Consumer complaint received 2026-03-31 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Below is a copy of the letter I wrote to Barclay 's Bank, disputing the transaction in writing and requesting information from them regarding the unauthorized charge : I am writing to formally dispute a transaction of XXXX ( {$3500.00} USD ) that was incurred by an unknown person on XX/XX/year> and posted to my account on XX/XX/year>. ( Copy of charge enclosed ). This is an unauthorized charge, as defined in 12 CFR 1026.12 ( b ). As such, my liability for the charge is strictly capped under Federal law and regulation. I did not authorize this transaction, and disputed it via the web site within a few days of it being posted. I also reported my card as having been compromised and was issued a new card. I fully expected Barclays to treat the charge for what it is unauthorized but instead, Barclays has insisted that the charge is valid and that I pay for a charge I did not make. In phone conversations with Barclays, I asked for further information about the charge. I was told it was made in a town called XXXX, XXXX, a suburb of XXXX. The business in question was identified as XXXX XXXX, which, from the name, would appear to be a pastry shop. The services in question that I allegedly purchased were for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Although I was visiting XXXX at the time, I did not visit the town identified, I did not engage in any transaction for construction or contracting services, and I do not own or rent any property in XXXX. The transaction is described as associated with a ptisserie, yet it is coded as construction/building services. This is not only inconsistent with the merchant description, but entirely inconsistent with my activities as a tourist. In my phone conversations with Barclays representatives, I asked if they could identify the street address of XXXX XXXX. They could not. I asked if they could identify the verification method used PIN or signature. They could not. I asked if they could provide a copy of the receipt. They could not. I asked if they had an explanation for why I, as a tourist visiting XXXX with my wife, would suddenly head out to a suburb and purchase thousands of dollars of contracting services when I neither own nor rent property in XXXX. They did not. Most broadly, I have had a Barclays card for years. In that time, I have paid tens of thousands of dollars in charges all totally legitimate. I dont really understand why Barclays believes that after this record of being an honest customer, I suddenly decided to misrepresent charges I have made. In sum, there are two explanations to account for the facts at hand. Mine is that my card was somehow used fraudulently in XXXX, where credit card fraud is a major problem. I dont know how the fraud was accomplished ( Im not a banking expert ), but I do know I never went to XXXX and never bought {$3500.00} of contracting services at a XXXX XXXX that cant be located. Barclays explanation, as near as I can tell, appears to be this. After years of paying my bills faithfully, I suddenly decide to try to scam the bank, by going to a XXXX XXXX which apparently has no address and can not be found, in a XXXX suburb Ive never been to where I buy {$3500.00} of contracting services for property I dont possess, with no receipt or verification method that can be produced, and then decide to lie about the transaction. I think any reasonable person would conclude which of the two is the more likely, and I intend to put that question to the CFPB and/or arbitration and/or a court if Barclays does not respond XXXX XX/XX/year> with the information requested below. Your prior denial relied solely on the assertion that the transaction used the chip. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, the relevant question is whether the transaction was authorized not merely whether a chip interface was used. A chip-read indicator does not, by itself, establish cardholder authorization. To properly evaluate this matter, I request the following documentation and data : 1. The full legal merchant name 2. Complete street address of the merchant 3. Merchant Category Code ( MCC ) 4. Terminal ID and merchant ID 5. Acquirer reference number 6. The Cardholder Verification Method ( CVM ) used ( e.g., chip + PIN, chip + signature, or no CVM ) 7. If PIN was used, confirmation of whether it was online or offline PIN verification 8. If signature was used, a copy of the signed receipt 9. The EMV cryptogram validation result Given the amount, the merchant-type inconsistency, the absence of any legitimate reason for me to purchase construction services in XXXX, and the lack of identifiable merchant details, I maintain that this transaction was not authorized by me. Please treat this as a formal written billing error notice. I expect a reasonable investigation consistent with your obligations under federal law. If you continue to deny the dispute, please provide a detailed written explanation including the specific evidence you are relying upon to conclude that I authorized this transaction. I appreciate your prompt attention and look forward to your written response.

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