Alyssa lives in New Zealand but often travels internationally for work. In September 2023, she noticed a $3,000 charge on her credit card for a hotel in Los Angeles (LA). Although Alyssa was in LA at the time of the charge, she had not stayed at the hotel. Alyssa disputed the charge. The card issuer inquired with the hotel, who provided an invoice for a two day stay in November 2023 and a letter confirming that the charge was legitimate. The card issuer declined to reverse the charge.
Alyssa complained to FSCL.
Dispute
Alyssa complained that the charge was fraudulent and should be reversed. She pointed out that the invoice amount was wrong, the room was booked under someone else’s name, and she had not been in LA in November 2023. She said that the issue was still unresolved six months later and the card issuer’s customer service had been poor.
The card issuer said that if Alyssa continued to dispute the charge, she needed to call their fraud team. They said that it was possible Alyssa had booked the room for friends or family.
Review
Although Alyssa was in LA when the charge showed up on her account statement, we could see that:
- Alyssa was not in LA in November when someone stayed in the hotel room. Her account statement showed her making purchases in New Zealand at that time.
- The room had been booked under someone else’s name.
- The invoice provided by the hotel was for a different amount than the charge on Alyssa’s credit card.
After further inquiries by FSCL, the card issuer accepted that it was likely that the card details used to process the hotel booking had been entered incorrectly by the person making the booking. The card issuer credited Alyssa’s account $3,000 to correct the hotel charge.
Resolution
We did not hear back from Alyssa, so we assumed she accepted that the $3,000 credit resolved her complaint.
Insights for card issuers
Card issuers must take the time to properly assess the information given by a merchant when determining if a charge is legitimate or fraudulent. Alyssa had raised all the inconsistencies in the merchant’s information about six months before she complained to FSCL, meaning the card issuer could have resolved the case much earlier and with less stress, inconvenience, and delay for Alyssa.