Consumer complaint received 2025-08-07 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: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
In response to my original complaint ( # XXXX ), the bank submitted a reply ( Attachment XXXX ) that fails to address any of the core allegations regarding its mishandling of my chargeback request and related misconduct. The banks response appears to exploit procedural gaps : the complaint was transferred from the FDIC before I could upload supporting documents, and several response boxes were unintentionally left unchecked during submission. 

Specifically, the bank avoided any rebuttal of my evidence that the merchant forged my signature and submitted fabricated documents in support of their case. Rather than confronting the facts, the bank repeats discredited claims including that my documentation did not allow them to pursue credit from the merchant while ignoring the substantive issues I raised in my original chargeback request ( Attachment XXXX ), my objections to the merchants false response ( Attachment XXXX ), and multiple follow-up complaints. 

The response once again refers to the forged contract and an alleged absence of a merchant refund promise as the basis for denial despite overwhelming evidence showing that these claims are false. My analysis, timely submitted to the bank ( Attachment XXXX ), shows clear contradictions between the emails I actually received and submitted with my original chargeback request ( Attachment XXXX ), and the email allegedly sent to me by the same merchant representative on XX/XX/year>, which was submitted only in the merchants response ( Attachment XXXX ). These inconsistencies strongly suggest that the latter was fabricated, thereby discrediting the entire set of merchant-provided documents. 

The consideration of my authorization for the payment as a verbal agreement to the terms of the later written contract is without legal basis, as it is not supported by any audio recording or transcript confirming the terms discussed during the telephone conversation. Citing it as a factor in denying my claim based solely on a statement from the merchant, who had already been shown to have submitted forged and fabricated documents is wholly inappropriate and undermines any claim of impartiality in the banks review process. 

The banks assertion that my questions to the Dispute Department ( Attachment XXXX ) were " unsubstantiated '' is demonstrably false. The faxed questions were successfully transmitted, as shown in the fax confirmation report ( Attachment XXXX ). While the fax number referenced in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX response ( Attachment XXXX ) failed to accept transmissions, the number used in the Dispute Departments denial letter ( Attachments XXXX ) did accept them. 

The questions I asked were simple and direct, and essentially required the bank to answer : - Do the contradictions in the merchants emails constitute proof of fabrication? 
- If so, does this render the merchants contract and supporting documents invalid? 

These questions go to the XXXX of whether the bank knowingly sided with a fraudulent party. The bank avoided answering them despite receiving them twice : first via fax and then through a direct email reply ( Attachment XXXX ) likely because the only honest answers would confirm that the bank turned a XXXX eye to the fraud. 

Moreover, the banks assertion that it does not compensate for scams misrepresents the core issue. I am not seeking compensation for a scam. I am seeking accountability for the banks own role in mishandling my dispute including its failure to investigate the merchants fraud, its disregard of clear evidence, and its evasive conduct throughout the entire process. 

The banks actions include : - Delaying a formal dispute : On XX/XX/year>, a representative promised a reversal that never occurred. On XX/XX/year>, another rep refused to open a dispute unless I first contacted the merchant. On XX/XX/year>, a dispute was finally opened but without requesting my documents only to be closed on XX/XX/year> due to lack of documentation ( Attachment XXXX ). 
- Enabling scammers : On XX/XX/year>, a bank representative facilitated the scammers request for my signature and ID. 
- Refusing to investigate fraud : The bank accepted forged and fabricated documents without scrutiny and concealed the merchants fraud behind generic language ( Attachment XXXX ). 

These actions demonstrate that the bank treats scams not as fraud but as a legitimate business opportunity taking all necessary measures to secure its share of the scammers profits. 

I believe these actions constitute violations of Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) regarding fair resolution of billing disputes, as well as unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices under the Dodd-Frank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ). The banks failure to evaluate clear evidence of fraud, reliance on fabricated documents, and refusal to answer critical questions reflect systemic abuse of its position in the dispute process. 

However, due to the forced arbitration clause in the cardholder agreement, and without intervention from the Bureau, the banks abusive and deceptive practices along with its blatant violations of applicable rules and regulations will go unpunished and are likely to continue.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

List of Attachments 1. Banks response to complaint forwarded by CFPB Bank 's formal position ; fails to address core allegations 2. Description of Issues and Desired Resolution in complaint to FDIC/CFPB Establishes context and outlines original allegations 3. Fraud Alert Messages Documents bank refusal to consider scam as fraud and to confirm payment reversal 4. Letters on Opening and Closing Dispute Dispute was opened without documents and closed due to 'lack of documentation ' Confirms procedural failure in requesting supporting documents 5. Request for Reopening with Documents Submission Documents timely and valid request initiation 6. Merchants response to dispute Contains fake email, misleading statements, contract and voucher with forged signature 7. Initial denial from Dispute Department Initial internal judgment that disregards fraud evidence 8. Detailed Objections to Merchants Response Detailed point-by-point refutation of merchant 's false claims 9. Response to Detailed Objections from Dispute Department Demonstrates decision to accept illegal documents to deny chargeback 10. Complaints and Replies via Secure Message Portal Shows absence of advertised independent review of complaints by Customer Care 11 Complaint to Barclays CEO Reveals misconduct at handling of chargeback request 12. First Response from Office of the President Reveals position of bank leadership dismissing evidence-based arguments 13. Fax with 2 Questions to Dispute Department Answers would reveal illegal denial 14. Fax Transmission Reports Sheet Demonstrates constant transmission errors at suggested fax number 15. report-fax-to-XXXX  Proof that fraud-related questions were delivered 16. Email to bank with 2 unanswered questions Sent in reply to bank notification on CFPB complaint receipt

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