Whether a case goes to a card issuer, a licensing authority or the police, the quality of what you submit substantially determines what happens. The difference between a case that gets worked and one that gets closed is usually organisation rather than merit.
Start with the timeline
One page, dated entries, plain sentences. First contact. What was promised, in their words. What you paid, when, by what method, to which account. Every update you were given. Every further payment requested. The point at which contact stopped. Nothing rhetorical — a reviewer wants the sequence, not your understandable anger.
Then the documents
- Payment evidence: bank statement lines or card records showing amount, date and beneficiary.
- The full conversation exported from the messaging platform, not screenshots of selected parts.
- The quote, invoice, receipt and any terms you were shown before paying.
- The agency's advertising or website as it appeared when you bought — capture it now.
- Any official confirmation of your application status, or of its absence.
- The company's licence details if you ever received them.
Why full exports matter
Selected screenshots invite the question of what was left out. A complete export, with timestamps and the other party's identifier visible, answers it. Most messaging applications can export a chat to a file in a few taps, and it takes less time than assembling screenshots.
Say what you want
Close with one clear sentence: a refund of a stated amount, the submission you paid for, or a formal record for an investigation. Vague complaints get vague responses. A specific, evidenced request is far harder to set aside.
Send it to the right places, in parallel
Your card issuer or bank for the payment dispute. The licensing or consumer authority for the business conduct. The police or national cybercrime authority where the facts suggest deception. These are independent routes with different powers — running them together is normal and sensible, not duplication.