Consumer complaint received 2016-06-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Billing disputes — 
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
This is a complaint against Barclay 's Bank Delaware ( XXXX XXXX XXXX and LLBean Visa Card ) for the failure to follow in good faith Fed. Res. Regulation Z 's credit card dispute prodcedures. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, I mailed by certified mail a letter claiming a billing error on my account statement for the period XXXX. The letter arrived on XXXX XXXX and was picked up on XXXX XXXX by an " Agent ''. 
In the complaint, I stated : " On my recent statement for the period of XXXX a single charge of {$99.00} is shown from " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ( applicable page from statement attached ). This charge is unauthorized and I made no such charge. I called the number shown on the credit card statement. XXXX is the XXXX. I do have a XXXX subscription XXXX BUT I was told that my subscription is free and that they had no record of any {$99.00} charge to me. Since they had no record of the charge, they were unable to help me. 
Therefore, please remove the {$99.00} charge from my account. " My account no., name, address, etc. were all statement clearly in the letter. I believe the nature of my dispute was clearly stated and only required an investigation and response as required by Reg. Z. 
Today XXXX XXXX XXXX ) I received XXXX letters dated XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX about my dispute which I believe are identical. They XXXX say : 1. They need further information. 
2. ''... and we attempted to contact you on XXXX XXXX, 2016. 
3. " Since we have not received a response, we assume that you no longer wish to dispute the charge and we have closed out investigation '' 4. They tell me if I wish to continue the dispute to basically resubmit all the information I already submitted. 
I believe this is all contrary to the requirements of Regulation Z for several reasons : 1.I do not believe the need for additional information was made in good faith. I think my original statement was reasonably clear and only required contacting the merchant. I suspect that this request is made to " throw the ball back '' into the consumer 's court with the hope that the consumer will not respond so the card issuer can drop the dispute. 
2. Even if you assume that this is not the case, XXXX XXXX said they tried to contact me on " XXXX XXXX ''. This predates my letter to them which was not mailed until XXXX XXXX. 
3. Even if XXXX assume that the XXXX XXXX date was in error and XXXX XXXX meant XXXX XXXX, it sounds as if they attempted a single telephone call. I have no record of a call or any other follow-up communication for that matter. I do not think a single call attempt is all that is required XXXX. 
4. Even if they did call on XXXX XXXX and did not get me, I believe that a reasonable next step is to write me ( as I was required to do to initiate the dispute ) and tell me specifically what further information they require -- not to drop the dispute and require me to start all over again. 
Over the years, I have experienced similar conduct from other card issuers about billing disputes. I hope the CFPB can not only rectify this complaint but can put a stop to what I believe are wider bad faith practices on the part of card issuers. Thank you.

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 monetary relief