Consumer complaint received 2026-03-26 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Other service problem — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against PayPal Inc. / XX/XX/XXXX and its sponsor bank The XXXX Bank for : ( XXXX ) failure to provide a provisional credit or final resolution within the required timeframe under Regulation XXXX following formal written notice ; ( XXXX ) conducting a bad faith investigation designed to manufacture a procedural denial rather than evaluate the merits of my claim ; and ( XXXX ) misapplication of its own Purchase Protection policy to avoid honoring a valid Significantly Not as Described (XX/XX/XXXX ) claim. This complaint is a refiling of CFPB Complaint XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX and closed XX/XX/XXXX after PayPal provided an inadequate response. I formally rejected PayPal 's response in feedback submitted XX/XX/XXXX. The underlying issues were never resolved. I am refiling now because the prior complaint process did not result in any corrective action and PayPal 's response contained material mischaracterizations of the facts and law. THE TRANSACTION AND WHAT WENT WRONG : On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent XXXX payments of {$100.00} each ( {$200.00} total ) via XX/XX/XXXX to a seller for a Public Storage unit reservation. When I arrived at the facility, I found it to be a dangerous, unsanitary environment with evidence of vagrants and ongoing illicit activity. The facility was effectively inaccessible and unusable. I never moved in and never received the service I paid for. This is a textbook Significantly Not as Described ( XX/XX/XXXX) claim. I paid for a secure, usable storage facility. I received an inaccessible, hazardous location that could not be safely used for its intended purpose. The service was not merely disappointing it was fundamentally different from what was contracted. REGULATION XXXX PROVISIONAL CREDIT FAILURE ( XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a formal written dispute via Certified Mail to XXXX XXXX Bank ( XX/XX/XXXX sponsor bank )XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX Department, XX/XX/XXXX Dispute Resolution, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. This letter was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX delivery confirmed ). Under XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( c ), The XXXX Bank was required to either provisionally credit my account or complete its investigation within XXXX business days of receiving my written notice. That deadline was approximately XX/XX/XXXX. The XXXX Bank / XX/XX/XXXX never provisionally credited my account, never responded to my certified mail dispute, and never acknowledged receipt of the written notice. PayPal 's response to CFPB Complaint XXXX did not address or acknowledge this certified mail submission at all. They responded only to the in-app dispute history, completely ignoring the formal written Regulation XXXX dispute and the confirmed delivery to their sponsor bank. This is a documented Regulation XXXX violation. BAD FAITH INVESTIGATION / MANUFACTURED PROCEDURAL DENIAL : XX/XX/XXXXprior CFPB response claimed my claims were denied because I " did not respond to XX/XX/XXXXinquiries. '' This characterization is false and misleading. Here is the actual timeline : XX/XX/XXXX I filed claims with a full description of the problem ( dangerous facility, evidence of vagrants, unable to access or use the service ). XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX requested " additional information regarding what merchandise or service was to be provided. '' This information was already fully described in my original submission. XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX closed the claims, only XX/XX/XXXX days after requesting information, without providing reasonable time to respond. XX/XX/XXXX I reopened with updated reason code and again described the unsafe conditions. XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX closed again, only XX/XX/XXXX days later, citing no response. XX/XX/XXXX requests for information '' were not genuine inquiries. They were automated requests for information already contained in my original dispute, with artificially short windows designed to manufacture a procedural basis for denial. A XXXX response window is not a reasonable investigation. It is a deadline trap.MISAPPLICATION OF PURCHASE PROTECTION / XX/XX/XXXX POLICY : PayPal 's prior response stated that " an expectation for the quality of the service you received, such as the safety of the location, is not covered byXX/XX/XXXXPurchase Protection. '' This is a mischaracterization of my claim and a misapplication of XX/XX/XXXX own policy. I am not disputing the quality of a service I received. I am disputing that the service was fundamentally and materially different from what was described and paid for which is precisely what a XXXX claim covers. I paid for a secure, accessible storage facility. The facility was occupied by unauthorized persons, was hazardous, and was effectively inaccessible for its intended use. Under XX/XX/XXXXown XXXX policy, a service that can not be safely accessed or used as contracted represents a complete failure of delivery not merely a quality dispute. XX/XX/XXXX applied the wrong policy framework to avoid honoring a valid claim.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation