Consumer complaint received 2026-02-16 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: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a goods not received claim for a {$1200.00} payment charged to my Bank of America credit card sent through the peer-to-peer payment service XXXX  to XXXX XXXX concerning the attempted recovery of my stolen vehicle. On XXXX/25XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America issued a letter requesting supporting documentation from me, which I provided and clearly demonstrates that XXXX XXXX is an attorney in Mexico, whom I paid {$1200.00} to for the reporting and recovery of my stolen united states vehicle thats also in Mexico. Furthermore, my previously supplied documentation clearly demonstrated that XXXX XXXX did not report my stolen vehicle to the appropriate authorities per the terms of our engagement letter and my documentation also clearly demonstrated via evidence obtained on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX/25 immediately prior to filing this Bank of America dispute that XXXX XXXX lied about having facilitated the recovery of my stolen vehicles with the authorities. In fact, my supporting documentation clearly proves that XXXX XXXX lied about my stolen vehicle being in police custody ( see BOAs  XXXX/25XX/XX/XXXX letter as well as my previously supplied supporting documentation already on file with BOAs claims department ). Additionally, more recently on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX25, XXXX XXXX who is an agent from my Mexico auto insurance company indicated that the vehicle theft report supplied by XXXX XXXX is not an official document issued by the prosecutors office that even meets the standards necessary to file a stolen vehicle claim for auto insurance purposes ( See text message communication with XXXX XXXX ). 

The bottom line with this goods not received claim is that its undisputed that my vehicle was stolen and that in exchange for my payment of {$1200.00} made to XXXX XXXX, I did not get my stolen vehicle back, I got lied to about my stolen vehicle being in police custody and I did not even get a theft report that meets the basic standard necessary to file a vehicle theft claim with my auto insurance company. XXXX XXXX did absolutely nothing to rectify the situation, acted in bad faith and scammed me out of {$1200.00}. 

On XXXX25, Bank of America issued a letter stating that I was being issued a provisional credit in the amount of {$1200.00} and that Bank of America would be finalizing the investigation within sixty days. On XX/XX/XXXX, BOA supplied a letter received from WISE stating that I authorized the payment to XXXX XXXX ( See XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX letters already on file with XXXX XXXX department ). On XX/XX/XXXX, BOA reversed the provisional credit of {$1200.00} previously issued on XX/XX/XXXX after XXXX days without providing a written explanation followed by a duplicate reversal of the {$1200.00} provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX, which Bank of America has since corrected without explanation. Bank of America has not yet corrected the original reversal of the {$1200.00} provisional credit from XXXX26XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XXXX financial institution has not responded with supporting documentation to the contrary because he clearly scammed me and did not provide the goods that I paid for. 

Under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ), credit card issuers must investigate " billing errors ''. 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ), specifically defines a billing error as including the non-delivery of goods, regardless of whether the payment transaction itself was authorized, even if payment was authorized through a third-party processor such as XXXX. If you use XXXX to pay the merchant, and the merchant failed to deliver, the goods not received rule still applies. The consumer is generally required to notify Bank of America within XXXX days of the statement date on which the error first appeared. However, extenuating circumstances such as the circumstances in my case where I received crystal clear confirmation shortly after sixty days had passed after making payment that XXXX XXXX lied about my stolen vehicle being in police custody allows additional time. 

Bank of America accepted my claim on XX/XX/XXXX and issued me the provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX knowing that the money was sent through XXXX. Bank of America committed to conduct a reasonable investigation and reversing the provisional credit simply after receiving a statement from XXXX stating that I authorized the payment is not a complete investigation. Lastly, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ) as also indicated in Bank of Americas 10/24/25 letter required Bank of America to resolve the dispute within two complete billing cycles ( maximum 90 days ) from the date I filed the claim on XXXX/2025, which Bank of America did not do. Instead, Bank of America failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and reversed my provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX after XXXX billing cycles and after 90 days from the day I filed the claim on XX/XX/XXXX. This is no way to treat a preferred customer of 15 years, and I respectfully request that BOA recredit me back the {$1200.00} and conduct a reasonable and fair investigation required by 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ) and as promised in the XXXX/25 letter.

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