Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 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: CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, THE
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding a {$1100.00} charge from XXXX for a hotel stay at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, booked for XXXX nights ( XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/year> ). I checked in on XX/XX/XXXX and departed on XX/XX/XXXX after XXXX nights because the room maintained XXXX % humidity throughout the stay, making it uninhabitable for a family with a four-year-old child. I have timestamped photographic evidence showing the room 's air conditioning unit running and set to cool to XXXX degrees Celsius while the humidity simultaneously read 81 %. I filed a chargeback under XXXX reason code XXXX ( Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services ). First denial, XX/XX/year> : I submitted the chargeback on XX/XX/year>. Schwab denied it on XX/XX/XXXX, citing only that " the merchant provided supporting documentation. '' My submitted evidence was not referenced. Appeal filed and denied XX/XX/year> : I submitted a detailed written appeal on XX/XX/year> identifying XXXX independent grounds for reversal. Schwab denied that appeal the same day it was submitted, with no indication that any of the specific arguments were evaluated. The appeal identified the following grounds for reversal : First, XXXX 's own merchant submission uses the phrase " missing service '' in justifying their partial refund offer. This is a direct admission by XXXX that service was not fully rendered, which defeats their chargeback defense on its face. A merchant can not simultaneously argue that service was fully rendered ( to defeat a chargeback ) and that a refund is appropriate because service was missing ( to justify a goodwill offer ). Second, XXXX submitted their cancellation and no-show policy to Schwab while deliberately omitting their own published Shortened Stays refund policy, which is the policy that actually governs this situation. That policy states that shortened stays will be refunded within XXXX days, net of any applicable penalty charge. Applying it : XXXX nights booked, XXXX nights stayed, XXXX nights unused, minus a maximum one-night penalty equals XXXX nights owed ( approximately {$920.00} ). No refund of any amount has ever been processed. Third, the hotel 's written narrative contains XXXX specific falsehoods, each directly contradicted by timestamped photographic evidence showing dates, times, and locations on the phone 's native interface with no alterations. The denial response stated : " We have received your documentation/information ; however, we are unable to pursue this matter further. '' No specific argument in the appeal was addressed. No explanation was provided for why the evidence was insufficient. The core procedural failure : The Acquirer Representment Form included in the merchant documentation package shows that Schwab processed this dispute under the defense sub-code " Returned merchandise not received. '' This is a physical goods return framework that does not apply to a hotel service dispute. This sub-code fails on XXXX independent grounds. First, it is categorically inapplicable to services. A hotel stay can not be returned the way merchandise can. Second, even accepting the framework on its own terms : the merchandise was returned. When I checked out on XX/XX/XXXX, the hotel received back XXXX nights of sellable room inventory. The room was vacated. The hotel could rebook those nights. The defense fails even by its own logic. By applying this inapplicable framework, Schwab appears to have evaluated the wrong question entirely. The question was never whether I returned something. The question was whether the service provided matched what was described and paid for. That question was never answered. The Fair Credit Billing Act requires card issuers to conduct a reasonable investigation of billing errors. Schwab received a detailed appeal on XX/XX/year> identifying specific evidentiary failures in the merchant 's submission, including a direct quote from the merchant admitting " missing service, '' and denied it the same day without engaging with a single specific argument. I am requesting that Schwab reopen this dispute and conduct a genuine review of all submitted evidence.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation