Consumer complaint received 2025-08-27 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:
I am a customer of XXXX XXXX Card ( XXXX ). The XXXX card was locked as were paying down our credit card debt and were not using it. Because of this we were not receiving paper statements. On or about XX/XX/XXXX my husband noticed that the credit card balance was not decreasing even though we were paying more than the minimum monthly payment. He logged onto our account and noticed seventy-nine ( 79 ) Apple charges coming from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX CA XXXX in XXXX. These charges were for XXXX phone applications. I contacted XXXX who advised me that the applications purchased was not linked to my XXXX account. Next, I called XXXX XXXX XXXX and explained the same to them, they opened an investigation. Approximately two weeks later I received a letter stating that the investigation concluded that I fact had made those purchases therefore I would not receive any credit. They then instructed me to send all the statements in question via XXXX so that they can further investigate. XXXX received the statements in addition to the letter I wrote on XX/XX/XXXX. I again received a letter on XX/XX/XXXX, stating the same that they were not going to credit my account for those purchases. I called XXXX XXXX Investigations again. Then on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter advising me that they did in fact credit me for 22 of those charges. And that because I have a relationship with XXXX, they concluded that I had made the remaining 49 additional purchases. I am filing a complaint with your agency for the following reasons. First, the XXXX card was locked and the purchases in question should not have processed. Second, the pattern of those purchases does not match my purchasing pattern therefore, again the charges should not have been allowed to go through or at the minimum XXXX should have contacted me to confirm that I indeed made those purchases. Thirdly, I believe that XXXX did not do their due diligence with regard to this investigation. The purchases all came from the same " vendor '', so why only credit me 22 of the 71 purchases. I myself searched the phone number attached to said purchases. XXXX says, '' The phone number XXXX is not associated with any legitimate company or service and is likely a scam. It is a variation of the fraudulent number XXXX, which scammers have used for years to post fake " XXXX '' charges to credit card and debit cards ''. Fourth, If XXXX would have contacted me in regard to this investigation instead of sending me form letters I would have explained my findings. Furthermore, they refused to explain how they came to the conclusion that I had made those purchases. Fifth, according to XXXX if you have a relationship with the company making those charges then for sure you are responsible for them without thoroughly investigating each case individually and not making a blanket assumption.

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