Amex Credit Card Complaint

Amex Credit card department,

Billing statement Illinois

I had a corporate card with AME- while I was employed by my previously firm which I left in - of 2015. When I left, I had no balance on the card, but a recent charge was posted as I left which left a remaining balance of approximately - dollars that was deducted from my reimbursements at the time of my leaving the firm as the last bill did not post until I had left. They cancelled the card. AME- stated that I owed this money and I paid AME-, which they later reimbursed me as they double collected and realized they made an error. However, several months later AME- began to charge me past due fees on a non-existant debt that was double paid and reimbursed to me which I called and they reversed as the bill had been paid and they said they would take care of it. This happened on multiple occassions


reinstate them. I believe AME- has ineffective payment systems and processes which allow the entity to charge fees where there is no underlying balance, stack those fees, agree to waive those fees upon contact by the customer, and then continue to stack those fees in abrogation of their stated response. As a result, I believe that AME- did not raise my issues as complaints as they should have been and they may have difficulty in their complaint management processes, but more directly, they have violated - - - and - - - relating to UDAAP as allocated to the CFPB as both deceptive ( direct contact and reflection of the statements made to me claiming the fees were waived and no additional action was required on multiple occassions ) and unfair ( relating to their billing practices and underlying systems that failed to recognize payments and deduct wrongfully billed fees ). While these were 'business ' credit cards, I believe the CFPB should consider authority under the end result of the business card being applied to the individual as a consumer who was not employed by the entity at the time of any wrongful actions even if the underlying requirement was the result of an initial employment situation and business context. More likely though, I believe it is a violation of - - - ( FTC - - ) or more commonly known as UDAP under the previously mentioned prongs for deceptive based on the misleading conduct of the agents to the end result and the underlying unfair billing practices.