Consumer complaint received 2024-05-12 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: Avant Holding Company, Inc.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
My fianc and I visited a local jewelry shop with the intention of purchasing two white gold wedding bands for our impromptu courthouse wedding. Guided by the sales associate, XXXX, we made what we believed to be an informed decision and purchased two wedding bands for {$620.00} and {$550.00} on XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> we returned to the US and we promptly sought verification of the bands ' composition from XXXX XXXX XXXX. The jeweler 's assessment ( scratch test ) unequivocally revealed that the rings were made out of cheap silver and resized with a small bit of gold. A stark contrast to our understanding and the considerable price we paid. 

Please see the attached screenshots of this conversation. * On XX/XX/year> I contacted our sales associate/scam artist, XXXX, XXXX XXXX to address our concerns. XXXX immediately deflected responsibility and lied by suggesting the rings had been resized with gold ( which unbeknownst to him, the US jeweler confirmed ), but were in fact silver. A detail never disclosed during the transaction. This contradictory explanation only heightened our distress and suspicion of deliberate deception. Notably, the lack of transparency regarding the material and the subsequent evasion by the XXXX are indicative of fraudulent practices. 

In light of these circumstances, we assert our rightful expectation for a refund, as the purchased items do not align with the representations made nor meet the standards of Avant 's cardholder agreement. Moreover, our inability to utilize the wedding bands has necessitated additional expenses in acquiring replacements from a trusted vendor in the United States. 

Regrettably, our initial attempt to address this matter through a dispute was met with denial and reversal, despite providing compelling evidence of malfeasance via phone call and mail. We remain resolute in seeking recourse and have initiated communication with the Connecticut State Attorney General 's office to explore avenues for resolution and restitution. It is our firm belief that cardholders should not bear the burden of fraudulent transactions, and we implore your assistance in facilitating a swift and equitable resolution to this matter. 

We have contacted XXXX to find a resolution to this matter, however, Avant is claiming that we can only resolve this with the merchant. 

I request that Avant conducts a thorough investigation into this matter. Merely confirming the presence of a receipt is insufficient, especially considering that the investigation solely focused on verifying my signature on the receipt, neglecting the core issue of the product itself. 

Avant also completely disregarded my firsthand evidence regarding the interaction between myself and the salesperson of this merchant. In the evidence, the sales person clearly is using deceptive tactics and admits that the rings were resized with gold, not actual gold. As well as the receipt, merely stating that matrimonial bands were purchased, coincidentally evading the metal type. 

The purchase in question was represented as a 14 karat white gold wedding bands, but upon examination, it was revealed to be of inferior quality, made of cheap silver. Despite this, Avants decision not to pursue a refund is solely based on the presence of my signature on the receipt, which intentionally omits crucial details such as the metal type. 

I also requested a clear copy of the receipt that the merchant presented to Avant, with high suspicions that they presented a fraudulent receipt. Of which Avant has yet to provide me of that evidence. 

Ive asked Avant to acknowledge and agree to the points raised ; 1. Avant did not conduct a thorough investigation beyond merely confirming the presence of a receipt.

2. The investigation solely focused on verifying the signature on the receipt, neglecting the core issue of the misrepresented product.

3. Avant disregarded firsthand evidence regarding deceptive tactics used by the salesperson. 

4. Avant 's decision not to pursue a refund solely based on the presence of the signature on the receipt, which omits crucial details such as the metal type. 

5. Request for a clear copy of the receipt presented to Avant has been denied even though I have suspected it to be fraudulent. 

6. Avant is denying the need for a resolution due to the failure of the investigation to address the discrepancy between the product description and its actual composition. 

I seek a resolution to this matter, as it is clear that the investigation failed to address the discrepancy between the product description and its actual composition. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation