Consumer complaint received 2026-03-02 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: BOEING EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Request for CFPB Intervention BECU Failed to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Regarding Misrepresented Booking.com Rental To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this complaint because BECU denied my debit card dispute after conducting an incomplete and inaccurate investigation that failed to address the core issue : a materially misrepresented rental listing on XXXX. This long term rental was booked for a XXXX-week stay from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX during XXXX conditions, where accessible parking was essential due to cold, rain, and safety concerns due to the safety concerns associated with the surrounding area. Parking was a material factor in my decision to book this property long-term because it was listed to have free parking which is difficult to find in this city. I would have never stepped foot onto this property had I known the description was inaccurate and misleading. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance in recovering my funds of {$2300.00} after BECU denied my debit card dispute following an incomplete and inaccurate investigation. The dispute involves a XXXX rental that was materially misrepresented as having free parking. Because the property did not provide the advertised amenity, I am requesting reimbursement for the portion of the rental that was unusable after I was forced to leave early. I have attached the original receipt and I am requesting a refund of {$2300.00} for dates XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. ( Screenshot : Original_Booking_Reciept ) I arrived on the property on XX/XX/XXXX. The merchant text me about the parking situation the next day. On XX/XX/XXXX, the property owner informed me that the parking spaces in front of the townhouse belong to other units and that I was not allowed to park there. He did not provide any alternative parking space or help regarding where free parking was available as seen in screenshot : Text_Parking space.png. XXXX told me that the XXXX will help provide a parking space and map but he never did. I left the property early morning on XX/XX/XXXX and I notified the merchant/owner and XXXX of my departure as seen in screenshot : XXXX Misrepresentation of Free Parking : The XXXX listing advertised Free Parking in multiple sections of the listing. As seen in screenshots : XXXX screenshot and XXXX screenshot. At no point did the listing disclose that : Parking would require a paid city residential permit that costs {$100.00} Without a paid permit, parking is limited to XXXX hours only otherwise you will be fined/towed Overnight parking is not available without the paid permit Public parking would be approximately a XXXX minute walk from the townhouse. This is legally not nearby parking as the listing stated. All surrounding streets : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX streets, XXXX, XXXX all require paid parking permits and/or are limited to XXXX hour parking and no overnight parking is allowed without a Zone XXXX permit. In BECUs report, it was stated that free street parking was available. However, the townhouse is not located on a public street with free parking. It is located in a residential alley and driveway area consisting of garage entrances and privately owned residential parking spaces. I have screenshots showing the home 's location and the surrounding streets, which are far from the property and require residential zone permits for parking absolutely no part of that property touches a street or even has public parking nearby. Since I needed a rental for XXXX weeks, I would never have booked this property if the listing had honestly and accurately described the parking situation. I have submitted photos and videos showing there is no free parking at the property or nearby at all. Also, oddly during BECUs investigation the property listing was removed from XXXX ( please see screenshot : Property removal notice_JPEG ) Screenshots : A_Front View of Townhouse : This is the front of the townhouse and from the empty parking spots in front the booking reservation made it seem like it was referring to this as the free parking space. Also, no part of this property touches a public street, it only touches an alley with no public parking available. XXXX location view right side of street : There is no free public parking available on the right side of the street. It is surrounded by residential properties that own the parking spaces and garages. XXXX location view left side of street : This is the left side of the street shown in screenshot XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX hour zone parking only pic : XXXX XXXX is located at the very end of XXXX side of the alley. As you can see no public parking is available here either as shown in the sign XXXX XXXX zone parking only : Details that a paid permit is required for parking, otherwise you can only park there for XXXX hours. XXXX XXXX no parking sign location : This street is located outside of the cluster of townhouses. I have highlighted XXXX parking signs in this photo, XXXX and XXXX. XXXX XXXX no parking : No public parking is available on XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX opposite street side : All surrounding streets in the city require a paid permit, no free parking is available as advertised in the listing. XXXX from XXXX XXXX of townhouse : View of townhouse from XXXX XXXX where the XXXX and XXXX permit parking signs are located. No free parking is available at the end of the street either. XXXX from XXXX XXXX of townhouse : Zoomed in view of townhouse from XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX busy main road : Only paid city parking is available here. This street is located at the end of XXXX XXXX and on the opposite side of XXXX XXXX. As you can see, this is a very busy main road, only paid parking is available here. All of the surrounding streets that are within XXXX minutes walking distance of the townhouse ( XXXX XXXX., XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX require a paid parking permit, no free parking is available. BECUs denial states that free street parking was available by referencing XXXX advertisement that stated free public parking was available. This is factually incorrect. There is no free parking in this area. All surrounding and nearby streets require a paid residential parking permit issued by the XXXX of XXXX ( XXXX XXXX permit ). Street signs clearly state : XXXX Hour Parking XXXX Except by XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is paid, restricted parking, not free parking. Calling this free public parking or free street parking is misleading and materially different from what was advertised. In BECUs investigation, the merchant submitted a screenshot stating Free Public Parking but the screenshot appears to be an updated listing. I reported this to BECU and shortly after this the property listing was removed from XXXX ( please see screenshot : Property removal notice_JPEG ). Distance From Parking Made the Rental Unusable : Because there was no actual parking at the townhouse and no free street parking nearby I was forced to park XXXX minutes away in a neighborhood with safety concerns associated with the surrounding area. Walking this long distance in cold and rainy XXXX weather is not reasonable especially since I paid {$2800.00} for this XXXX stay. For a month-long winter rental, accessible parking is essential especially due to the safety concerns associated with the surrounding area. BECU Did Not Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : BECUs denial relied on : Transaction authorization ( CVV and ZIP match ). I spoke with over XXXX representatives at XXXX but BECU obtained inaccurate notes from only XXXX of them. They do not address the dispute reason : services not delivered as advertised. BECU also accepted the claim that free street parking was available, without investigating that this parking : Requires a paid {$100.00} city permit Is time-restricted Is not free Is not near the property I believe under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, financial institutions are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of error claims. A reasonable investigation would require reviewing the submitted photographic evidence and verifying whether the advertised parking was actually free. This demonstrates that the dispute was not properly investigated. Legal Basis : Under the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, advertising is deceptive when it omits material information that would affect a consumers decision. Advertising free parking when the only parking requires a paid city permit is a material misrepresentation. Requested Resolution : I respectfully request CFPB assistance to : Help me recover funds of {$2300.00} for services not delivered as advertised. Hold BECU accountable for relying on inaccurate information If needed for fund recovery, require BECU to reopen and properly investigate this dispute to recover the amount owed. I made good-faith efforts to resolve this with XXXX and BECU. I am now seeking CFPB assistance for a fair outcome. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation