Consumer complaint received 2026-06-17 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:
Subject : Formal Billing Error Notice and Demand for Transaction-Specific Explanation To Whom It May Concern : I dispute Barclays conclusion that the remaining balance on my XXXX XXXX account is valid, and I demand that Barclays reopen this matter and answer the specific transaction and payment issues identified below. This is not a generic repeat complaint. Barclays has already made specific factual assertions about certain transactions and payments. I am requiring Barclays to support those assertions directly. Barclays has stated that : 1. the two XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transactions posted on XX/XX/XXXX in the amounts of {$6900.00} and {$450.00} were valid and were allegedly verified by me ; 2. later XXXX and XXXX transactions were treated as fraud and credited ; 3. three payments in the XXXX XXXX period were reversed, including one labeled CUSTOMER ADVISES NOT AUTHORIZED and two labeled INSUFFICIENT FUNDS ; 4. the remaining balance is valid ; and 5. Barclays will not assist further. I dispute that Barclays has sufficiently substantiated those conclusions. This is a billing-error dispute under 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13. The disputed issues include whether the extension of credit was authorized, whether Barclays properly reflected payments and credits, whether Barclays committed an accounting error, and whether Barclays has provided the documentary clarification required once these items were disputed. In addition, under 15 U.S.C. 1643 ( b ), if Barclays seeks to enforce liability for credit-card use, Barclays bears the burden of proving that the use was authorized. Accordingly, Barclays must answer the following specific questions : 1. As to the two XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transactions : a. Does Barclays possess a signed sales draft, signed transaction receipt, or electronically authenticated receipt for either transaction? b. Were these transactions processed as card-present or card-not-present? c. If card-present, what specific authentication does Barclays contend proves authorization, including chip-read, contactless authentication, PIN entry, or other point-of-sale verification? d. If card-not-present, what specific authorization data does Barclays rely on, including AVS result, CVV result, 3-D Secure result, IP/device data, or equivalent merchant authentication? e. On what exact date does Barclays contend that I verified these transactions, and what exact transaction information was presented to me during that alleged verification? 2. As to Barclays treatment of later XXXX charges as fraud : Barclays credited later transactions from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX as fraud, yet continues to maintain that the earlier XXXX XXXX charges were valid. Barclays must explain specifically what objective difference it relies on to treat one group as fraud and the other as valid. 3. As to the XX/XX/XXXX payment reversal of {$6900.00} labeled CUSTOMER ADVISES NOT AUTHORIZED : a. Who allegedly advised Barclays that this payment was unauthorized? b. On what exact date was that instruction received? c. By what channel was it received? d. What exact basis did Barclays rely on to reverse that payment? 4. As to the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payment reversals of {$7400.00} and {$6600.00} labeled INSUFFICIENT FUNDS : a. What exact return reason did Barclays receive for each payment? b. On what exact date did Barclays receive each return? c. What proof does Barclays rely on to conclude those reversals were proper? 5. As to Barclays own inconsistent written explanation : Barclays XX/XX/XXXX response states that certain fraud credits posted on XX/XX/XXXX, while also stating that those same items were posted and credited in the same XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX billing cycle. Barclays must explain this inconsistency. 6. As to the account-number chain : Barclays has referred to the disputed activity as though it cleanly belongs to account ending in XXXX, while the statement history reflects disputed activity under a different card ending during the relevant period. Barclays must explain the exact basis on which it attributes those transactions and balances to the current account ending.

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