Consumer complaint received 2026-03-23 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
I. Victim of Mail Theft and Identity Theft I am a victim of identity theft involving stolen mail and unauthorized use of my financial information. On XX/XX/year> at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX management of my residential community where I reside provided written confirmation that the centralized mailbox system serving approximately XXXX units had been compromised. Their communication stated that XXXX had been notified and would be sending a technician to repair the broken slots, and confirmed that XXXX has sole jurisdiction over mailbox security and delivery. This condition was outside of my control, as XXXX retains sole jurisdiction over mailbox security and repairs, and residents can not access or secure these units. This establishes that the mailbox breach was a documented service failure involving a federal mail system, not a privately secured mailbox. As a result of this breach, my mail was stolen, including a replacement Barclays credit card and a full Equifax credit report containing sensitive personal information. I reported this incident to the United States Postal Service on XX/XX/year> ( Service Request No. XXXX ), which was subsequently escalated and accepted by the United States XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Case No. XXXX ). I also filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC Report XXXX. XXXX ) and a police report with the XXXX Police Department ( Report XXXX. XXXX ). XXXX. XXXX, Fraud Notification, and Immediate Reporting On XX/XX/year>, Barclays Fraud Detection Unit identified activity on my account that XXXX be related to fraudulent usage and created a fraud case ( Case # XXXX ) before I had contacted them, instructing me to verify the activity. This notification originated from Barclays Fraud Detection Unit and provided a direct contact number, which I used to respond. I contacted Barclays and completed a full review of the account activity with their representative. During that call, I clearly stated that I did not authorize any of the XX/XX/XXXX transactions, including the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX charge, the XXXX charge, and all related attempted transactions. I reported all XX/XX/XXXX activity as unauthorized. During the same call, I asked whether there were any additional transactions on the account. The representative identified a prior charge dated XX/XX/year> for {$40.00} ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I stated that I was unsure of that transaction and would verify it separately. This was not reported as part of the XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized activity. On XX/XX/year>, I confirmed that the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX charge was legitimate and contacted Barclays to clarify that it was valid and unrelated to the fraud incident. Barclays did not request supporting documentation from me as part of its investigation. I provided all documentation voluntarily, including my police report, statement of facts, and supporting evidence, in an effort to assist in identifying the individual responsible. On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written statement of facts and supporting documentation by fax, along with a police-signed identity theft transaction records request. On XX/XX/year> at approximately XXXX PM, I submitted a formal appeal by fax to Barclays XXXX XXXX department, requesting reconsideration of their fraud determination. This appeal included the police narrative, supporting documentation, and previously submitted evidence, including images of the damaged mailbox, missing mail, and XXXX XXXX XXXX records. XXXX. Complete Transaction Sequence and Pattern of XXXX The XX/XX/year> incident consisted of a single, continuous sequence of XXXX transactions within a short period of time. This included : XXXX approved transactions totaling {$80.00} XXXX declined transactions totaling {$2300.00} XXXX attempted exposure of {$2400.00} Barclays XXXX show that the replacement card was activated on XX/XX/year> at approximately XXXX PM. I did not receive, possess, or activate this card at any time. The unauthorized transaction sequence began immediately after this activation. The sequence began with a {$6.00} charge at XXXX in the XXXX, followed immediately by XXXX declined XXXX transactions of {$200.00} each. Despite this activity already being declined, a {$74.00} XXXX charge was then approved. The sequence then escalated to high-value cash withdrawal and cash advance attempts, including {$1000.00} and {$500.00} withdrawal attempts at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX {$300.00} cash advance attempt at CVS Pharmacy XXXX XXXX with additional declined digital transfer and online purchase attempts from XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, and XXXX. Further failed attempts continued through approximately XXXX PM. This was not isolated activity, but a continuous pattern of attempted use during a single incident. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Barclays identified and responded to this activity by initiating a fraud case ( Case # XXXX ), closing the account, and issuing a replacement card with a new account number. These actions show that Barclays treated the activity as fraud when it happened. However, Barclays later changed its position and decided that XXXX transactions from that same sequence were valid and that I benefited from them. Barclays has not explained how the same activity they identified as fraud, closed the account for, and required me to verify can later be treated as authorized charges that I am responsible for. Barclays also has not explained how the first and fourth transactions in this sequence were considered authorized while the immediately surrounding transactions were declined and part of the same pattern of fraudulent activity. V. Omission of XXXX Transactions and Incomplete Investigation I reported all XXXX transactions from XX/XX/year> as unauthorized and documented them in my statement of facts, which was provided to law enforcement and Barclays. However, Barclays XX/XX/year> correspondence referenced only XXXX transactions and did not include the XXXX declined transactions from the same sequence. Subsequent determinations dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX addressed only the approved transactions and the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX charge, while continuing to omit the remaining XXXX transactions entirely. Barclays has not explained what consideration was given to these XXXX transactions, why they were excluded from the investigation, or why they are no longer reflected in my account records. Barclays has also refused to provide records related to these transactions despite my formal request. Barclays determination focuses only on the transactions that were approved, totaling {$80.00}, while omitting the remaining XXXX related transactions totaling {$2300.00} from the same sequence of reported activity, resulting in an incomplete and one-sided investigation. The activity on XX/XX/year>, including attempted ATM withdrawals, cash advances, and rapid transaction activity in a different location, is not consistent with my normal account usage. I have no history of ATM withdrawals or similar activity on this account. VI. Continued Investigation of a Resolved Transaction Despite my clarification on XX/XX/year> and again in my XX/XX/year> submission that the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transaction was valid and unrelated, Barclays continued to investigate that charge and issued a determination on XX/XX/year> stating that it was valid based on merchant documentation. This created the false impression that I had disputed that charge as fraudulent, when in fact I had already confirmed it as legitimate. XXXX. Failure to Provide Records On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a formal request for records pursuant to California XXXX XXXX XXXX, including a police-signed identity theft transaction records request, seeking all records related to the unauthorized use of my account, including activation data, device or IP information, transaction logs, and ATM or terminal records. Barclays has not responded to this request and has not provided the requested records. This failure has prevented me from obtaining the information necessary to identify how the account was accessed and used and has impaired my ability to fully defend myself against these charges. As a result, Barclays has not explained how the account was accessed and used, how the transactions were conducted, or how it determined that only XXXX transactions were authorized. XXXX. XXXX Liability and Consumer Protection Under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Mastercards XXXX Liability Policy, I am not responsible for unauthorized transactions where I did not authorize the activity, did not receive the card, and reported the activity promptly. In this case : The card was stolen through documented mail theft I did not receive or possess the card used I reported the activity immediately I cooperated fully and provided supporting documentation Barclays conclusion that I benefited from these transactions does not account for these protections or the documented fraud event. XXXX. Conclusion Barclays determination is incomplete, inconsistent, and unsupported by the full set of facts. The activity was treated as fraud at the time it occurred, involved a continuous sequence of XXXX transactions, and resulted in account closure and reissuance of a new account number. Barclays later reversed its position without addressing the full transaction pattern, the omitted transactions, or the supporting documentation provided. Barclays handling of this matter does not reflect a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act, fails to account for the full set of related transactions, and does not align with the protections afforded to victims of unauthorized use under applicable consumer protection standards.

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