Consumer complaint received 2024-11-30 00:00:00
Product: Credit 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: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
I have two credit cards with Navy Federal Credit Union : a XXXX XXXX with a {$5000.00} limit and a XXXX XXXX XXXX  with a {$3000.00} limit, both of which have always been kept in good standing with on-time payments. On XX/XX/XXXX, a fraudulent charge of {$1600.00} was made to my XXXX XXXX from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX a company I have never rented from. I immediately contacted XXXX to resolve the issue but was unable to do so. I then disputed the charge with Navy Federal, but they refused to investigate, citing that the charge was past the 60-day window for investigation, leaving me responsible for the full amount. 

Shortly after, another fraudulent charge of {$1400.00} appeared on my XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX. I disputed this charge with Navy Federal and requested proof of my authorization, such as a signed rental agreement, a copy of my drivers license, and credit card details. Navy Federal was unable to provide any documentation showing that I had authorized the charge. After weeks of back-and-forth, Navy Federal offered to reduce my liability to {$340.00}, stating that I should be happy that I was not being held responsible for the entire amount. However, I maintained that this charge was fraudulent and unauthorized, and I refused to pay. 

Navy Federal continued to charge me interest on both fraudulent charges, imposed late fees due to my refusal to pay the unauthorized charges, and reported multiple late payments, incorrect balances, and over-limit charges to the credit bureaus. These actions have severely damaged my credit score. 

The documents attached to this claim will show that these charges were disputed as fraud. Navy Federal repeatedly referred to the charges as billing disputes instead of fraud, and they refused to investigate the {$1600.00} charge on my XXXX, leaving me with no documentation for that charge. Navy Federal sent a letter on XX/XX/XXXX, stating that no billing error had occurred and I was responsible for {$1400.00}. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, they initially credited this amount back to my account when I first reported the fraud. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, they denied the dispute for the first time and charged the amount back to my account. I immediately contacted them and requested that the dispute be reopened. On XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal issued another credit for {$1400.00} and reopened the dispute. Yet, on XX/XX/XXXX, they charged my account {$340.00} and sent another letter stating no billing error had occurred. 

I called Navy Federal and spoke with their " disputes manager '' who stated that the merchant had provided documentation and that I should be happy that I was only being held liable for {$340.00} instead of the entire {$1400.00}. However, I am confused and frustrated as to how I could be responsible for any of this fraud when I never authorized the charges, and how they determined that only {$1100.00} was fraudulent. 

Additionally, Navy Federal attached a clearly fraudulent and doctored rental agreement from XXXX as part of their justification for the charge. The rental agreement contains numerous inconsistencies and is evidently fabricated : The mileage on the rental car is listed as XXXX miles at the time of rental and XXXX miles at return. Its suspicious that the car drove exactly XXXX miles during the rental, which seems highly unlikely and suggests the agreement was altered. 
The optional services listed on the agreement include {$280.00} in charges for personal accident insurance, personal effects protection, and additional liability insurance. I own a XXXX XXXX with full coverage that includes rental insurance, so I would never have purchased these services. This suggests the agreement was falsified. 
The agreement includes a {$500.00} " miscellaneous charge '', which is unexplained and violates the Truth in Lending Act and SCUTPA, as charges must be itemized. The lack of explanation for these charges points to further deception. 
Neither XXXX nor Navy Federal could provide a copy of my drivers license or any document with my signature for either of the unauthorized charges, despite my repeated requests for this information. 
I have consistently asked Navy Federal to provide a signed rental agreement with my signature matching the one on my drivers license, but they have been unable to do so. This proves the charges were unauthorized, and the documents involved are fraudulent

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