Consumer complaint received 2026-05-25 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from a supplier on XXXX. The charge of {$1300.00} posted to my JetBlue XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The drives exhibited a latent defect intermittent failure to be recognized at the XXXX/firmware level following power cycling that could not be detected by ordinary acceptance inspection, because affected units can still mount and read in the operating system. The defect was identified only after structured testing across multiple units. Upon discovering the defect, I attempted to resolve the matter directly with the seller, who read my messages and did not respond. I escalated through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXnternal dispute process without resolution. Having exhausted those channels, I filed a billing error notice with Barclays on XX/XX/XXXX. From the outset, I asked Barclays what documentation would be required to substantiate the dispute. I was told by the bank 's representative that I should not worry about this, and that the bank would notify me if anything further was needed. No such proactive notification was ever provided. When my initial submission was rejected in XX/XX/XXXX, I learned of the rejection and of any new documentation requirements only by telephoning the bank myself. At that point I was told the bank required a formal signed report from a licensed third party. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted an independent diagnostic report from a licensed XXXX XXXX XXXX electronics service provider, documenting that ten units randomly selected from the disputed batch exhibited intermittent detection failures and were not suitable for reliable use. On XX/XX/XXXX, Barclays closed the dispute. I learned of the closure only because I followed up by telephone on XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX letter states only that the bank " remain [ s ] unable to further pursue this matter on your behalf '' based on " the information available. '' The letter does not identify what information the bank relied upon, does not address the XX/XX/XXXX diagnostic report, does not explain why my evidence was deemed insufficient, and does not identify what additional documentation, if any, would satisfy the bank. This letter and the bank 's broader handling of the dispute does not satisfy the written-explanation requirement of 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ). Under that provision, when a creditor concludes that no billing error occurred, the creditor must provide a written explanation setting forth the reasons for that conclusion. The Official Interpretation to 1026.13 ( f ) specifies that where a creditor fails to comply with the written-explanation requirement, the disputed amount and related charges must be credited to the consumer 's account. A conclusory statement that the bank is " unable to pursue '' the matter is not an explanation of reasons. It is the generic non-response that 1026.13 ( f ) was specifically drafted to prevent.

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