Consumer complaint received 2023-10-11 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: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I used my Truist card and a few other credit cards to pay a merchant to build me an e-commerce store. They took my money and did no work and refused to provide any evidence they did the work. I filed chargebacks against this merchant on the grounds that " no services were provided ''. XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX easily resolved the case in my favor as I have plenty of evidence but Truist refused to do so. They did not disagree with me that the merchant did no work but said that my Credit Card Account agreement requires that I initiate all disputes no more than 60 days after the relevant charge appeared on my billing statement. The ordinary time limit for this XXXX chargeback code is 120 days XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The merchant 's charges for XXXX and XXXX ( for a total of XXXX on my Truist credit card ) were on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, 2023. I initiated the chargebacks on XX/XX/XXXX, within the 120 day period that applies to this chargeback code, but not the 60 day period Truist claims applies. When Truist denied my chargeback on the grounds that the 60 day period applies as per the Credit Card Account Agreement, I read the agreement and did not see the 60 day period in it. I asked them to provide me the agreement and the relevant provision. They could not find it. I called again and they said they would mail it to me in 20 business days. No contract was mailed to me. Finally I indicated I would take this to arbitration and Truist 's external law firm got involved. They too could not find the contract at first and eventually emailed me a credit card billing statement. In very small letters at the bottom of XXXX, you can see the 60 day rule. 

I do not believe this is a contract. There is no meeting of the minds here as I did not agree to this 60 day rule. Writing the 60 day rule in small print at the bottom of a billing statement is not legally binding the way a clear contract is. Truist 's denial of my dispute should be reversed as there is no relevant provision of the Credit Card Account Agreement- the actual contract that applies to the credit card I used. I have spent more than 7 hours trying to get Truist to resolve this and they refuse. I should not have to pay {$2000.00} to take this to arbitration. Truist should be ashamed of themselves and resolve this dispute in my favor here and now.

Moreover, to be fair, the 60 or 120 day rule should only be applied when it became clear the merchant was in error- not when the charge appeared on the billing statement. If a merchant commits to complete a project more than 60 days after the charge appears, the customer may not know the merchant failed to deliver the service until well after the 60 day period and thus may be unable to file a " services not received '' chargeback, thus rendering the chargeback completely useless. This makes no sense. The clock should begin when it is clear there is an error, not when the charge appears on the billing statement. 

I have attached Truist 's denial letter citing the credit card account agreement, the billing statement in which the 60 day rule appears, and the actual credit card account agreement that has no mention of the 60 day rule.

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