Consumer complaint received 2025-01-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
My XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was charged several hundred dollars for a transaction I did not authorize. I submitted a dispute with Barclays Disputes Department, but they determined that the transaction was valid, claiming that I still had possession of my card when the transaction occured. Based on this, they closed the case without further investigation. I strongly believe their determination was incorrect and failed to meet the investigative standards required under U.S. consumer protection laws. I formally requested Barclays to reopen the dispute. 

Why Their Investigation Was Flawed : Failure to Provide Adequate Evidence Barclays claimed the transaction was valid because my card was in my possession. This reasoning is insufficient, as fraudulent transactions can still occur even under these circumstances. A thorough investigation should have gone beyond this basic assumption. Their approach failed to meet the standards set by the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), which requires credit card issuers to conduct a comprehensive review of disputed charges.

Violation of Consumer Rights Under the FCBA The FCBA ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) provide consumers the right to dispute unauthorized or incorrect transactions. Barclays was obligated to conduct a thorough investigation and consider all relevant evidence. From their response, it was evident they failed to meet these requirements, as critical details about the transaction were ignored.

Failure to Provide Supporting Evidence Barclays is required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E to provide evidence supporting the validity of the transaction. I specifically requested the following, which they ignored : A copy of the transaction receipt, including a description of the services or products provided.

Documentation showing my authenticated signature authorizing the transaction.

Logs and records detailing the transaction 's origin, including IP addresses, geolocation, and device information.

Without this evidence, their conclusion lacked credibility.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Guidelines The CFPB mandates that financial institutions protect consumer rights and conduct proper investigations into disputes. Barclays superficial review and failure to address my specific concerns violated these guidelines.

Repeated Inadequate Responses Despite my formal request to reopen the dispute and address my detailed concerns, Barclays ignored my points and repeatedly sent the same response. This dismissive approach was unacceptable and highlighted their failure to fulfill their obligations. By refusing to investigate thoroughly, they effectively supported and enabled fraudulent activity.

In Summary : Barclays handling of my dispute failed to meet the standards required under U.S. consumer protection laws. I urged them to reopen the case, conduct a thorough investigation, and provide the evidence I requested. However, they ignored my request, showing a disregard for their responsibilities and my consumer rights.

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