Consumer complaint received 2021-08-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid 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: DC

Complaint narrative:
1. On XX/XX/2021, I was on vacation in XXXX, XXXX with my sister, shopping in the XXXX XXXX. At XXXX EST, I received a call from Barclays that an authorization for {$4300.00} had been flagged as fraud. I told the representative that I did not make the purchase. He said he would flag the charge as fraud and issue me a new card. 

2. On Friday, XX/XX/2021, I received a letter from Barclays saying they had completed an investigation and found the activity valid. I contacted Barclays Fraud on Monday morning, XX/XX/XXXX to contest the findings. I was told the activity was valid simply " because the chip from the card was used at time a purchase. '' There was no further investigation conducted by Barclays. 

3. I reiterated that the charge was fraudulent and wanted my continued dispute annotated in my complaint. I requested the merchant name, type of business, address and phone number from Barclays. First, I had never heard of the merchant. Second, the merchant was described as retail. 

In my own investigation, the number provided by Barclays was not retail, but linked to the XXXX XXXX of the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. When I contacted the merchant, the employee said that the library does not conduct sales. 

When I XXXX  the address provided by Barclays, it was in an area of XXXX I had not visited. In fact, at the time of the transition, I was 6-8 blocks away from the supposed point-of-transaction. I have a statement indicating I was at a different shop at the time of purchase, and could not have been in the location of the merchant. Furthermore, the phone number did not match the merchant based on the address provided by Barclays. How can a consumer be expected to investigate their own claim, when the card issuer provides poor, erroneous, or unverified information to the consumer -- then makes the consumer try and put the pieces together. 

4. On XX/XX/2021, I sent a letter to Barclays outlining what I had discovered. After seven days I had still received no response from Barclays. 

5. On XX/XX/2021, I contacted Barclays. The fraud associate reiterated that Barclays found the activity valid and I was responsible for the charge. There was no mention of the follow-up material I sent for review. After 20 minutes on the call, the associate finally relented to forward the information I sent for a higher-level review. When I highlighted the discrepancies in the information provided to me by Barclays the associate expressed a number of excuses as to why the information did not match, but reiterated, because a chip was used, the charge was valid and I responsible for the amount, including interest, late fees and charges. Frankly, I should NOT be liable for any of the aforementioned charges as long as the dispute is ongoing. Furthermore, Barclays has shrugged off it's responsibility to provide a accurate and legitimate business name, contact number and address of the point-of-sale/transaction. 

6. During my call with Barclays on XX/XX/2021, I asked that they request from the merchant and provide a receipt of the transaction. The associate said " no '' and that they were not required to do so for fraud. However, if I wanted to change my claim from fraud to a dispute, the dispute resolution department " may '' ( not that they will ) be able to obtain a receipt of the transaction. However, if I changed from fraud to a dispute, I would thus be admitting the transition was mine. Furthermore, I could not later claim fraud. While I expect due diligence in respect to Barclays conducting an investigation, the company provides so many barriers for me to conduct an investigation, it's frankly impossible to do so, especially when provided erroneous information n the merchant. 

-- I am adamant that the amount of {$4300.00} is a fraudulent charge. 
-- I have a statement that I was in a different shop at the time of the Barclays call and fraud occurrence, based on information provided by Barclays. 
-- A consumer can not be reasonable expected to conduct an investigation, in a foreign country, with poor, incorrect and/or erroneous information from the card issuer. 
-- Simply because a chip was used does not mean the charge is valid. A number of recent reports and studies have indicated how a chip can be duplicated. 
-- Refusing to contact the merchant and provide a sales receipt is disingenuous. 
-- While the dispute is ongoing, the charge should be removed from my credit card, including interest and fees. 
-- Finally, when Barclays called me about the fraudulent charge ( at the exact time the fraud occurred ), why was it not blocked? When I said the charge was fraudulent, why was the authorization not cancelled? My experience with XXXX and XXXX XXXX, is when a charge is flagged as fraud, the charge is denied until the consumer either confirms via text, app, web or call. It seems counterproductive to call when a charge is flagged and then allow the authorization to proceed to a final sale/transaction. Especially, when the highest purchase on the card had only been {$200.00} ... {$200.00} to {$4300.00} is a obviously a red flag.

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