Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 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: U.S. BANCORP
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX charges totaling {$10000.00} to XXXX ( Reservation XXXX ) disputed under FCBA 1666 ( b ) ( 3 ) services not delivered as agreed. Cases : XXXX ( {$3000.00} XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( {$2600.00} XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( {$2500.00} XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( {$2300.00} XX/XX/XXXX ). All denied XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX word-for-word identical form letters. XXXX has had XXXX documented opportunities to properly investigate and failed both times. FIRST OPPORTUNITY FAILED XX/XX/XXXX : While investigation was still open, a comprehensive clarification and evidence package was submitted through XXXX 's own official dispute center portal. This submission contained : full legal framework under FCBA 1666 ( b ) ( 3 ), XXXX documented deficiency categories with objective evidence, explicit warning that the unauthorized charge case required separate treatment under 1666 ( b ) ( 1 ), and documentation that XXXX paid {$1400.00} to XXXX XXXX and {$0.00} to XXXX for the same reservation. XXXX 's portal accepted the submission. Once XXXX issued its final decision XX/XX/XXXX, the portal locked preventing further submissions and making the CFPB the only XXXXemaining avenue. SECOND OPPORTUNITY FAILED XX/XX/XXXX : Twenty-three days after receiving the comprehensive portal submission, Elan issued XXXX word-for-word identical form letter denials across XXXX different cases covering XXXX different monthly charges ranging from {$2300.00} to {$3000.00}. Every letter states identically : " you received the services represented by the transaction. '' Not XXXX letter references any specific evidence submitted, any legal argument raised, any deficiency category documented, or any finding on any individual claim. XXXX 'S INVESTIGATION VIOLATED FCBA IN XXXX WAYS : FAILURE 1 INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 1666 ( a ) ( B ) ) : XXXX identical form letters across cases covering different months of a XXXX stay after receiving comprehensive portal submission demonstrates no case-by-case review occurred. Evidence submitted included photos with measuring tape, temperature readings, voice recordings proving host prior knowledge, XXXX appliance failure timelines, and {$2400.00} mathematical error in XXXX 's XXXX compensation email. XXXX acknowledged none of it. FAILURE XXXX BURDEN OF PROOF NOT MET ( 1666 ( i ) ) : XXXX must PROVE services were delivered per agreement. XXXX did not address : ( a ) XXXX electrical outages in XXXX hours with non-functional safety equipment and documented host prior knowledge ; ( b ) Property requiring XXXX hours guest cleaning upon arrival ; ( c ) Dining table measuring XXXX '' XXXX '' mathematically incapable of seating XXXX people in property advertised " Sleeps XXXX '' ; ( d ) XXXX days of documented washer-dryer failure host replaced unit XX/XX/XXXX, admission of deficiency ; ( XXXX ) XXXX days of indoor temperatures measuring XXXX. FAILURE XXXX NO SPECIFIC EXPLANATION ( 1666 ( a ) ( B ) ) : " You received services '' provides no reasons, no findings, and no analysis applied identically to XXXX different cases. This is a form response, not an investigation finding. DOCUMENTATION RIGHT VIOLATED ( 1666 ( a ) ( B ) ) : Each of XXXX 's XXXX XX/XX/XXXX denial letters explicitly states : 'You have the right to receive copies of the documentation used during our research. ' However, XXXX 's portal locked permanently after issuing the final decision making it structurally impossible to exercise the right XXXX acknowledged in writing. A documentation request was submitted through XXXX 's own portal on XX/XX/XXXX while the investigation was still open. XXXX never responded before issuing its final decision. The CFPB 's intervention is the only mechanism available to compel disclosure of what XXXX actually reviewed COMPENSATION INEQUITY CRITICAL FACT : XXXX paid {$1400.00} to XXXX XXXX for the same reservation, same property, same deficiencies, and same evidence proving deficiencies existed and were acknowledged by the merchant. XXXX paid {$0.00} to this XXXX account. XXXX concluded services were delivered per agreement for the same reservation where the merchant itself acknowledged deficiencies by compensating the other card. A parallel CFPB complaint has been filed against XXXX XXXX. for the same reservation demonstrating a pattern of multiple issuers failing FCBA obligations on the same underlying dispute. THIS IS NOT A CANCELLATION DISPUTE : All XXXX XXXX charges cover fully occupied periods ( XXXX XXXX ). The unused XXXX nights were charged separately ( {$1300.00} ) proving Cases XXXX are purely service quality disputes for deficient services consumed during XXXX occupied nights. Requested relief : Credit {$4100.00} to XXXX XXXX account ending XXXX. Direct XXXX to conduct genuine case-by-case investigation with specific findings on each deficiency category, meet burden of proof under FCBA 1666 ( i ), and provide all documentation used in investigations per 1666 ( a ) ( B )

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