Consumer complaint received 2026-03-18 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint regarding Navy Federal Credit Unions handling of a debit card dispute involving merchandise that was materially not as described. I purchased four tires from a tire shop, and later discovered that all four tires installed on my vehicle were incorrect for my vehicles required specifications. My vehicle requires : Front : XXXX Rear : XXXX The tire shop installed : Rear : XXXX Front : XXXX In addition, the tires were represented as brand new, but they were mismatched brands and did not conform to what should reasonably have been supplied for my vehicle. Because the tire sizes were close, I did not immediately realize they were incorrect at the time of purchase. After a period of use, two tires failed and blew out, requiring emergency replacement. I submitted documentation to Navy Federal including photographs showing my vehicles manufacturer tire specifications, photographs of the installed and blown tires, and replacement tire invoice documentation. My concern is the way Navy Federal handled the dispute timeline. On XX/XX/XXXX, I notified Navy Federal through secure message that the tire shop sold me the wrong sized tires and explained that all four tires were incorrect for my vehicle. On XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal confirmed that my documentation had been attached to the dispute claim. On XX/XX/XXXX, I again explained that all four tires were wrong for the vehicle and specifically stated that I could prove it using the tire specifications listed on the driver-side door and the tires themselves. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received notice that the dispute had already been closed in the merchants favor for lack of documentation, even though no clear request for additional specific documentation had yet been made through the same message thread where I had already been actively communicating and submitting information. Only after that closure, on XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal sent a message listing additional documentation categories they wanted in order to conduct a second review, including a more detailed written explanation and correspondence with the merchant. I then immediately provided a detailed written explanation, exact tire sizes, and additional supporting documentation. My concern is that the dispute was denied before I was given a meaningful opportunity to supply the exact additional information later requested. This dispute concerns goods materially not as described and defective merchandise, not an unauthorized charge. I am requesting : 1. Full reopening and fair reconsideration of the dispute. 2. A written explanation of what documentation Navy Federal considered missing at the time it originally closed the claim. 3. Clarification as to why the dispute was closed before the later request for additional documentation was issued. The merchant is approximately XXXX miles from me, and when the tires failed I had to replace them locally because the vehicle could not safely be driven back to that merchant. Please note : the attachments here are exactly what was sent through the Navy Federal online portal. They are labeled exactly the same.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation