{"took":67,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":16,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2270973","_score":27.661835,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"It is my opinion that CitiBank is engaging in XXXX discrimination in at least this instance, both in how a compromised XXXX card was handled, the charges for expedited replacement and approving only {$22000.00} of a requested {$25000.00} credit line increase with income identical to my husband, and credit scores either identical or nearly identical to his. His was granted, mine was not. My husband 's card was compromised on XXXX/XXXX/16 and a replacement card was sent next day air at no charge, without him asking. My XXXX was compromised on XXXX/XXXX/16 and I was told I would receive a replacement card in XXXX10 days. When I asked why my husband 's was sent next day air, I was told there would be a {$6.00} charge for expedited delivery. I elevated the call to a supervisor who was to see it would be sent at no additional charge. After contacting CitiBank subsequently about the discriminatory {$6.00} charge and demanding that it be removed as an error and not as a courtesy credit, it ultimately was removed as a courtesy credit. Evidently, CitiBank felt it could properly discriminate by charging this {$6.00} fee and correcting it as a \" courtesy '' rather than as an error as requested. I requested a credit line increase on, or about XXXX/XXXX/16. My income is identical to that of my husband and the attached XXXX scores for each of us as of XXXX/XXXX/16 show mine at XXXX and my husband 's at XXXX. The credit scores of XXXX and XXXX for my husband and myself are equal, or essentially equal. Ages are the same, the only significant difference is XXXX. CItiBank has denied any discriminatory action, but can not explain either the difference in how our compromised cards were handled, nor why my credit line increase request was not fully approved, as was my husband 's.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-01-02T05:02:09.000Z","issue":"Credit line increase/decrease","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"02180","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2270973","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2017-01-02T05:02:09.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["After contacting <em>CitiBank</em> subsequently about the discriminatory {$6.00} <em>charge</em> and demanding that it be removed as an <em>error</em> and not as a courtesy credit, it ultimately was removed as a courtesy credit. Evidently, <em>CitiBank</em> felt it could properly discriminate by <em>charging</em> this {$6.00} fee and correcting it as a \" courtesy '' rather than as an <em>error</em> as requested. I requested a credit line increase on, or about <em>XXXX</em>/<em>XXXX</em>/16."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[27.661835,"2270973"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18910294","_score":23.317148,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns Citibank, N.A.s failure to properly investigate a billing error involving duplicate charges, and Citibanks subsequent mischaracterization of the dispute to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\n\nSUMMARY OF THE BILLING ERROR On XX/XX/XXXX, two identical charges posted to my Citibank account from the same merchant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for the same amount, on the same date, seconds apart. These charges are objectively duplicate transactions resulting from a merchant card-reader malfunction. I did not authorize two separate credit-card charges.\n\nUnder the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), this constitutes a single billing error consisting of two duplicate transactions.\n\nCITIBANKS IMPROPER HANDLING Citibank created two internal dispute reference numbers for the duplicate charges. One dispute remains open. The second dispute was closed without investigation, not because the charge was valid, but solely due to an initial dispute category selection ( alternative payment method ) that referenced the fact that I paid the merchant in cash.\n\nCitibank elevated internal labeling over statutory duty and failed to investigate both duplicate transactions, as required by the FCBA and Regulation Z. A billing error can not be denied or dismissed based on how a consumer initially labels a dispute when the underlying facts clearly establish a duplicate charge.\n\nMISCHARACTERIZATION TO THE CFPB In responding to my prior CFPB complaint, Citibank represented that only one dispute exists and remains open, omitting the fact that : Two duplicate charges posted ; One duplicate charge was closed without investigation ; and The billing error, as defined by statute, was not fully investigated.\n\nThis representation is inaccurate and misleading, because the FCBA governs billing errors, not internal dispute ticketing. Investigating only one of two duplicate transactions does not satisfy Citibanks statutory obligations.\n\nNOTICE TO CITIBANK On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent Citibank a written correction letter formally notifying it that : Both charges are duplicates ; Closing one dispute based on categorization violates FCBA standards ; and Citibank must investigate and resolve both transactions or permanently reverse the duplicate charges.\n\nCitibank has not corrected the error.\n\nONGOING HARM As a result of Citibanks conduct : A conditional credit was reversed without a complete investigation ; My account balance remains inaccurate ; and I face continued risk of improper credit reporting and collection activity. \n\nRELIEF REQUESTED I respectfully request that the CFPB require Citibank to : Acknowledge that this matter involves one billing error consisting of two duplicate transactions Reopen or substantively investigate the second duplicate charge Permanently reverse the duplicate charge unless Citibank can produce evidence of two separate authorizations Correct the CFPB record to accurately reflect the nature of the billing error This new complaint is filed because I was advised by a CFPB representative that the prior complaint could not be amended to correct Citibanks mischaracterization or to add supplemental documentation","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-22T01:39:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94545","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18910294","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-22T01:15:11.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This complaint concerns <em>Citibank</em>, N.A.s failure to properly investigate a billing <em>error</em> involving duplicate <em>charges</em>, and <em>Citibanks</em> subsequent mischaracterization of the dispute to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\n\nSUMMARY OF THE BILLING <em>ERROR</em> On XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, two <em>identical</em> <em>charges</em> posted to my <em>Citibank</em> account from the same merchant ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) for the same amount, on the same date, seconds apart."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[23.317148,"18910294"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21234480","_score":22.873692,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am disputing Citibank 's failure to resolve a billing error regarding XXXX identical charges from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>, each for {$1000.00}, totaling {$3000.00}. \n\nI have communicated extensively with Citibanks Executive Response Unit ( Ref : XXXX ), but they denied my claim, citing the merchant 's \" non-refundable '' policy. This is a fundamental error in their investigation because this is a \" Service Not Rendered '' case, not a simple refund request. \n\nI have provided clear, irrefutable evidence from the airline 's official website proving that the booking reference ( ULPAPS ) does not exist in their system. The airline has taken my money without providing a ticket or a flight record. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), the bank is required to correct billing errors when services are not delivered. Citibank is currently siding with the merchant despite physical proof that no service was provided. I am requesting a full reversal of the {$3000.00}.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-14T18:59:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92127","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21234480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-04-14T18:37:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am disputing <em>Citibank</em> 's failure to resolve a billing <em>error</em> regarding <em>XXXX</em> <em>identical</em> <em>charges</em> from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> on XX/XX/year>, each for {$1000.00}, totaling {$3000.00}. \n\nI have communicated extensively with <em>Citibanks</em> Executive Response Unit ( Ref : <em>XXXX</em> ), but they denied my claim, citing the merchant 's \" non-refundable '' policy. This is a fundamental <em>error</em> in their investigation because this is a \" Service Not Rendered '' case, not a simple refund request."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[22.873692,"21234480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1571515","_score":20.587856,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Due to website problems, XXXX identical payments were submitted to CitiCard on the same day. When I discovered the error- a Citi customer service rep offered to keep the overpayment & assign future credit, then - as I protested - agreed to 'try to get a refund authorized ' which would take a few days. \nConsidering how vigilante CitiBank is for 'fraud ' and late payment - it seems absurd that a {$9800.00} same day double payment could not trigger an alert to me before it was \" too late. \" In addition, the website problem that contributed to the duplicate payment was additionally obscuring of my account. A $ XXXX payment- noted in the account summary, was not subtracted from Account Due total. Since I was eager to avoid high finance charges, I called customer service to be sure I was paying exactly the correct amount to qualify for NO finance charges forward. For over 25 years I have paid my credit card in full, but discovered that once late payment triggers \" XXXX cycles '' of finance charges on exisiting purchases. \nIf the website had shown my accurate balance due in a clear way- and if it showed an identical payment already made when the customer service agent manually entered the duplicate ( the website was not accepting my payment from my XXXX XXXX XXXX acct ) - this mess would have been avoided. \nObviously, there is no incentive for CitiCard to monitor OVERpayments ; holding my {$9800.00} 'hostage ' is clearly a boon top them if thousands of customers are treated similarly. \nThere is an easy technical solution- can you make them fix this? \nIf you require documentation of my difficulties- I am happy to submit all records & names of customer service contacts. \nThanks for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2015-09-19T23:14:15.000Z","issue":"Customer service / Customer relations","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"946XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1571515","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2015-09-19T23:14:14.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Due to website problems, <em>XXXX</em> <em>identical</em> payments were submitted to CitiCard on the same day. When I discovered the <em>error</em>- a Citi customer service rep offered to keep the overpayment & assign future credit, then - as I protested - agreed to 'try to get a refund authorized ' which would take a few days."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[20.587856,"1571515"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20041307","_score":19.83422,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Citibank Failure to Acknowledge Billing Error Notice, Misclassification of Dispute, Inconsistent Determinations, False Recorded Call Statement I am submitting this complaint regarding Citibank 's failure to comply with Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1026 ) obligations for disputed credit card transactions involving deceptive offshore gambling platforms ( HelloMillions, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nKey Procedural Violations : No XXXX Acknowledgment : Sent formal billing-error notice XX/XX/XXXX6 via USPS Certified Mail ( Exhibit A, delivered XX/XX/XXXX per Exhibit B ) to Citi Card Fraud/Dispute Dept XXXX XXXX XXXX SD XXXX Citibank never acknowledged receipt within 30 days as required by 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( c ).\n\nFraud Misclassification : Citi treated my Regulation Z billing-error notice as fraud dispute. Exhibit E ( Feb 27 denial ) : \" When a charge is reported as unauthorized it is reviewed as a fraud dispute '' bypassing billing-error investigation duties.\n\nInconsistent Outcomes : Identical merchant transactions received different results without explanation : - 133 transactions credited as \" Security CreditItem Under Investigation '' - 14+ transactions denied as \" Customer ResponsibleNo Credit Issued '' ( Exhibit C table ) - HelloMillions {$290.00} : one credited, identical transaction denied ( Exhibit D ) Silent App Denials : Denials discovered only via mobile app : \" Your dispute is resolved and no credit has been issued '' no investigation details or evidence as required by Regulation Z.\n\nFalse Call Characterization : Exhibit E claims XX/XX/XXXX call where I \" confirmed charges... done by your children for video games. '' False. I stated : ( 1 ) didn't know who made transactions, ( 2 ) children had phone access but doubted they knew how to make purchases.\n\nExhibit F : Citibank 's Denial Proves Regulation Z Violations 1. No Acknowledgment Violation : Exhibit E contains no mention of receiving/acknowledging my XX/XX/XXXX certified billing-error notice ( only references prior CFPB cases ). This proves procedural failure under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( c ) requiring 30-day written acknowledgment.\n\n2. Fraud Misclassification : Exhibit E states \" When a charge is reported as unauthorized it is reviewed as a fraud dispute '' admitting Citibank bypassed the Regulation Z billing-error investigation process entirely.\n\n3. False Call Characterization : Exhibit E falsely claims I \" confirmed ... charges... done by your children for video games '' during XX/XX/XXXX call. This misrepresentation of recorded evidence violates reasonable investigation standards.\n\n4. Inadequate Explanations : Exhibit E lists credits ( {$15000.00} + {$2900.00} ) but provides no transaction-specific evidence or rationale for denied transactions, failing 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( d ) written explanation requirements.\n\n5. Merchant Category Code Reliance : Exhibit E states merchants are \" listed under ... video game arcades/establishments '' MCC. Merchant category codes do not substitute for the \" reasonable investigation '' required under Regulation Z.\n\nExhibits Attached : A ( Certified Letter ), B ( USPS Proof ), C ( Transaction Table ), D ( App Screenshots ), E ( Citi Feb 27 Denial + Statements ), F ( Violation Analysis ) able )","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-06T17:18:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"721XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20041307","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-03-06T17:11:47.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Citibank</em> Failure to Acknowledge Billing <em>Error</em> Notice, Misclassification of Dispute, Inconsistent Determinations, False Recorded Call Statement I am submitting this complaint regarding <em>Citibank</em> 's failure to comply with Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1026 ) obligations for disputed credit card transactions involving deceptive offshore gambling platforms ( HelloMillions, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> )."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[19.83422,"20041307"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21572401","_score":19.74552,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Statement of Fact In XX/XX/2025, I formally reported two unauthorized, fraudulent transactions on my checking account debit card. Both transactions involved the same merchant ( XXXX ) and occurred under identical circumstances. \nTransaction ID : XXXX | XXXX | {$200.00} Transaction ID : XXXX | XXXX | {$500.00} The Basis of This Complaint While Citibank correctly identified the {$200.00} charge as fraudulent and issued a permanent credit, the bank has failed to provide a resolution or a clear explanation regarding the {$500.00} charge.\n\nI am contesting the banks handling of this matter based on the following : Logical Inconsistency : It is logically indefensible for the bank to acknowledge fraud for one transaction while maintaining an \" investigation '' status for a secondary transaction occurring on the same card, with the same merchant, during the same period.\n\nUnreasonable Delay : This dispute originated in XXXX. We are now well beyond a reasonable timeframe for a standard fraud investigation. Citibank 's \" lack of a clear answer '' is no longer an acceptable response.\n\nRegulatory Compliance : Under Regulation E ( Electronic Fund Transfer Act ), financial institutions are required to follow strict timelines for investigating and resolving errors. The continued ambiguity surrounding the {$500.00} charge suggests a failure to meet these consumer protection standards.\n\nRequired Action I demand that Citibank immediately reconcile this discrepancy. Since the bank has already validated the fraudulent nature of the {$200.00} transaction, it must apply the same finding to the {$500.00} transaction.\n\nI expect a formal written resolution and the issuance of a permanent credit for the remaining {$500.00} within [ Number, e.g., 5 or 7 ] business days.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-24T17:17:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"654XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21572401","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-04-24T16:35:00.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Transaction ID : <em>XXXX</em> | <em>XXXX</em> | {$200.00} Transaction ID : <em>XXXX</em> | <em>XXXX</em> | {$500.00} The Basis of This Complaint While <em>Citibank</em> correctly identified the {$200.00} <em>charge</em> as fraudulent and issued a permanent credit, the bank has failed to provide a resolution or a clear explanation regarding the {$500.00} <em>charge</em>."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[19.74552,"21572401"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21140832","_score":18.950066,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Statement of Facts : XXXX. Incident & Root Cause ( XX/XX/year> ) : Citibank N.A. placed a block ( \" Frozen '' status ) on my funded Checking Account without prior notice. My credit card was set to Autopay from this specific Citi account. \nXXXX. Failure of Performance : Due to the bank 's own internal block, the Autopayment was declined. I possess documentation from Citibank explicitly stating the payment failure was due to a \" Frozen Account. '' It is legally and logically impossible for a consumer to fulfill a payment when the creditor ( Citibank ) is the same entity blocking the source of funds. \nXXXX. Financial Damages : Citibank has billed interest charges and late fees on the credit card account. Additionally, this block caused \" Returned Check Fees '' from third-party vendors. I have since paid the full balance under protest to mitigate further interest damages, but I am seeking a full refund. \nXXXX. Banks Evasive Response : I have engaged with the Citi Executive Response Team ( Ref : XXXX and XXXX ). The banks responses on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, are identical automated templates. They claim the charges are \" correct '' per the Card Agreement but deliberately fail to address the \" Frozen Account '' status that prevented the payment. \nConclusion : The bank is penalizing me for a delinquency they caused. This constitutes an Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Act or Practice ( UDAAP ). The bank has refused to conduct a manual audit of the checking account block and continues to provide generic responses that do not address the evidence of their own operational error.\n\nDesired Resolution : Full reimbursement/credit of all interest and late fees associated with this incident.\n\nReimbursement for documented third-party \" Returned Check Fees. '' Correction of any negative credit reporting ( FCRA compliance ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-24T13:23:35.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"331XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21140832","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-04-10T19:33:46.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em>. Banks Evasive Response : I have engaged with the Citi Executive Response Team ( Ref : <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> ). The banks responses on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> and XX/XX/year>, are <em>identical</em> automated templates. They claim the <em>charges</em> are \" correct '' per the Card Agreement but deliberately fail to address the \" Frozen Account '' status that prevented the payment. \nConclusion : The bank is penalizing me for a delinquency they caused. This constitutes an Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Act or Practice ( UDAAP )."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[18.950066,"21140832"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3058377","_score":18.933979,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I have two separate issues related to Citibank : First, I was charged an expedited card fee when I requested a replacement card, despite the fact that I did not request an expedited card and I was assured by two different Citibank agents that I would not be charged this fee. Second, when I requested the replacement card, I was first sent a card that had the former account number listed, which was to a closed account, was then sent the expedited card for which I was charged the fee described above, and finally, I was sent a third card that matched in account number and CVV number, causing me concern because I did not request two cards. \n\n-- Issue 1 -- Around the beginning of XX/XX/2018, I realized that I had misplaced my Citibank Double Cash credit card. I called into Citibank to request a replacement card and to update my mailing address since I have recently changed addresses. After speaking with a representative, I was told that they would be closing the account of the lost card for security and would be opening a new account with a new card number and would be expediting a new card to me overnight. The agent informed me that there would be no fee for the expedited card. When I received the card the following day, I attempted to activate the card, but learned through the activation website that this card was to the closed account. It appeared that Citibank had issued a new card for the closed account. \n\nLater that day, or perhaps the next day, I called Citibank again to inform them of this error and request a card for the open account. I spoke with another representative who apologized for the inconvenience and offered to issue me the correct card, again ensuring me that no fee would be charged for the expedited mailing. \n\nUpon logging into my account today, I was charged {$6.00} for and Expedited Card Service Charge. I requested that this amount be refunded by contacting Citibank via their webchat. After informing the agent that I would be submitting a complaint to the CFPB, I was told that I would be receiving a credit for {$10.00} to cover the fee. As of the time I am writing this complaint, my account has not been credited. \n\n-- Issue 2 -- After receiving the expedited card around 10 days ago for the open account as described above, I activated that card and have been able to use it. However, I received in the mail today a second card with identical account and CVV numbers. I did not request a second card. \n\nThis causes me concern because I have been exposed to unnecessary risk by having an additional card in existence that I was not aware of. Additionally, I am concerned that Citibank may have created and mailed more than these two cards and there may be a card in existence that I do not have in my possession and that I am not aware of. Because the account and CVV numbers are identical, for all intents and purposes, this card was mailed as a active and usable card. This represents a very serious security issue as it may have been stolen or otherwise intercepted and would have been usable by anyone.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-10-27T21:34:44.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"32301","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3058377","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2018-10-27T21:09:05.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It appeared that <em>Citibank</em> had issued a new card for the closed account. \n\nLater that day, or perhaps the next day, I called <em>Citibank</em> again to inform them of this <em>error</em> and request a card for the open account. I spoke with another representative who apologized for the inconvenience and offered to issue me the correct card, again ensuring me that no fee would be charged for the expedited mailing. \n\nUpon logging into my account today, I was charged {$6.00} for and Expedited Card Service <em>Charge</em>."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[18.933979,"3058377"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4139189","_score":16.802769,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is in reference to a dispute with Citibank regarding a fraudulent charge and identity theft. On XX/XX/XXXX a fraudulent charge was made to my checking account to XXXX XXXX for {$69.00}. When I saw the charge show up in my online banking feed, I immediately called Citibank and reported the charge as fraud and had my account frozen. At that time, Citibank reversed the charge and advised me they would investigate the matter. I did not hear back again from Citibank for over a month, and assumed the issue had been investigated and resolved. I then received a letter on XX/XX/XXXX stating that Citibank 's investigation determined that I did make the charge and Citibank re-charged my account. I then called Citibank 's dispute department on XX/XX/XXXX to inquire about this and ask how I could appeal the decision. I spoke with a customer representative named \" XXXX '' who blatantly lied to me when I asked about the letter. Although it clearly stated in the letter that my dispute was overturned and my account would be charged because Citibank ruled that I was responsible, XXXX stated that my account was being debited again because of a clerical error, that the original charge by XXXX XXXX was only pending, it never actually went through. As I was speaking with XXXX I reviewed my debits online and could see plainly that the charges had gone through and he was lying to me. I also asked him how I could appeal the dispute and obtain information on their investigation, as the letter stated I am entitled to by law, and he refused my request, stating, I cant help you. I then asked to speak to a manager, XXXX, who confirmed Citbanks ruling of my dispute and gave me a Fax number and physical address to send in my appeal. She said once my appeal was received they would get back to me in 7 business days. \n\nSo, I sent in an appeal letter, along with multiple documents proving there is no way I could have made this charge, via Certified, Return Receipt Mail. I received confirmation that my letter was received by Citibank ( Signed by employee XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and then waited for several weeks, hearing nothing. I then called the dispute unit again on XX/XX/XXXX to inquire about my dispute letter, and the representative XXXX stated that they had not received my letter of appeal. I advised him that I had a signed USPS Return Receipt, and also offered to give my him my police report # and FTC report # over the phone if that would expedite my case. He stated Citibank would look into the matter and would respond to my inquiry by phone or email within the next 5 business days. I waited again for 12 days and called back on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with XXXX, who stated that Citibank still did not show that they had received any dispute letter. I asked him why Citibank had not followed up on my call on XX/XX/XXXX, and he reported that there was no note was put into the record of my phone call on XX/XX/XXXX. I then asked to speak directly with a supervisor, and spoke with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, who reported to me that Citibank still showed no documentation that they had received my appeal letter. Supervisor XXXX stated she would update my file to reflect all of my phone calls, update all of my documentation, and re-open my appeal, as well as place an Urgent notice on my appeal file. She gave me an email address to re-send my appeal documents, and reported I would have a response within 5 business days of receipt of the documents. I then emailed my appeal letter to the dispute unit on XX/XX/XXXX, and waited, again, for over a month. \n\nThen I received a form letter from Citibank by mail on XX/XX/XXXX. The letter did not have any reference to my dispute case number, and asked general questions about my phone inquiry and asking for a detailed explanation of my dispute ( details which I had already reported to Citibank via USPS Certified Mail, email, and several phone conversations recorded in Citibanks records. ) SO, on XX/XX/XXXX I called Citibank dispute department again, asked to speak directly to a supervisor, and asked about the letter. The supervisor XXXX  stated that they did not show in their records any letter send to me by Citibank, and that Citibank had no record of receiving my appeal letter, either by mail or email. XXXX then directed me to call the dispute department directly, but that they were already closed for the day. I thought I was already speaking with the dispute department! But thanked her and agreed to call the dispute department first thing the next day. I then called the real dispute department on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke to XXXX and XXXX. Supervisor XXXX confirmed that there was no acknowledgment of a letter received by Citibank. I reported again that I had proof of receipt by one of their employees ( XXXX XXXX ) and asked if XXXX could contact this employee to ask about this. XXXX referred me to his supervisor XXXX and she got in touch with Ms. XXXX, who stated that she must have received the document, but must have lost it. So, a Citibank employee LOST documents that had my full name, bank account numbers, phone number, and all sorts of other personal information. Sensitive documentation regarding IDENTITY THEFT had been lost by a bank employee! So, to move this forward, XXXX gave me a new Fax number and the same email, and asked me to RESEND, AGAIN the documents to Citibank. So, I wrote a new appeal letter reflecting all of the efforts I had made to resolve this case between XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX, and EMAILED AND FAXED it to Citibank on XX/XX/XXXX. And again, I waited, and heard nothing back for weeks. \n\nI then received another, identical form letter asking me general questions about my inquiry. So, I waited until I could get a day off from work, and on XX/XX/XXXX, I went into my local branch ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ) and asked the manager ( XXXX XXXX ) for help. She was very helpful, on this day, and called the dispute unit with me and agreed to fax my appeal using Citibanks internal fax. However, the fax did not go through for some reason. I asked her to try to send a test fax to trouble shoot for possible errors, but she did not. She did agree to continue trying to put the fax through and would call me to report in the next days. We spoke again that afternoon and she reported the fax had still not gone through. I called again several days later on XX/XX/XXXX, and her assistant called me back, stating that it was not only my fax, but no faxes were going through at this time. I requested that they call me back when their fax issues were fixed and let me know about the progress of my fax. I then called again for updates on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX and did not receive any calls back. I also sent an email to Ms. XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to try and make contact, and have not received a reply. \n\nI am sorely disappointed in Citibanks treatment of me, and disappointed and HIGHLY CONCERNED, about Citibanks treatment of my confidential information! As of now, I have sent them my appeal documents 5 TIMES, and they report THE MAILED DOCUMENTS WERE LOST, and they have not received the documents via 2 fax attempts and 2 email attempts. WHERE IS THIS SENSITIVE INFORMATION GOING TO? I hope your organization can support me in resolving this matter, as well as assist Citibank in tightening up their security standards and improving their customer service. Thank you","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-14T18:25:57.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92677","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4139189","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2021-02-14T16:44:11.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This complaint is in reference to a dispute with <em>Citibank</em> regarding a fraudulent <em>charge</em> and identity theft. On XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> a fraudulent <em>charge</em> was made to my checking account to <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> for {$69.00}. When I saw the <em>charge</em> show up in my online banking feed, I immediately called <em>Citibank</em> and reported the <em>charge</em> as fraud and had my account frozen. At that time, <em>Citibank</em> reversed the <em>charge</em> and advised me they would investigate the matter."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[16.802769,"4139189"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18652690","_score":16.661821,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Amount in dispute : Approximately {$9000.00} - Dates : XXXX XXXX  I am filing this complaint due to Citibanks repeated failure to comply with Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) in handling multiple billing disputes arising from the same incident and merchant on the same day. Citi has issued multiple vague and conclusory denial letters, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failed to provide written explanations that address the evidence submitted by both parties, as required by law. \n\n\nDespite extensive documentation, repeated follow-ups, and clear contradictions in the merchants own evidence, Citi has denied these disputes three times using boilerplate language that does not satisfy Regulation Zs requirements. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I made multiple transactions with the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). I later disputed these charges on the basis of services not as described, specifically : Technical malfunction during active use ; Delayed or non-real-time balance and outcome visibility ; Merchant admissions of rate limiting during gameplay ; Service performance materially inconsistent with how the service was represented. \n\n\nI did not dispute non-delivery of goods. My dispute has consistently and clearly been failure of service performance at the time of use. \n\nEvidence Provided I provided Citibank with extensive documentation, including : Full merchant support chat transcripts acknowledging rate limiting and delayed updates ; Email correspondence showing attempts to resolve the issue directly with the merchant ; Written merchant acknowledgments of my concerns ; Timeline explanations tying all disputed transactions to the same incident ; Responses rebutting the merchants claims point-by-point. \n\nI submitted this evidence multiple times, by email and through Citis dispute process, across multiple case IDs.\n\nDespite this, Citibank : Issued multiple denial letters that merely state the merchant provided the service or characterize the issue as quality of service, without analyzing whether the service functioned as represented at the time of use. \n\nFailed to explain how Citi evaluated conflicting evidence between myself and the merchant, or why the merchants assertions were credited over documented contradictions. \n\nIgnored the actual dispute category, repeatedly reframing the dispute as non-delivery or quality dissatisfaction rather than services not as described due to technical malfunction. \n\nHandled identical transactions inconsistently, investigating some while summarily closing others, even though all arose from the same incident on the same day. \n\nDenied disputes three times using substantively identical, vague letters that do not reference my evidence or the merchants contradictory admissions.\n\nUnder 12 CFR 1026.13, when a billing error is alleged, a creditor must : Conduct a reasonable investigation ; and Provide a written explanation of the determination that reflects the evidence reviewed.\n\nCitibanks denial letters fail this standard. They are conclusory, do not address the substance of the dispute, and do not explain how the evidence was evaluated. A statement that a merchant provided the service does not resolve whether the service performed as represented at the time of use, which is the core issue in a services-not-as-described dispute.\n\nI have emailed Citibanks billing disputes department numerous times, responded to merchant submissions case-by-case, and repeatedly requested proper review and explanation. Citi does not acknowledge receipt of evidence submissions and provides no transparency regarding whether evidence is actually reviewed. \n\nOnly after repeated escalation attempts did Citi request additional documentation after already issuing multiple denials. \n\nI am requesting that Citibank be required to : Conduct a legally compliant reinvestigation of all related disputes under the correct category ( services not as described / failure to perform as represented ) ; Issue a written determination that : Identifies the evidence reviewed from both parties ; Addresses the merchants contradictory admissions ; Explains the factual and legal basis for any decision under Regulation Z ; Apply consistent treatment across all related transactions arising from the same incident. \n\nCitibanks handling of these disputes demonstrates a systemic failure to comply with Regulation Zs investigation and explanation requirements. The repeated issuance of vague denial letters, despite extensive documentation and clear contradictions in merchant evidence, leaves me with no meaningful avenue for resolution absent regulatory intervention.\n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure Citibank fulfills its legal obligations","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T16:59:28.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"730XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18652690","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-12T16:17:15.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year>, I made multiple transactions with the merchant <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  ). I later disputed these <em>charges</em> on the basis of services not as described, specifically : Technical malfunction during active use ; Delayed or non-real-time balance and outcome visibility ; Merchant admissions of rate limiting during gameplay ; Service performance materially inconsistent with how the service was represented. \n\n\nI did not dispute non-delivery of goods."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[16.661821,"18652690"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16186909","_score":16.217918,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I opened a new Citibank account ending in XXXX because I suspected my previous account ending in XXXX had been compromised. After opening the new account, I moved my funds manually from the old account to my XXXX XXXX  and then deposited them into the new account. Specifically, I withdrew the full balance of \\ {$380.00} and an additional \\ {$900.00} from account XXXX and transferred both amounts into my XXXX XXXX. \n\nI then deposited the same funds into the new account ending in XXXX via XXXX XXXX and XXXX. I contacted Citibank customer service under reference code XXXX and confirmed that both withdrawals, \\ {$380.00} and \\ {$900.00}, were posted to account XXXX on XX/XX/year>. I was told there were no pending transactions and that the account had a remaining balance of \\ {$2.00}, confirming that the full funds had been withdrawn successfully and nothing was left except for that small amount. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, Citibank charged my new account XXXX a second time for the same amounts : \\ {$380.00} and \\ {$900.00}. These transactions appear as if they were withdrawn again, even though the original withdrawals were already completed, moved to XXXX XXXX, and manually deposited into the new account. The XXXX XXXX transactions only occurred once. The fact that these identical amounts have been debited again is a clear error on Citis part and has led to my new account showing a negative balance of \\ {$610.00}. \n\nIn account XXXX, I made two deposits : \\ {$900.00} from XXXX XXXX and \\ {$39.00} from XXXX. I also made XXXX purchases : \\ {$51.00} at XXXX, \\ {$170.00} at XXXX XXXX, and \\ {$40.00} at a gas station using XXXX XXXX. These purchases in no way account for the current negative balance, further confirming that duplicate charges have been posted in error. \n\nI also contacted Citi regarding another account ending in XXXX under reference XXXX. I deposited \\ {$390.00} into this account, which included the \\ {$380.00} mentioned earlier plus a small remaining balance from XXXX XXXX. However, when I followed up, the agent informed me that the account had a \\ {$0.00} balance, and the deposit is unaccounted for. I have requested a full statement or transaction history for this account because the funds appear to have disappeared with no explanation. \n\nAt this point, I am requesting the following : First, the immediate reversal of the duplicate charges of \\ {$380.00} and \\ {$900.00} on account XXXX. Second, a full investigation into the missing \\ {$390.00} deposit into account XXXX. And third, access to full transaction history and statements for all Citi accounts Ive held over the past six months, including accounts ending in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \n\nThis situation has caused me significant financial disruption. I have been unable to pay my bills due to the false negative balance created by these duplicate charges. Furthermore, the stress and uncertainty surrounding the safety of my funds have created emotional and mental hardship. Despite reaching out to Citi support multiple times, I have not received a satisfactory explanation or resolution. \n\nI have proof that the XXXX XXXX transfers were only made once, yet XXXX systems have posted them twice. These transactions all occurred within XXXX own ecosystem ( between Citi accounts via external wallets ), and yet the bank has failed to accurately process and reconcile these movements. This is not only unacceptable but could potentially be considered a violation of consumer protections. \n\nI am asking the CFPB to investigate Citibanks handling of this situation and ensure that my funds are properly restored, duplicate charges are reversed, and I am given full visibility into my account history and activity. I believe this is a posting or system error that needs urgent correction and accountability. \n\nI have attached the screenshot from my XXXX XXXX  showing the deposits and withdrawals from and to Citi","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-25T03:32:58.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60004","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16186909","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-09-25T01:33:14.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The fact that these <em>identical</em> amounts have been debited again is a clear <em>error</em> on Citis part and has led to my new account showing a negative balance of \\ {$610.00}. \n\nIn account <em>XXXX</em>, I made two deposits : \\ {$900.00} from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and \\ {$39.00} from <em>XXXX</em>. I also made <em>XXXX</em> purchases : \\ {$51.00} at <em>XXXX</em>, \\ {$170.00} at <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, and \\ {$40.00} at a gas station using <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[16.217918,"16186909"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19515041","_score":15.942587,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Here is a clean, self-contained narrative you can paste into the CFPB portal or a letter ( you can adjust formatting and any dates/amounts as needed ) : CFPB Complaint Pattern of Inconsistent Investigative Determinations, Inadequate Written Explanation, and Failure to Apply Uniform Billing Error Standards Account Ending : XXXX In total, I have disputed 147 transactions from this merchant family. Of those, 133 were credited and 14 were denied. During XXXX, I received {$18000.00} in security credits labeled SECURITY CREDIT ITEM UNDER INVESTIGATION tied to this merchant group, reflecting the substantial scale of disputed activity and corresponding account adjustments. Despite this volume and pattern of credits, Citibank has alternated among Security Credit Issued, Customer Responsible ( No Credit Issued ), and Credit Reversed determinations on transactions sharing materially similar characteristics, without identifying transaction-specific evidentiary distinctions. This pattern raises concerns regarding the consistency of Citibanks application of Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z billing error standards under 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13. \n\nIllustrative Transaction Comparisons Example 1 : XXXX XXXX XXXX NY {$290.00} Disputed XX/XX/XXXX Security Credit Issued ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX NY {$290.00} Disputed XX/XX/XXXX Customer Responsible ( No Credit Issued ) Example 2 : XXXX XXXX Coins {$44.00} Disputed XX/XX/XXXX Security Credit Issued Comparable merchant-family transactions Denied using identical boilerplate language. \n\nApplicable Law Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ), upon receipt of a billing error notice, a creditor must investigate and either correct the error or provide a written explanation clarifying why the charge is believed to be correct. Regulation Z requires : 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( b ) ( investigation of billing errors ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( e ) ( correction where error is found ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ) ( reasonable investigation and written explanation of results ) ; and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( g ) ( restriction on collection of disputed amounts during investigation ). A written explanation must reflect the investigation actually conducted and identify the basis upon which the creditor concluded the transaction was authorized. \n\nSignature-Packet Process Inconsistency In at least one instance, Citibank issued an Action Required packet requiring a signed consumer affirmation in response to merchant documentation asserting authorization. This demonstrates that merchant-provided materials were not treated as self-proving. However, in other materially similar disputes involving the same merchant family, Citibank issued final denials without comparable escalation or articulated differentiation. This variability raises concerns regarding uniform application of investigative standards under 1026.13 ( f ). \n\nOpacity of Investigative Basis Citibanks adverse determinations rely on boilerplate language stating : Your dispute is resolved and no credit has been issued. The letters do not identify whether AVS results were reviewed, whether CVV verification was confirmed, whether IP/device consistency was analyzed, or what evidentiary distinction justified differing outcomes among materially similar transactions. Without articulated differentiation, the written explanation requirement of 1026.13 ( f ) is not meaningfully satisfied. \n\nRequested Relief Provide transaction-specific written explanations identifying investigative findings relied upon. \n\nDisclose authentication and evidentiary data reviewed for denied transactions. \n\nConfirm whether uniform escalation procedures were applied across materially similar disputes. \n\nReevaluate denied transactions where no articulated evidentiary distinction exists.\n\nConfirm compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 C.F.R. 1026.13.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-15T19:05:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"721XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19515041","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-02-15T18:59:17.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Applicable Law Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ), upon receipt of a billing <em>error</em> notice, a creditor must investigate and either correct the <em>error</em> or provide a written explanation clarifying why the <em>charge</em> is believed to be correct."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[15.942587,"19515041"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2156607","_score":15.310974,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing due to a misunderstanding regarding payment resulting in late fees and interest. The new balance of {$18.00} with a payment due date of XXXX/XXXX/16 was originally handled via ACH in a phone conversation with Citicards representative in XXXX. My wife and I always pay our bills in full and on-time, as attested to by our credit history and rating. \n\nThe next statement ( payment due XXXX ), arriving less than two weeks after the original payment-due date, indicates a balance due of {$55.00} and the Citicard phone representative XXXX told me that it was actually {$74.00} due to additional late fees. \n\nI believe that an error in understanding, or otherwise, is behind the \" missing '' payment of {$18.00} ( due XXXX ). \n\nI am asking that the late fees be removed this time. If so, we would continue as customers. \n\nOn XXXX/XXXX/16 I paid {$36.00}, what I was told was the full amount due from XXXX identical monthly automatic transactions of {$18.00} each. This was to be payment-in-full for all monies owed to Citicard. Yet now ( XXXX/XXXX/16 ) Citicard tells me another automatic transaction of {$18.00} was charged on XXXX. However, again, I was told on XXXX that we only owed for XXXX transactions of {$18.00} each and my payment of {$36.00} that day covered all owed except for the interest charges. There should be no balance except the \" interest charges ''. \n\nAdditionally, the late fees appear to amount to well over 100 % on an annualized basis. Perhaps it is a calculation error but it does not seem reasonable or lawful. \n\nI sent, on XXXX, a XXXX letter to Citicard Customer service explaining all this and only received a general form letter reply that did not acknowledge any of the facts of this case. \n\nWe always pay our credit card bills in full and on time. If Citibank is willing to calculate the interest charge on the original {$18.00} ( on the statement with payment due date of XXXX ) for one month, we would consider paying that to finally conclude this matter in a fair manner, especially when considering the considerable time I 've taken to resolve it and the rudeness of some Citicard representatives. \n\nMost recently, I spoke today with a Citicard supervisor, \" XXXX '', ( employe id # XXXX ) who was rude and in need of retraining in communicating with customers.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-10-12T20:30:33.000Z","issue":"Billing disputes","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"934XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2156607","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2016-10-12T20:30:32.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On <em>XXXX</em>/<em>XXXX</em>/16 I paid {$36.00}, what I was told was the full amount due from <em>XXXX</em> <em>identical</em> monthly automatic transactions of {$18.00} each. This was to be payment-in-full for all monies owed to Citicard. Yet now ( <em>XXXX</em>/<em>XXXX</em>/16 ) Citicard tells me another automatic transaction of {$18.00} was charged on <em>XXXX</em>. However, again, I was told on <em>XXXX</em> that we only owed for <em>XXXX</em> transactions of {$18.00} each and my payment of {$36.00} that day covered all owed except for the interest <em>charges</em>."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[15.310974,"2156607"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6198850","_score":15.241247,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX fraudulently submitted two charges to Citi XXXX for scam cash advances, although I had no XXXX account and have never, ever, made a cash transfer on line. Citibank added {$200.00} in fees and interest for the two non-existent cash advances. After several telephone calls, Citi Customer Service removed the charges ( XXXX x {$1900.00} ) AND the {$200.00} in fees and interest, BUT the fees and interest keep reappearing on my Citi credit card bill. All those reachable at Citi by telephone, in XXXX, are consistent only in stating that I have reached the wrong department, whether Customer Service, '' \" Fraud, '' or \" Security. '' Each of those departments say one or both of the other two should take care of the matter. Transfers to \" technical support '' mostly result in recordings to call back at \" normal business hours '' even when the attempted transfer by Customer Service was is well-within the Citi business day. You are then disconnected. The one time I got through, the rep listened in silence and then hung-up. Citi seems to have no way for customers to get errors in billing by Citi permanently corrected. The bill for XX/XX/2022, billed the same {$200.00} for a cash advance in XXXX even though the bill shows no such cash advance. This amount, identical to the former, removed, fee and interest changes, is, presumably, the Citi computers trying to get the amounts removed by Customer Service. The \" dispute '' record on line claims that Citi has never issued any credit for the XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, 2022 XXXX fraud, which is also false. \n\nXXXX, whose \" security department '' informed me on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, the \" cash advances '' were a \" known scam, keeps sending what it imagines are threatening emails. I forward the emails to XXXX security and will never pay them a cent.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-30T21:21:14.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"440XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6198850","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2022-11-13T21:38:52.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> fraudulently submitted two <em>charges</em> to Citi <em>XXXX</em> for scam cash advances, although I had no <em>XXXX</em> account and have never, ever, made a cash transfer on line. <em>Citibank</em> added {$200.00} in fees and interest for the two non-existent cash advances. After several telephone calls, Citi Customer Service removed the <em>charges</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> x {$1900.00} ) AND the {$200.00} in fees and interest, BUT the fees and interest keep reappearing on my Citi credit card bill."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[15.241247,"6198850"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9647585","_score":13.772186,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Citibank AAdvantage Card Overcharges Interest and Refuses to Correct it Summary I had 0 % on purchases that expired XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I also had a \" flex loan '' with a 7.99 % interest rate. In XXXX last year I wanted to pay off the purchases to avoid the interest rate jump. A Citibank agent told me on XXXX XXXX to make the payment on XXXX XXXX as they apply payments to the higher interest rate product first. I did that. However, they applied the payment ( of more than {$10000.00} ) to the flex loan instead of the purchases with the now higher interest rate. They have refused to correct this. \nPart XXXX In XXXX, XXXX I took advantage of XXXX offers on my Citibank AAdvantage credit card. XXXX was a {$12000.00} Flex Loan with an APR of 7.99 %. The other was a 0 % APR on purchases to expire on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, after which time the rate would jump to over 25 %. \nAs the XXXX XXXX date was approaching, I decided to pay everything I owed on purchases to avoid the jump to the high interest rate. My purchases amounted to about {$10000.00}, and I wanted to pay the purchases specifically, but I didnt see how I could designate that payment to be applied specifically to the purchases, rather than the loan. \nBefore XXXX XXXX I called Citibank AAdvantage to discuss how I could make sure my payment would be applied to the purchases that would be subject to the high interest rate, and not the loan. \nThe agent I spoke with explained to me that I should not make that payment right now since XXXX policy is to apply payments to the product with the higher interest rate. The agent clearly explained to me that if I made the payment then, before XXXX XXXX, that payment would be applied to the loan, since at that point it had the higher interest rate of 7.99 %, as opposed to the purchases, which, at that moment, still was under the 0 % promotional offer. \nThe Citibank agent specifically advised me to wait to make my payment on XXXX XXXX, after the 0 % XXXX expired the previous day so that the payment would be applied to the purchases and not the loan. \nThis made sense and I was glad I called to ask about it before I mistakenly sent in my payment too soon. \nI did exactly what the Citibank agent told me to do and made my payment of {$10000.00} on XXXX XXXX. \nI didnt actively use that card and had it set to autopay. \nWhen I checked my account again a few months later I realized Citibank had misapplied my XXXX XXXX payment to my Flex Loan with the low 7.99 % interest rate, and the balance that remained on my account was for purchases with an XXXX of 26.24 %! \nI called Citibank on XX/XX/XXXX about the problem and spoke with an agent named XXXX. She said she saw that I'd called on XXXX XXXX and that I had been advised to make the payment on XXXX XXXX. XXXX told me she would put in a request and that Id hear back with a decision, either via email or a physical letter. I was relieved to know they had records of what the agent advised me of on XXXX XXXX and was thus confident this problem would be rectified. \nHowever, all I received was a one-page form letter that simply explained, Each month 's minimum payment due is applied in the following order : XXXX. Past due amounts ( if applicable ) XXXX. Current interest charges XXXX. Principal balances in Annual Percentage Rate ( APR ) order from lowest to highest Please note that payment amounts greater than the minimum due are applied to balances with higher APRs before balances with lower rates. \nTherefore, we are unable to apply your payment as requested. \nMy {$10000.00} on XXXX XXXX, XXXX was way over the minimum payment due and thus should have been applied to the higher XXXX, which was, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the purchases. \nI called back on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with XXXX XXXX sp? ) who explained how it works, which was what the agent told me on XXXX XXXX. She said they apply payments to higher interest rates so I would have needed to wait for the promo to end. I said that was exactly what I did. \nThen she put me on hold XXXX or XXXX times and came back with a completely different story. Now she told me that I needed to wait until it billed, but she was going to request another review because of what I had been previously told. \nI received another letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, which was the exact same letter they previously sent me on XX/XX/XXXX. \nIt said nothing about needing to have waited until the statement closed. \nI called again on XX/XX/XXXX, this time asking to speak with a supervisor. I spoke with XXXX. He also told me the information the agent gave me in XXXX was incorrect because I would have needed for the statement to close, but not to worry, he would have it fixed in XXXX to XXXX business days. He said XXXX remove the payment I made on XXXX XXXX that was applied to the Flex XXXX and apply it to the purchases, and theyll reinstate the Flex XXXX. He said it would be reflected on my next statement to be issued on XX/XX/XXXX. He also said in the future, whenever an offer expires, wait until the next statement to pay it. \nHowever, I received another letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, which was again identical to the XXXX previous letters, and when I checked my XXXX statement dated XX/XX/XXXX, no adjustment had been made. \nAgain, these letters state they apply payments above the minimum balance due to the higher interest-bearing product, but thats not what they did, and state nothing about needing to wait until the statement closes. \nI called back again on XX/XX/XXXX, again asking to speak with a supervisor whose name was I think XXXX. He told me this case was closed. It had already been escalated XXXX times and that was the end of it. I asked who decided that and he said it was the XXXX Department. I asked to speak with that department and he said they dont take calls. I said this is unacceptable and I needed to speak with someone. He said he would have his supervisor XXXX call me, but I never received a call. \nI also asked on different occasions asking about the terms of the Flex Loan but nobody had access to it but that I could find it online, but the only link I had to it didnt work. \nWhats more, there is an XXXX charge calculation on my statements that shows the interest charge for both the Flex Loan and purchases. \nUnder that it states, We apply any amount you pay above your XXXX XXXX XXXX first to the balance with the highest XXXX, then to the balance with the next highest APR, and so on. As a result, if the XXXX for a Citi Flex Plan balance is higher than the XXXX of other balances on your Account, we will apply the amount above the Minimum Payment Due first to that Citi Flex Plan balance, and then, after that Citi Flex Plan balance has been paid in full, to the other balances. This will cause you to pay off that Citi Flex Plan balance before the end of its repayment period and XXXX result in an amount remaining due on your next billing statement for the other balance, increasing your XXXX XXXX XXXX on your next billing statement. \nThis is consistent with what the agent told me on XXXX XXXX. It states nothing about needing to wait until the statement closed. \nWhat was also very clear was that my 0 % rate on purchases expired on XXXX XXXX, after which time the rate would jump. \nFrom XXXX written policy on its statements, what the Citibank agent told me on XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX subsequent denial letters Citibank sent me, my XXXX XXXX payment should have been applied to the high-interest purchases! \nAdditionally, also regarding Citibank agents claims that I needed to wait until the statement closed, this contradicts their policy printed on my statements which read : How to Avoid Paying Interest on Purchases. Your due date is at least 23 days after the close of each billing cycle. We will not charge you interest on purchases if you pay your monthly Citi Flex Plan Payment Amount ( if any ) plus your New Balance, excluding any Citi Flex Plan balances, by the due date each month. \nIt says by the due date. It doesnt say I have to wait until its billed or the statement closes. \n\nPart XXXX This wasnt the first time Citibank AAdvantage misapplied my payment, in contrast to their very own policies. \nWhen I took the 7.99 % Flex XXXX in XXXX XXXX, the terms of the loan were XXXX scheduled payments of {$240.00} per month. \nAs I was informed, this payment amount would be included in the minimum payment due, which I scheduled. \nIn XXXX, XXXX, when I accepted the 0 % on purchases offer, and took the 7.99 % Flex XXXX, I decided to pay off my existing purchases up to the moment the XXXX percent would take effect. \nMy balance on my XX/XX/XXXX statement was {$590.00} with the payment due on XXXX Additionally, I had subsequent purchases I also wanted to cover before the 0 % XXXX took effect, that would be reflected on the XXXX statement amounting to {$210.00}, for a total of {$810.00}. I paid {$840.00}. \nInstead of applying that payment to the existing purchases, with the higher interest rate as they supposedly do, Citibank AAdvantage put that payment toward my Flex Loan with the lower interest rate and began charging me 25.49 % interest on purchases even though this payment was made exactly on the due date! \nI had to call and deal with the frustration of this mess then as well and it doesnt appear the problem was actually fixed. \n\nAfter that on my XX/XX/XXXX statement Citibank amended my agreement writing, If we incorrectly apply a payment or credit to your Account, make an incorrect payment or transfer of funds to you or an Authorized User or anyone else on your behalf or on behalf of an Authorized User, or make any other error regarding your Account, you agree that we XXXX correct the error. We XXXX correct the error by making adjustments to your Account, requiring you to repay us for any incorrect payments, credits or transfers, or taking other actions we determine are appropriate to correct the error. You agree to cooperate with us to correct any of these errors. \n\nI was careful to follow Citibanks policy, even taking care to call on XXXX XXXX last year to make sure I was doing the right thing and following the directives of the Citibank agent. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I mailed Citibank a letter explaining all of the above to give them a last chance to correct their mistake. \n\nI received a letter from Citibank dated XX/XX/XXXX, which stated the same information as the XXXX previous letters about how they apply payments, but this time added another additional text which read, If a promotion ends between statement cycles, payments will post as they are received according to the paragraph above. you will need to wait until after the next statement prints after the promotion has ended, before your excess payment will apply the way you want it to be. \n\nYour payment ( XXXX ) were applied correctly when they were received in XXXX. \nThe Credit Card XXXX of XXXX requires that any payments made in excess of the minimum due must be applied to balances in the order of highest to lowest rate of interest. In order to ensure that Citi is in compliance with this law, we regret to inform you that we are unable to fulfill your request. \n\nThis was the first time I saw this in writing and is the antithesis of what their agent told me on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, when I was specifically told to make my payment on XXXX XXXX, which Citibank knows and has acknowledged. \n\nI had previously asked a number of times where I can see the actual agreement for the loan but no agent I spoke with had access to it. I was told I could find it online but the link I was sent produced an error message. \n\nWhat is the point of having a date the 0 % promotion ends? I made my payment after that date, again, as specifically instructed by a Citibank agent. But Citibank did not apply that payment to the higher interest rate product. As they stated above, The Credit Card Act of 2009 requires that any payments made in excess of the minimum due must be applied to balances in the order of highest to lowest rate of interest.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-29T18:57:05.000Z","issue":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"60076","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9647585","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2024-07-29T18:44:20.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We <em>XXXX</em> correct the <em>error</em> by making adjustments to your Account, requiring you to repay us for any incorrect payments, credits or transfers, or taking other actions we determine are appropriate to correct the <em>error</em>. You agree to cooperate with us to correct any of these <em>errors</em>. \n\nI was careful to follow <em>Citibanks</em> policy, even taking care to call on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> last year to make sure I was doing the right thing and following the directives of the <em>Citibank</em> agent."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[13.772186,"9647585"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3027995","_score":6.718654,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint over unfair billing and related practices by XXXX/Citi regarding a XXXX credit card account that I had. In this complaint I will often refer to XXXX/Citi as a single unit, because Citibank apparently administers the XXXX credit cards and it is generally difficult for me to distinguish what actions are being taken specifically by which of these two entities. I will try to summarize the issues as follows, all relating to in-store purchases at the same store location in XXXX NM, involving only a mens belt and a few pair of Levis jeans. \nGoing back to XXXX when I first got the card, I received only four statements from XXXX, two of which I had to request. In the same time frame I received at least eight other types of mailings from XXXX/Citi   up to as recently as XX/XX/XXXX ( notices about account changes, personal information use, promotional materials, etc. ). I offer this detail as evidence that XXXX/Citi has had a correct address with which to reach me during this entire time frame, including an interval between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX when I had moved, but mail forwarding was still in effect, during which I received some of these mailings and one of the statements. \nThe first statement, closing date of XX/XX/XXXX, was for {$68.00} for a pair of jeans. This was paid with a personal check by mail, but no statement came after that for over a year, leading me to believe that my balance was zero, and that, as with some other businesses, I would only receive statements moving forward if a balance or credit existed. In fact, I was later told that this was precisely XXXX stated policy. \nIn the summer of XXXX, I returned this pair of jeans as defective, along with a second pair of defective jeans that I had purchased for {$53.00} using a different credit card a XXXX. The next time I made a purchase with the XXXX card was XX/XX/XXXX, for a mens belt, for {$31.00}. At that time I was waiting for resolution of the refund of the returned items, one of which was purchased on the same XXXX card. Therefore, this was during an interval when I expected a refund from XXXX for more than {$31.00}, since one of the two refunded items was bought with the XXXX card for more than that amount. In other words, XXXX should have actually owed me money at that time, but for some reason, and coincidentally, both refunds went to my other, non-XXXX XXXX account on the same day for a total of {$78.00}. This left me with a balance on my XXXX account rather than a credit. And furthermore, I received no statement for the next month. \nEventually, in XX/XX/XXXX, I began receiving multiple calls demanding payment for this balance, for which I had received no statement, and threatening late fees. Because I think it unwise to make payments over the phone when I receive no billing document of any kind, paper or electronic, I requested ( more than once ) that a statement be sent and thereupon I would pay the balance. I should also mention that an internet search indicated that scams using false demands for payment by persons pretending to represent XXXX were occurring, and this also factored into my demand for proper documentation. \nAfter weeks, I finally received a statement ( two copies ), with closing date XX/XX/XXXX, with the charge of {$31.00}, which again I paid with a personal check by mail. I also managed to get any late charges dismissed at the time as well, by phone. Nonetheless, calls for payment continued, up to three a day, into XXXX, after my payment had already been mailed. Exasperated, at some point I requested that calls over this matter stop, but evidently XXXX/Citi took this request to mean that they were prohibited from contacting me by phone for ANY reason. \nMeanwhile, I received no statements for XXXX or XXXX of XXXX. With no further calls and no statements, I thought that everything was resolved. However, unbeknownst to me because these statements never came, I would later learn that a {$2.00} fee for carried balance was not removed. I might add that XXXX/Citi at one point in early/mid XX/XX/XXXX told me that they have no record that statements were returned by the postal service during this period ( although they later told me the opposite, on XX/XX/XXXX ), and furthermore, XXXX Citi already had my new address in their systems by this time. There was yet another irregularity during this time frame that I only learned about in XX/XX/XXXX, and which I will explain below. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, suckered by the promise of a discount, I purchased Levis jeans again using the XXXX card, for {$95.00} including tax. I then received a statement with a closing date of XX/XX/XXXX for {$99.00}. This apparently included no discount, but did include a {$2.00} late fee ( for what, when I had received no statement for the past two months? ) and another {$2.00} past due amount ( which I now assume must have been the {$2.00} carried balance charge mentioned in the last paragraph ). Nonetheless, I sent a personal check for the full {$99.00} by mail, without disputing these additional charges, and went forward again thinking that everything was resolved. However, I was wrong again. \nOver the next several months, and up until XX/XX/XXXX, I received no further statements for this account. And until recently, no phone calls either. Yet I recently received two other pieces of mail, both from XXXX. One, dated XX/XX/XXXX, was a settlement offer for an outstanding balance of {$220.00}, sent in an envelope with no external markings to identify its sender, and which arrived sometime in XX/XX/XXXX, seven months after the last statement I had received. The other, dated XX/XX/XXXX, in a similarly unmarked envelope, was in the form of a letter beginning This letter is a notification of your recent request for us to stop all calls with you ( italics in the original ). Apparently it took 8-9 months for Citi to get around to this notification. Both of these mailings were sent to the same address where statements were NOT being sent. \nAfter opening these mailings I began to call various XXXX/Citi customer service numbers to try and find out what was going on. I also asked that statements be sent and that I be called back by a supervisor ( which resulted in a new flurry of collections-related calls, again up to three a day ). I can provide the names and ID numbers that I talked to if needed but I would rather summarize what I was told here. \nIn the first few calls I was told, among other things, that : - No statements were returned by the Postal Service so it must be their fault that I didnt get the statements. This, during the same time frame that other types of mailings from XXXX/Citi were being successfully delivered to the same address!\n\n- Anyway, statements are just a courtesy on the part of XXXX/Citi and it is up to the cardholder to track their balance, although it is supposedly also true that XXXX/Citi only sends statements when the account has a credit or balance. This, when inexplicable charges are being levied by XXXX/Citi ( e.g. unexplained late fees and outstanding balance fees ), and when virtually no one else that does business will make a payment until they are properly invoiced, if for nothing else, proper record-keeping. And in the absence of any communication whatsoever about these charges when XXXX/Citi just continued to pile on additional late and interest fees?\n\n- That my payment of {$99.00}, including the mysterious charges, was not credited by XXXX/Citi until XX/XX/XXXX, making it late, although it took many months before I was advised that this had occurred with the result of additional charges by XXXX/Citi. \n- That my account was closed for being delinquent. As far as I can tell, this was only communicated to me because I called to find out what was going on again no notification by XXXX/Citi. \nOnce I was able to speak to a supervisor in Billing Disputes I learned that the XX/XX/XXXX statement HAD BEEN RETURNED by the postal service, but that it had been sent by XXXX/Citi to an INCOMPLETE address, whereupon XXXX/Citi supposedly put in their system that statements should not be mailed to me thereafter! So then, I got no phone calls and no statements, but some months later, I got these other mailings to the proper, full address, including a settlement offer of charges of more than {$200.00} on a closed account, that evidently derived from late and interest fees from XXXX, that may have been worthy of dispute even then, had I known about them ( I eventually learned that the XXXX statement was for {$33.00}, consisting of {$2.00} carried balance, {$2.00} interest, and a {$29.00} late fee ). \nI should also mention that during the course of these various calls, I managed to get two {$38.00} late fees removed, so that the balance was reduced to {$190.00}. \nThen, on XX/XX/XXXX I got a statement due XX/XX/XXXX, for {$260.00}, sent to the correct address. The breakdown of charges is given on page 3. Here, one line is labelled REGULAR and has a breakdown into {$220.00} Previous Balance, {$38.00} Purchases, Cash Adv, Fees & Other Debits, {$5.00} Interest Charged, and {$260.00} New Balance, while a second line, labelled REGULAR ON OR BEFORE XX/XX/XXXX lists a Previous Balance of exactly {$0.00}, bringing the grand total to {$290.00}. I called Customer Service the same day to get an explanation of the {$0.00} figure from XX/XX/XXXX ( when by the way, the balance according to what I was previously told had been {$31.00}, for the belt, which I had purchased four days earlier, when coincidentally a refund was made to a different account than the XXXX card that was used to purchase the returned item, originally purchased for {$68.00}, over twice the supposed balance amount ). \nDuring this call it was confirmed that my current balance was still {$190.00}, and the customer service representative promised to send to me copies of all the individual statements for the past year, including those that I never received, but he was unable to explain the {$0.00} balance figure. I have still not received these statements as of XX/XX/XXXX. \nNone of my attempts to resolve these issues by phone have resulted in satisfaction, and I was told by different representatives of XXXX/Citi that my only recourse was to write to the President of XXXX. Furthermore I was told that if I did not pay the full balance that they claimed by XX/XX/XXXX, that XXXX/Citi would levy a new round of late fees and other charges and report their actions to credit agencies, even though I had told them that I was disputing the charges. Therefore, on XX/XX/XXXX I sent a formal letter of complaint to the President of XXXX by certified mail ( I received a notice of receipt eventually on XX/XX/XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX ). I have gotten no response as of XX/XX/XXXX. I should mention that I sent copies of this letter to the Consumer Protection Division of the New Mexico Attorney Generals office and to the XXXX office of the 1st US Congressional District. The office of the 1st CD assigned a case worker to my complaint on XX/XX/XXXX, who advised me to file this complaint with the CFPB. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received another copy of the XX/XX/XXXX {$260.00} statement, and also learned that my XXXX account had been blocked due to credit deterioration, so the situation was having negative effects on my credit score and other financial repercussions for me. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I took the following actions to attempt to address this worsening situation. First, I sent an UNBLOCK request to the bank holding my XXXX account, to which I attached a copy of the letter I had sent to the President of XXXX, with the result that my account was unblocked the next morning. Second, I requested a Credit Report from XXXX, which I have not yet received. Third, I filed a formal complaint online with the Consumer Protection Division of the New Mexico Attorney Generals office. I was contacted the next day by a representative of the NM AGs XXXX office, who promised to take up the situation by contacting XXXX/Citi. \nThe final developments to date occurred on the next day, XX/XX/XXXX. The previous day I found that any calls I attempted to any customer service or billing dispute number for XXXX were redirected to a XXXX call center, so I attempted to find out what the current situation was through XXXX. A XXXX representative reiterated the demand that I pay the full balance ( {$190.00} ) that they claimed I owed by XX/XX/XXXX or there would be a new round of late fees and other charges, even though I had told them that I was disputing the charges, and even though they had yet to send me any of the missing statements or any other proper accounting of any of these charges in detail. I was also told at this time that XXXX/Citi   would not reduce the balance further because I had used up too many late fee waivers in XXXX ( when I was trying to get the misallocated refund situation resolved ). She also contradicted what I had been told previously about whether earlier statements had been returned by the postal service, claiming that statements during XXXX had been returned also, and argued that I was responsible for this. When I protested that other mailings were being sent to the correct address during the same time frame, she contended that these were sent by other departments that had other ways of getting my address, so therefore it wasnt their problem! Anyway I went ahead and paid the {$190.00} on this day, in hopes of avoiding further damage to my credit, whereupon she told me that I would still be charged an additional {$2.00} fee in XXXX, for the carried balance. When I then asked how there could be a carried balance when I was paying in full, she gave an unintelligible word salad by way of explanation. \nSo, XXXX/Citi has levied charges and fees that they could not clearly explain or explain at all, and for which no statements were received by me. In some cases XXXX/Citi either could not explain coherently or consistently why statements were not received ( before XX/XX/XXXX ) or in other cases the explanation is a failure by XXXX/Citi to send statements ( and apparently only statements ) to a complete address ( after XX/XX/XXXX ). In the meantime, while XXXX/Citi is sending other types of mailings to the correct address, XXXX/Citi  is piling on various fees and charges and has closed my account as delinquent ( with negative effects on my credit rating ), without written communication to me about any of this for months on end, and furthermore only informs me in writing after many months that XXXX hasnt even been calling me by phone. Finally, I mention again the misallocation of a refund to a non-XXXX account for a purchase made on a XXXX account, which resulted in a balance when I should have had a credit, way back at the beginning of the extra-fees saga. Even if one argues that I was responsible for a late payment and other fees from the XX/XX/XXXX bill, the fact is that errors on XXXX part ( the incomplete address error and subsequent decision to suspend further mailing of statements ) and lack of any other relevant communication left me no opportunity to be aware of or to address that issue. \nAnd by the way, a brief internet search will reveal many dozens of complaints against XXXX that are similar or nearly identical to mine ( e.g., see www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/rr ) Therefore, when considering also the earlier irregularities on XXXX/Citis part ( refund error, lack of statements, suspension of phone contacts, lack of removal of the earlier {$2.00} fee, and the mysterious {$0.00} ), the damage to my credit history, the hassle and lost time, and the fact that such problems are apparently widespread with Macys credit card customers, I think that I should owe no current balance to XXXX or Citi ( the pending {$2.00} fee ), that XXXX/Citi should refund me the {$190.00} that I paid under duress   on XX/XX/XXXX while my dispute was ongoing, and furthermore that any damage to my credit rating as a result of this fiasco should be corrected by them immediately and without reservation. I would much rather enjoy spending my spare time with my wife and 10-year-old son than spend it contending with XXXX about their poor record-keeping, odd accounting, spotty communications, and damaging credit practices regarding my good-faith efforts to make simple retail purchases. \nI would like to reiterate in closing that nether XXXX XXXX nor Citi has yet provided me with a complete or even reasonable accounting, paper or electronic, of the charges that they claim that I owe, despite my repeated requests.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-09-24T21:02:24.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"87106","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3027995","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2018-09-24T20:53:45.000Z","state":"NM","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Even if one argues that I was responsible for a late payment and other fees from the XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> bill, the fact is that <em>errors</em> on <em>XXXX</em> part ( the incomplete address <em>error</em> and subsequent decision to suspend further mailing of statements ) and lack of any other relevant communication left me no opportunity to be aware of or to address that issue."],"company":["<em>CITIBANK</em>, N.A."]},"sort":[6.718654,"3027995"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":16,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":16}]}},"product":{"doc_count":16,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":16,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Billing disputes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Credit line increase/decrease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Customer service / Customer relations","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":16,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":16}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":16,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":5}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":16,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":16}]}},"company":{"doc_count":16,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":16}]}},"state":{"doc_count":16,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"AR","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":16,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":15},{"key":"Company chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":16,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":5}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}