Consumer complaint received 2015-11-12 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Billing disputes — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I brought my car into an auto mechanic. The mechanic snapped my key off in the ignition of my car ( despite my explicit instruction not to try to turn the key ). The mechanic then gave me XXXX options : Pay him his egregious rate to replace the ignition and keys, or have the car towed to another shop ( cost of towing + repair of damage caused by first mechanic would not be cost-effective ). Under economic duress, I resigned to the former. 

XXXX/XXXX/15 : I called BofA / Visa to ask if there was a way to " pre-dispute '' charges and explained the circumstances. I was told that notes would be made on my account given the circumstances, and that as soon as the card was run, I could file a dispute to stop the charges from posting. 
XXXX/XXXX/15 : I called BofA / Visa to reconfirm that the charges would not post, and I provided the name of the merchant. 
XXXX/XXXX/15 : After the car was returned ( with apparent additional malicious damage caused by the merchant - damage A/C, electrical, and punctured exhaust pipe ), I called BofA / Visa and was told that despite the information I was given previously by BofA / Visa, because the mechanic provided goods ( ignition and keys ) and service ( installing an ignition to replace the one he broke ), I would have to pay in full ( {$580.00} ) absent a fault in the goods or service. Because one of the keys was improperly cut and non-functioning, BofA allowed a dispute to proceed for {$150.00} for the key. That day, BofA also got the merchant on the phone. To avoid the dispute, the merchant flatly lied by denying that he ever ordered a second key, which I summarily disproved. BofA/Visa withheld {$150.00} ( of an amount that should have been XXXX % withheld ). 

I have since sold the car, and because of the damage to the Air Conditioning, and electrical, I had to reduce the price by {$500.00} ( then another {$500.00} at the time of negotiating the sale, so {$1000.00} total ). I also had to pay {$80.00} to repair the exhaust pipe. 

The merchant subsequently challenged my dispute. BofA/Visa have now come back to me requesting a " signed second opinion letter from another qualified merchant in the same profession, on their business letterhead, that specifically details how each disputed item listed on the merchant 's original invoice is considered defective or not as described. The letter should include an explanation of the steps that are necessary to correct the merchandise or services, along with an estimated cost to repair. Second opinion letters based on a photograph are not considered valid. The qualified merchant must physically inspect the merchandise or service in dispute. " There are several problems with this : ( 1 ) I no longer have the car ; ( 2 ) BofA/Visa did not provide me with any notice of this " policy, '' ( 3 ) to attempt to retrieve the car from the gentleman who bought it from me would alone cost more than the value of the amount in dispute, ( 4 ) even if I were able to retrieve the car, the cost of a mechanic 's time, including inspection and letter writing, as BofA/Visa requests, would certainly exceed the value of the amount in dispute. 

The simple fact is that I brought my car to a mechanic. The mechanic broke my car. The mechanic charged me an obscene amount to " fix '' the problems he caused, breaking several other things along the way ( all of which resulted in severe financial detriment to me ). BofA/Visa agreed, in advance, that the charges could be disputed so as not to ever process. BofA/Visa reneged on this promise, is bolstering the fraudulent activity and underhanded dealings of an unsavory mechanic, and is now imposing an unreasonable burden on me to attempt to resolve the matter myself. 

Accordingly, I am seeking relief through the CFPB, as I would like the entire charge of {$580.00} to the merchant cancelled.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation