meaningful reinvestigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. At this point, Barclays has now documented a continuing pattern of refusing to address the actual investigative defects raised. Your office has had repeated opportunities to explain : XXXX. Why unrelated consumer identity data appeared in the investigation XXXX. Why unrelated residency timelines were referenced XXXX. Whether another consumer file contaminated the review process XXXX. Whether post-compromise activity was improperly attributed to me XXXX. How Barclays can claim accuracy while refusing to reconcile these contradictions Instead, Barclays continues issuing conclusory statements unsupported by any explanation reconciling the underlying defects. That is no longer a mere customer service issue. It is now evidence relevant to willful failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and continued furnishing of disputed information despite documented investigative irregularities. Accordingly, Barclays is directed to preserve all records relating to this matter, including but not limited to : internal investigation notes fraud review files dispute logs account access records identity verification records address verification records consumer file matching procedures furnishing records sent to consumer reporting agencies communications involving XXXX XXXX XXXX involving the Office of the XXXX XXXX trails relating to the investigation and reporting of this account FINAL DEMAND A complete deletion of this account and all associated derogatory reporting from all consumer reporting agencies must be completed no later than Thursday at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Failure to comply will result in litigation being filed in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without further notice. That filing will include claims relating to : failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, continued furnishing of disputed and inaccurate information, reliance on contaminated or mismatched identity data, and continued reporting following acknowledged fraudulent activity. Additionally, this matter will be publicly escalated, including formal media disclosure and distribution to national media outlets and network organizations with whom I currently maintain professional relationships. No further generic responses are necessary. If Barclays maintains its current position, Barclays should be prepared to explain under oath : ( Letter Attached ) the XXXX XXXX references, the unrelated XXXX residency references, the investigative methodology used, the handling of disputed post-compromise activity, and the basis for continuing derogatory reporting despite acknowledged fraudulent activity and documented investigative inconsistencies. How does Barclays look at records containing unrelated addresses, unrelated residency histories, contradictory timelines, acknowledged fraudulent activity, and documented investigative inconsistencies all appearing within Barclays own correspondence and still conclude that no meaningful problem exists? And more importantly, how many other consumers and families have had their financial lives damaged, their credit destroyed, their housing opportunities impacted, their stress compounded, and their reputations harmed because Barclays chose conclusory accuracy determinations over an actual competent investigation? That is what makes this so appalling. Not simply the errors themselves. But the repeated refusal to confront them even after they were identified, documented, preserved, and pointed out over and over again in black-and-white correspondence spanning years. At some point this stops being negligence and starts becoming institutional indifference to the damage caused to real people. Because none of this adds up. Not the timelines. Not the residency references. Not the investigative records. Not the contradictions embedded within Barclays own communications. And yet the reporting continues anyway. That is precisely why this matter is now moving beyond private dispute correspondence and into litigation, regulatory escalation, and public exposure. BARCLAY XXXX CARD Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending XXXX or XXXX FINAL DEMAND IMMEDIATE DELETION OF FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT / FCRA VIOLATIONS To Whom It May Concern, This is a final, unified demand to immediately delete a XXXX account that is being falsely reported on my credit file despite being closed, paid in full, and later confirmed compromised due to fraud. This matter is not a dispute. It is the continued reporting of factually incorrect information with documented knowledge of its inaccuracy. ACCOUNT TIMELINE ( UNDISPUTED FACTS ) Account opened : XX/XX/XXXX Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX ( during divorce proceedings and due to fraudulent activity ) Account status : Paid in full by XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX balance ) Fraud determination : Barclays confirmed I am not responsible ( XX/XX/XXXX ) DEFENDANTS OWN DOCUMENTS CONFIRM XXXX Shot XXXX at XXXX XXXX Barclays representative XXXX XXXX, in correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, referenced account activity tied to : DEFECTIVE INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTED IN YOUR OWN CORRESPONDENCE Barclays representative, XXXX XXXX, in correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, issued a response that demonstrates a failure to conduct any reasonable investigation. Her letter contains references to : Addresses ( including XXXX XXXX ) that are not associated with me Time periods including XXXX thru XXXX, which have no connection to this account ( opened in XXXX ) Statements and data that clearly pertain to another individual and another file As documented by counsel : There is NO record, public, or private of XXXX XXXX being associated with a XXXX XXXX ever life in his life, nor any relatives, friends or associates. It is NOT a part of ANY public records, not XXXX Additionally, the letter references residency periods that are entirely unrelated : XXXX XXXX did not live at this address in XXXX thru XXXX. WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES This correspondence demonstrates that : No reasonable investigation was conducted Barclays relied on incorrect, unrelated, or mismatched data The response appears to have been generated using information from another consumer file Barclays verified and continued reporting inaccurate information based on that defective process LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not a minor clerical error. It is evidence of : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ) Reckless disregard for accuracy Continued reporting of information that could not have been verified through a legitimate review FRAUD DETERMINATION YOUR OWN FINDING Barclays formally confirmed in writing ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : you are not responsible for the reported fraudulent activity This is your determinationnot mine. CURRENT REPORTING ( FALSE ) Despite the above, the account is still being reported as : Charged-off Balance : {$3700.00} Ongoing delinquency This is factually incorrect. CORE ISSUE You are reporting a charged-off debt on an account that was : Closed Paid in full by XX/XX/XXXX Compromised after closure Confirmed by Barclays as not my responsibility Every continued report constitutes the knowing publication of false information. LEGAL VIOLATIONS Your actions constitute violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) Failure to investigate and correct ( Barclays ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy ( CRAs ) XXXX U.S.C. XXXX Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation BREAKDOWN IN ACCOUNTABILITY THIRD-PARTY LEGAL CONTACT Barclays, directly or through its agents, identified an attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Illinois ) XXXX as a point of contact in connection with this account. Since that time : He has been associated with multiple law firms ( XXXX to date ) He has failed to respond to any communication, including : Direct outreach from me Communications from legal counsel acting on my behalf He has provided no verification, no documentation, and no response Despite being presented as a representative tied to this matter, he has completely failed to engage. A complaint regarding this conduct has been submitted to the Illinois Attorney XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( ARDC ). DEMAND ( NON-NEGOTIABLE ) You are required to : DELETE THIS ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY from all credit reporting agencies Remove all : Charge-off status Delinquency history Past due balances Provide written confirmation that : The account is closed The balance is {$0.00} I have no liability DEADLINE This must be completed by the close of business TODAY.

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