{"took":403,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":9,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7796497","_score":25.146461,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I realized my discover credit card was being used by someone else after receiving a XXXX XXXX alert of a high balance in my account. I was surprised as I had logged into my account several times and nothing showed, my balance was {$0.00}. Never did I receive an alert from the bank about the constant used or used outside of my location. I contacted the bank to my surprise there were over XXXX in charges of most were not done by me. I explained to them that I had also checked my other banks and another credit card and debit card were used so I was dealing with multiple banks. There were tons of charges to which the discover representative disputes for me. This was back in XXXX. I started to receive letters from discover credit card requesting information to which I responded and sent police report. About a month or more into the investigation I received multiple letters stating my claims were approved to my favor and that a credit placed in my account would be permanent. My credit balance would constantly be changing, this was affecting my credit score a lot. I never have accurate information on my balance or transactions. Which made the entire process very confusing and I had to constantly check my account. I tried not using the card much because of this, because of the lack of accuracy on their part with the statement information. Last week I log in to check my balance and I see it went up to over {$4000.00} and I see all of the charges that I was told via letters from them were approved being put back into my account. So I called right away and they tell me that they were denied. I hadnt received any letters or them being denied, of the reason for the denial so after being transferred 6 times I speak to a rep who explains to me that because of 4 reason,4 transactions ALL of my claims were denied. She explained 4 of the many transactions the merchant replied so because of those 4 reasons ALL of my claims were denied.one of the reasons was that I logged in to my account the same day one of the transactions were done, I told her thats exactly the issue!! No transactions were reflecting on my account and I have proof because I took a screenshot showing my account at XXXX XXXX day I received the alert. I explained to her that when I called the representative submitted the claims I barely spoke and if there were any claims made in error they were not on my part and that fraud was even done in another county. I asked for a letter with the reasons for the denied claims they denied that, I also asked for proof of the 4 so transactions that were proven mine they said all they could do is send me the transaction information. I received one letter with one transaction. This bank isnt protecting my funds and hurting my credit a lot with their mixed information. All the other banks I had fraud in received the same information from me and everything was resolved within a month. Discover credit card sends me letters to not worry that all was approved in my favor and with no warning or letter put all the fraudulent charges back to my account. I need the charges that they could not proof were mine taken off.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-03T13:27:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33032","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7796497","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2023-11-03T12:48:35.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["About a month or more into the <em>investigation</em> I received <em>multiple</em> <em>letters</em> <em>stating</em> my <em>claims</em> <em>were</em> <em>approved</em> to my <em>favor</em> and that a credit placed in my account would be permanent. My credit balance would constantly be changing, this was affecting my credit score a lot. I never have accurate information on my balance or transactions. Which made the entire process very confusing and I had to constantly check my account."]},"sort":[25.146461,"7796497"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1962059","_score":21.435188,"_source":{"product":"Bank account or service","complaint_what_happened":"From XXXX/XXXX/XXXX - XXXX/XXXX/XXXX we received letters from Suntrust stating that we have unusual activities on our debit cards \" XXXX '' and \" XXXX ending, therefore they placed a \" temporary '' block status. SINCE I had past disputes related to unauthorized charged XXXX which were approved and resolved with Suntrust during XXXX ; I noticed that again, from XXXX to XXXX XXXX, while I was on \" XXXX '' leave, at home, in bed, NOT USING MY CARD WHICH HAS THE XXXX STICKER ON, XXXX was charging my checking account as they please causing multiples overdraft fees ( XXXX x {$36.00} aprox. ), ignoring the fact that my account was set up as \" cash only ''. on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I collected all evidences and sent it via fax to Suntrust to investigate. Suntrust representatives explained that it will take up to 60 days to get the issue resolved ( Previous disputes against XXXX only took XXXX hours to get a final resolution on my favor based on evidences presented ). On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I received a letter from Suntrust granting me a temporary credit for the claimed charges and removal of all overdraft fees, while my account was undergoing investigation. Unfortunate to say, Suntrust sent me a letter on XXXX XXXX stating that the investigation was fruitless, that they could n't resolve the isue and asked me to deal with XXXX. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I received a letter from Suntrust Notifying me that the referenced account was closed, the negative balance of - {$1600.00} ( multiples charges of overdraft fees of {$36.00} plus XXXX unauthorized charges ) was charge-off since the account was overdrawn for several weeks regardless of being investigated and they even add {$30.00} to charge off the account and I was refered to collections.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-06-13T15:25:52.000Z","issue":"Making/receiving payments, sending money","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33068","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1962059","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.","date_received":"2016-06-09T17:43:01.000Z","state":"PR","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":["From XXXX/XXXX/XXXX - XXXX/XXXX/XXXX we received <em>letters</em> from Suntrust <em>stating</em> that we have unusual activities on our debit cards \" XXXX '' and \" XXXX ending, therefore they placed a \" temporary '' block status."]},"sort":[21.435188,"1962059"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4936341","_score":18.498848,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX an shady Loan company Chrysler Capital aka Santander Consumer USA coordinated with a shady car dealership in XXXX, Tx and allowed the sale of a car to a person, even after I contacted them to not allowed any transactions in my name.I made it very clear that I do not live in XXXX, Texas, which The shady loan company knew, because of the phone calls and letters they sent to my XXXX, Texas XXXX trying to solicit the XXXX have been the victim of multiple company security breaches since XXXX, and again in XXXX, with letters from the companies to prove it.I have sent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Santander Consumer USA several forms and documents to prove my claim of fraud.They were to send me forms for fraud and did not send them at all.After which I received a letter from them stating that since the documents I sent didn't prove anything, the claim is valid, even though I never had the chance to send them any forms or documents, until I later contacted Santander Consumer USA directly to try and get to the root of this issue.I was told not to contact local court judge, and ignore any court documents, because they were just formalities in the process, since my claim is to be investigated.To my surprise The judge has ordered a decision in the companies favor, for me to pay {$8600.00} and court costs of {$130.00}, for something that has nothing to do with me at all.It is my fault for not contacting the judge, even though I was told not to worry about anything by representaives.Santander USA has been recently sued by several State attorney general offices for this same type of shady loan practices, involving shady dealerships and getting loans approved for persons that don't qualify for them, or are most likely to default on them.According to online article they are to pay people back for all of the costs, that people are having to endure, as a result of their shady tactics.There are several complaints against this company on the XXXX website with complaints very similar to my own.I should not be going through any of this garbage.I have been a XXXX  man since XXXX, with severe neuropathy issues, along with anxiety issues, and all of this has caused my conditions to become complicated at times.There is no way that I would ever be qualify for a {$24000.00} auto loan.I was even asked by Santander representative if I ever lived at a certain XXXX, Texas address, and have a son that is a junior, to which I stated to him no, I have been in XXXX, Texas since XXXX, and no son of mine has such a name.The representative has my XXXX phone number on file, and has been sending me letters here in XXXX, XXXX, yet can't assess the facts of where I have been living.Just plain ridiculous and insulting to my intelligence.They should have never allowed any of this happen, and now they are trying to make people such as myself into something we're not, in order to help pay for their crimes.I have reported this to Texas Attorney General 's office recently, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX back in XXXX, in which a letter was sent to the dealership about the whole issue threatening to fine, among other things, them if they didn't stop with their shady tactics.I have to find out 4 years later that someone was allowed to purchase the car anyway without my consent.This is unacceptable, and these type of businesses should be closed permanently.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-22T19:38:22.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"763XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4936341","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.","date_received":"2021-11-22T19:38:18.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[", and again in XXXX, with <em>letters</em> from the companies to prove it.I have sent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Santander Consumer USA several forms and documents to prove my <em>claim</em> of fraud.They <em>were</em> to send me forms for fraud and did not send them at all.After which I received a letter from them <em>stating</em> that since the documents I sent didn't prove anything, the <em>claim</em> is valid, even though I never had the chance to send them any forms or documents, until I later contacted Santander Consumer USA directly to"]},"sort":[18.498848,"4936341"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4936342","_score":18.495007,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX an shady Loan company XXXX XXXX aka XXXX XXXX XXXX coordinated with a shady car dealership in XXXX, XXXX and allowed the sale of a car to a person, even after I contacted them to not allowed any transactions in my name.I made it very clear that I do not live in XXXX, XXXX, which The shady loan company knew, because of the phone calls and letters they sent to my XXXX, XXXX home trying to solicit the loan.I have been the victim of multiple company security breaches since XXXX, and again in XXXX, with letters from the companies to prove it.I have sent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX several forms and documents to prove my claim of fraud.They were to send me forms for fraud and did not send them at all.After which I received a letter from them stating that since the documents I sent didn't prove anything, the claim is valid, even though I never had the chance to send them any forms or documents, until I later contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX directly to try and get to the root of this issue.I was told not to contact local court judge, and ignore any court documents, because they were just formalities in the process, since my claim is to be investigated.To my surprise The judge has ordered a decision in the companies favor, for me to pay {$XXXX} and court costs of {$XXXX}, for something that has nothing to do with me at all.It is my fault for not contacting the judge, even though I was told not to worry about anything by representaives.XXXX XXXX has been recently sued by several State attorney general offices for this same type of shady loan practices, involving shady dealerships and getting loans approved for persons that don't qualify for them, or are most likely to default on them.According to online article they are to pay people back for all of the costs, that people are having to endure, as a result of their shady tactics.There are several complaints against this company on the XXXX website with complaints very similar to my own.I should not be going through any of this garbage.I have been a XXXX man since XXXX, with severe XXXX issues, along with XXXX issues, and all of this has caused my conditions to become complicated at times.There is no way that I would ever be qualify for a {$XXXX} auto loan.I was even asked by XXXX representative if I ever lived at a certain XXXX, XXXX address, and have a son that is a junior, to which I stated to him no, I have been in XXXX, XXXX since XXXX, and no son of mine has such a name.The representative has my XXXX phone number on file, and has been sending me letters here in XXXX, XXXX, yet can't assess the facts of where I have been living.Just plain ridiculous and insulting to my intelligence.They should have never allowed any of this happen, and now they are trying to make people such as myself into something we're not, in order to help pay for their crimes.I have reported this to XXXX Attorney General 's office recently, and the Consumer XXXX XXXX back in XXXX, in which a letter was sent to the dealership about the whole issue threatening to fine, among other things, them if they didn't stop with their shady tactics.I have to find out XXXX years later that someone was allowed to purchase the car anyway without my consent.This is unacceptable, and these type of businesses should be closed permanently.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-22T19:38:10.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"763XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4936342","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Crown Asset Management, LLC, Duluth, GA Branch","date_received":"2021-11-22T18:36:11.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["in XXXX, with <em>letters</em> from the companies to prove it.I have sent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX several forms and documents to prove my <em>claim</em> of fraud.They <em>were</em> to send me forms for fraud and did not send them at all.After which I received a letter from them <em>stating</em> that since the documents I sent didn't prove anything, the <em>claim</em> is valid, even though I never had the chance to send them any forms or documents, until I later contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX directly to try and get to the root of"]},"sort":[18.495007,"4936342"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22350932","_score":10.991876,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Citi denied my dispute of a {$3600.00} unauthorized charge by XXXX XXXX without meaningfully addressing it under the applicable Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, and Regulation Z standards, including the unauthorized-use standard and billing-error procedures. Citi instead applied a credit-card-fraud standard and concluded the charge could not be fraudulent because I had previously provided card information to the merchant for an earlier, authorized transaction ( see Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 ). That is not the correct test for unauthorized use. Citi continued to apply this incorrect framework in its XX/XX/XXXX response even after I expressly identified XXXX as the applicable standard in my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 3 ) and my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB feedback in XXXX # XXXX. \n\nThe most direct evidence that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was unauthorized is XXXX own contemporaneous billing conduct. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX repeatedly demanded payment for the same {$3600.00}, including a XXXX XXXX billing statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ) and two emails with online payment links instructing us to Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, three days after the most recent pay online email, XXXX charged my card {$3600.00} without notification, without a receipt, and without my authorization. A merchant operating under standing card authorization does not send a PAST DUE notice and two pay online emails and then unilaterally charge the card three days later. I first sent Citi the PAST DUE statement as an attachment to an email sent XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 9 ; the PAST DUE statement is separately filed as Ex. 10 ) and sent it numerous times afterwards, including on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 5 ), XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 6 ). The XX/XX/XXXX email included other XXXX emails from XXXX requesting payment. I also explained my unauthorized-use theory tied to them. Citi has never addressed this contradiction. \n\nBackground This matter involves two XXXX XXXX charges of {$3600.00} each, billed to my Citi account on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX charge was authorized when I provided card information for the first installment in connection with the merchants written estimate ( Ex. 12 ). \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX itself acknowledged in writing that the final invoice amount was not settled. In an email from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( Ex. 15 ), the merchant agreed to credit {$190.00} toward the final invoice ( {$99.00} for hotel reimbursement and {$100.00} for inconvenience ). Eleven days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX charged my card the full undiscounted {$3600.00}, without applying the credits it had agreed to and without my authorization. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX charge was not authorized. I was not present when the charge was made, did not provide my card, did not authorize the charge by phone or in writing, and did not receive a receipt. I discovered the charge on XX/XX/XXXX, while reviewing my Citi account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a single dispute covering both the unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX charge and XXXXXXXX XXXX defective work ( Citi assigned Case ID XXXX ). Because Citi 's online dispute form required me to select a single category, I selected goods/services not delivered as expected the sewer system was not working and that issue was foremost in my mind. I clarified in writing two days later that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was also unauthorized, in a XX/XX/XXXX email to XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Regulation Zs billing-error procedures ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) cover both unauthorized use and disputes involving goods/services, and my written notice cured any ambiguity well within the 60-day FCBA window. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after additional defects in XXXX XXXX  work emerged, I filed a separate dispute as to the XX/XX/XXXX charge ( Citi assigned Case ID XXXX ). This CFPB complaint concerns only the first dispute, the XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized charge under Case ID XXXX. \n\nScope of This Complaint My first CFPB complaint, Case # XXXX, was filed because Citi was not engaging substantively with my dispute. At that time, Citi had repeatedly requested documentation I had already submitted, was issuing inconsistent communications, and had not provided a written explanation of its determination. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, in feedback submitted through that case, I expressly narrowed my claim against Citi to the XX/XX/XXXX, charge of {$3600.00} only ( Ex. 24 ). My feedback stated : I am not asking Citi to reverse both charges through the billing dispute process. My primary claim against Citi is that the XX/XX/XXXX, charge was unauthorized under 15 U.S.C. 1643 and should be reversed ( {$3600.00} ), along with any interest or fees that accrued on the disputed balance and correction of any adverse credit reporting. I reserved all other claims against the merchant for defective workmanship, consequential damages, and unpaid credits, which I am pursuing through the North Carolina Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Division and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contractors.\n\nCitis XX/XX/XXXX response did not address the narrower claim I presented in the XX/XX/XXXX feedback. The XX/XX/XXXX letter continued to refer to two disputed charges from a plumbing merchant and relied in part on the argument that the total of the two charges also matched the total price on the merchants initial estimate. Citi was on notice of both the narrowed scope of my claim and the XXXX framework as of XX/XX/XXXX, and its XX/XX/XXXX response engaged with neither. This complaint concerns only Citis failure to properly investigate and its failure to respond to my unauthorized-use claim regarding the XX/XX/XXXX charge. \n\nProcedural History and Citis Repeated Documentation Requests The relevant procedural history is as follows : XX/XX/XXXX I filed the dispute the day I discovered the unauthorized charge. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed XXXX expressly stating that I did not authorize the second charge ( Ex. 7 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted Citis dispute form ( Form ID XXXX ) with a detailed dispute summary and timeline ( Ex. 8 ). The dispute summary listed Unauthorized Charge. XXXX charged my credit card on XX/XX/XXXX, without my authorization as Claim # 1, followed by additional numbered claims regarding workmanship. Paragraph I on page 7 further addresses the unauthorized credit charge, as does XXXX XXXX XXXX on the timeline. My submission included multiple attachments, including the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 10 ), and the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX acknowledging the agreed credits ( Ex. 15 ). In response to Citis question on its form about how the charge was made, I wrote : Not in person or on phone. I do not know how they charged my card for the second payment. I had not authorized them to do so and did not give them my card. I did not receive a receipt. I only learned they charged my card when I noticed it on my Citi account. ( Ex. 8 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed Citi under dispute ID XXXX and expressly advised that much of the documentation I had submitted related to the other XXXX dispute XXXX XXXX. I wrote : If possible, could you please combine the files or review them together so the full context is clear? ( Ex. 16 ). This put Citi on notice that the two XXXX disputes involved overlapping facts, documents, and context. Citi did not substantively respond to that request. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed Citi clarifying that there was both defective service and a credit card charge that we did not approve, again stating that XXXX charged my credit card without authorization. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi issued one letter stating that it was unable to identify or determine that a billing error occurred and reversing the conditional credits ( Ex. 21 ). Although Citis records may reflect that two letters were issued on this date, one for each of the two XXXX case IDs, I received only one such letter on or about XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced by the screenshot of my Citi customer portal ( Ex. 19 ). This was for XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I called Citi the day after I received the XX/XX/XXXX denial letter. The Citi representative on that call told me that Citis notes reflected that the merchant had never responded to Citis dispute submission. I again stated that I did not authorize the XX/XX/XXXX charge. Following that conversation, Citi reopened the investigation. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX / XX/XX/XXXX Citi sent two parallel Billing Dispute Update Important Information letters, one for each of the two XXXX XXXX case IDs ( XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX charge and XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX charge ) ( Ex. 18 ). The letters bore a XX/XX/XXXX date and demanded additional documentation by XX/XX/XXXX. Both letters stated that [ o ] nce this information is received, we will be happy to continue our investigation further. Citi also sent email requests dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in a thread titled Citi Billing Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : {$3600.00}, {$3600.00} : XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). The email body likewise stated that Citi was investigating the amount of {$3600.00}, {$3600.00}, but the email listed only one reference number, XXXX. Citi therefore used one email thread/reference number to request information about both related {$3600.00} XXXX charges. \n\nAlthough the letters were dated XX/XX/XXXX, they were not delivered through my portal until XX/XX/XXXX a seven-day delay confirmed by the portal screenshot, which shows a 'Date Sent ' of XX/XX/XXXX for both letters ( Ex. 19 ). The XX/XX/XXXX response deadline therefore gave me only seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the letters ' XX/XX/XXXX date. The timing is also notable in relation to Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX 'final denial ' : Citi dated the letters nine days after that denial and delivered them sixteen days after it, and Citi 's own XX/XX/XXXX letter confirms that the disputes were not formally reopened until XX/XX/XXXX three days after the letters reached me. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to Citis XX/XX/XXXX email request ( Ex. 5 ) with multiple attachments, including the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ), and other billing documents. In my response I wrote : I have two disputes related to the same amount. First, XXXX charged my card on XXXX [ XXXX ] without authorization. I again stated that the work was still disputed. Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I separately emailed Citis Legal Department ( XXXX XXXX ) and Executive Response Unit ( XXXX XXXX ) directly, copying the billing disputes team ( Ex. 17 ). In that email, I identified both dispute IDs ( XXXX and XXXX ) and explained that my initial XXXX dispute concerned an unauthorized charge, while a later XXXX dispute concerned the same merchant and defective services. I requested escalation to ensure that the dispute is being properly investigated and handled in accordance with applicable consumer protection laws. My email documented in writing that, in the XX/XX/XXXX phone call, the Citi representative had stated the bank had not even received a response from the merchant regarding the charge. I again asked Citi to confirm ( 1 ) that the dispute remained open and under review, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting additional materials, and ( 3 ) that I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. Citi did not directly acknowledge or respond to this XX/XX/XXXX email. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi reopened the disputes, as later confirmed in Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex.2 ), which states that when the disputes were reopened on XX/XX/XXXX, the amounts were temporarily suspended. The same day, I emailed Citis Executive Response Unit and mentioned again that XXXX had charged my card on XX/XX/XXXX without authorization ( Ex. 20 ). I again asked three specific procedural questions : ( 1 ) whether Citi had all of the information I previously submitted regarding the billing disputes on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting any additional materials, and ( 3 ) whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination ( Ex. 20 ). My XX/XX/XXXX email noted : I have asked these questions regarding my billing dispute numerous times since XX/XX/XXXX and have yet to receive a response. Instead, I just get more requests asking me to send information that I have already submitted. Citi did not directly acknowledge or respond to my XX/XX/XXXX email, and the written determinations Citi eventually issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, did not address the procedural questions I had asked. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( made available XX/XX/XXXX ) by the XX/XX/XXXX deadline with a written response and multiple attachments ( Ex. 22 ). My response opened by flagging the delivery timing : I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please note that although your letter is dated XX/XX/XXXX, I did not receive it until XX/XX/XXXX. I was given only seven days to respond, not the fourteen days contemplated by the letters XX/XX/XXXX date. My response expressly stated that ( 1 ) the services were not properly completed and the plumbing system failed shortly after the work was declared finished, and ( 2 ) the charge to my credit card on XX/XX/XXXX was made without my authorization while the work remained actively disputed. I noted that I had previously submitted much of the requested information on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe attachments included the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10, marking the third submission of that document to Citi ), and the detailed dispute summary and timeline that listed Unauthorized Charge as Claim # 1 ( Ex. 8 ). My XX/XX/XXXX response also asked Citi to confirm in writing ( 1 ) whether Citi had all of my previously submitted materials, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting additional materials, and ( 3 ) whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. Citi did not provide written answers to any of these procedural questions. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Billing Dispute team emailed me yet another set of documentation questions, stating : In response to your recent communication with us. We needed specific details to continue with our investigation to resolve the dispute in your favors ( Ex. 5, see also Ex. 6 ). This XX/XX/XXXX email was part of the same Citi-created email thread that listed both {$3600.00} XXXX charges in the subject line and body but included only one reference number, XXXX. I responded the same day with a detailed written argument and multiple attachments ( Ex. 6 ). My response expressly distinguished the first {$3600.00} charge, paid on XX/XX/XXXX, from the second {$3600.00} charge, made on XX/XX/XXXX. I wrote that the second charge was made even though I did not authorize this charge, nor did they send a receipt nor notify me that they were charging my card. I also explained : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a Past Due notice even though the system had not been inspected and the pipes were still exposed ; On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent my husband an email with a statement and invoice reflecting the XX/XX/XXXX payment ; and On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX again emailed my husband requesting payment of the remaining balance. I then stated : the fact that they sent emails on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX asking for payment further confirms that XXXX did not have authorization to charge my card. My response also stated : I intentionally did not pay the remaining balance because the system was not functioning when XXXX claimed the job was complete. I expressly invoked the Fair Credit Billing Act, asking Citi to confirm that this dispute is being handled in accordance with applicable billing dispute requirements under the Fair Credit Billing Act, and confirm that I will receive a written determination. My XX/XX/XXXX attachments included XXXX Invoice # XXXX by name ( Ex. 11 ), the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX to my husband ( Ex. 13 ), the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX to my husband ( Ex. 14 ), and the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted a complaint with CFPB ( XXXX ), seeking a clear status update, confirmation that Citi has all necessary documentation, and a written determination consistent with applicable billing dispute requirements ( Ex. 24 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi issued a written determination ( Reference Number XXXX ) declining credit ( Ex. 2 ). The determination characterized the issue as XXXX of credit card fraud, concluded that the XX/XX/XXXX charge can not be considered fraudulently transacted because I had provided your account information to the merchant for billing purposes, stated that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided, and stated that the disputed amounts would now accrue interest. Citis statement that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided is factually incorrect : on XX/XX/XXXX, I provided XXXX Invoice # XXXX to Citi ( Ex. 11 ), the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT Statement ( Ex. 10 ), and the emails to my husband with invoices attached ( Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 ). Citis XX/XX/XXXX determination did not address the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ), which I had submitted to Citi four separate times ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) and which is the single most direct evidence that the merchant did not have standing authorization to charge my card. \n\nLater the same day ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I sent Citi a written response identifying specific factual and legal errors in Citis determination and asking two direct questions : ( 1 ) whether Citi evaluated my unauthorized-use claim under 15 U.S.C. 1643 and what evidence supported its conclusion that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was authorized, and ( 2 ) whether Citi considered Sweetwaters XX/XX/XXXX PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement in evaluating authorization ( Ex. 3 ).\n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted CFPB feedback in Case # XXXX narrowing my claim against Citi to the XX/XX/XXXX charge only and expressly identifying 15 U.S.C. 1643 as the applicable standard. ( Ex. 24 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Executive Response Unit acknowledged receipt of my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( my letter to Citi is Ex. 3 ), assigned Citi Reference Number XXXX, stated that my communication will receive a deliberate and thorough review, and stated that a response was anticipated within 15 calendar days ( Ex. 4 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Executive Response Team issued a letter ( Ex. 1 ) that did not answer either of my XX/XX/XXXX questions. The XX/XX/XXXX letter did not address XXXX, did not identify any evidence that I authorized the XX/XX/XXXX charge, did not address the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement, did not address Sweetwaters XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX emails to my husband, did not address my XX/XX/XXXX written argument tying those documents to the unauthorized-use issue, did not acknowledge the narrowed scope of my claim, and did not engage with the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence or XX/XX/XXXX feedback. Instead, the letter referred to me internally as the cm, summarized Citis prior position, reiterated the credit-card-fraud framing, directed me to contact the merchant directly, and reaffirmed that the disputed amounts would now be subject to interest.\n\nWhy Citis Fraud Framing Does Not Answer the Authorization Issue Citis XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX letters analyze the XX/XX/XXXX charge under a credit-card-fraud standard and conclude that the charge can not be fraudulent because I had previously provided card information to the merchant. That is not the test. My claim is not that an unknown third party stole my card. My claim is that XXXX was not authorized to charge my card on XX/XX/XXXX. I made the applicable legal standard and the supporting facts explicit in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Citi nonetheless continued to apply the wrong framework. Providing card information for XXXX authorized transaction does not constitute authorization for all future charges. \n\nSweetwaters own contemporaneous billing conduct demonstrates that XXXX was not acting under standing authorization. Citi had the XX/XX/XXXX PAST DUE statement in its possession from XX/XX/XXXX onward. Although the two XXXX disputes had separate reference numbers, I expressly asked Citi on XX/XX/XXXX to combine the files or review them together ( Ex. 16 ), and Citis own XXXX email thread treated the two disputes as related by listing both {$3600.00} charges. Citi had the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payment-link emails and my written explanation tying them to the unauthorized-use issue from XX/XX/XXXX onward : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a billing statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT for {$3600.00}, demanding that I remit payment ( Ex. 10 ). I submitted this statement to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Plumbing emailed my husband a Statement and Invoice with the instruction See payment link here : Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 13 ). I submitted this email to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, three days before the unauthorized charge, XXXX XXXX emailed my husband Invoice # XXXX with the subject line Your Invoice from XXXX XXXX, the statement The job is complete. Please find your invoice from XXXX XXXX  attached below! and the instruction Pay online at : Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 14 ). I submitted this email to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, with no further communication, no receipt, and no notification, XXXX charged my card {$3600.00}. \n\nA merchant operating under standing card authorization does not send a Past Due Please Remit statement, then send the customer pay online payment-link emails twice in five days, and then unilaterally charge the card three days later without further communication. XXXX  own pre-charge conduct is incompatible with any claim of standing authorization. \n\nCiti has had all of these documents for months. The XXXX PAST DUE statement and the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX acknowledging the agreed credits were submitted on XX/XX/XXXX with my initial dispute packet ( Ex. 10 and Ex. 15 ). Citi resubmitted its request for documentation on XX/XX/XXXX, and I again provided the PAST DUE statement, the XXXX Estimate, and additional billing documents again on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). On XX/XX/XXXX I provided additional attachments, including XXXX Invoice # XXXX by name and the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX merchant emails sending payment links to my husband ( Ex. 6, Ex. 11, Ex. 13, and Ex. 14 ). I expressly identified the Past Due notice and the XX/XX/XXXX merchant email in writing in my XX/XX/XXXX response. Citis XX/XX/XXXX determination nevertheless stated that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided. That statement is factually incorrect. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX authorization was a one-time phone authorization. Technician XXXX XXXX called XXXX office, and I provided card information over the phone to a XXXX finance representative for a single installment payment of {$3600.00}. I did not provide my card to XXXX again, did not authorize any recurring or standing charges, did not sign any authorization document, and did not authorize the XX/XX/XXXX charge in any form. Notably, XXXX own Invoice # XXXX ( Ex. 11 ), which Citi has had since XX/XX/XXXX, records the XX/XX/XXXX payment method as XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX payment was in fact made on my Citi XXXX XXXX XXXX, the same account on which Citi posted the disputed XX/XX/XXXX charge. The merchant 's own records therefore misidentify the network of the card it claims to have on file ( which is a material inaccuracy that undercuts any inference that XXXX possessed reliable standing authorization ), and the merchant 's records identifying a XXXX  can not be the source of authorization on my XXXX account. \n\nCiti has had nearly five months to identify any signed authorization for the XX/XX/XXXX charge. It has not done so. Invoice # XXXX contains a pre-printed Customer Authorization block, but the signature lines on the copy in Citis possession are blank. Despite multiple submissions on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and despite my explicit written articulation of the unauthorized-use theory on XX/XX/XXXX, Citi has never identified any signed authorization, receipt, recorded authorization, merchant submission/representment materials, transaction authorization data, internal notes, or other documentation showing that I gave actual, implied, or apparent authority for the XX/XX/XXXX charge. If Citi or the merchant possesses a signed authorization, I request that it be produced. \n\nCitis Procedural Conduct Citis procedural conduct throughout this dispute is itself relevant to whether Citi conducted a reasonable investigation under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ). Four patterns stand out : First, Citi compressed deadlines on the consumer while extending its own timelines. Citis XX/XX/XXXX letters set a XX/XX/XXXX deadline based on the date of the letters, but my Citi customer portal shows the letters were not made available to me until XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 19 ). That gave me seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the letters XX/XX/XXXX date. Citi gave itself approximately two months from its XX/XX/XXXX 'final denial ' ( and seven weeks from the formal reopen on XX/XX/XXXX ) to issue the XX/XX/XXXX determination. \n\nSecond, Citis own communications blurred the two disputes. On XX/XX/XXXX, I asked Citi to combine the files or review them together because the two XXXX disputes involved overlapping documentation ( Ex. 16 ). Citi did not substantively respond. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Citi sent email requests in a thread identifying both {$3600.00} charges but only one dispute reference number, XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). I responded in that Citi-created thread. Citi later issued determinations on both disputes at the same time. Citi can not reasonably disregard the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX response merely because its own email thread listed only one of the two dispute numbers.\n\nThird, Citi sent two parallel we require additional documentation letters dated XX/XX/XXXX ( delivered through the portal XX/XX/XXXX ), one for each case ID, both requesting overlapping documentation that I had already submitted on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX after Citis purported final denial and before Citi formally reopened the investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. Citi has not explained how the disputes could be both resolved and the subject of active documentation requests at the same time.\n\nFourth, Citi did not answer specific procedural questions I asked in writing on multiple occasions. My XX/XX/XXXX email to Citis Legal Department and Executive Response Unit ( Ex. 17 ), my XX/XX/XXXX email to the Executive Response Unit ( Ex. 20 ), and my XX/XX/XXXX response to Citis documentation request ( Ex. 22 ) each asked Citi to confirm whether previously submitted materials had been received, the deadline for additional submissions, and whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. My XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 3 ) additionally asked Citi to confirm whether it had evaluated the XX/XX/XXXX charge under XXXX and what evidence it relied on. Citi did not directly acknowledge or answer any of these procedural questions. Citi eventually issued written determinations on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX addressing the underlying dispute, but those determinations did not answer the specific procedural questions or identify the regulatory standard Citi applied. \n\nNew Conduct Since the Closure of CFPB Case # XXXX Three pieces of new conduct since the prior CFPB case warrant attention : First, Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 1 ) followed Citis XX/XX/XXXX commitment to a deliberate and thorough review of my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 4 ), but it did not engage with the specific questions I posed, did not acknowledge the narrowed scope of my claim as expressed in my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB feedback ( Ex. 24 ), and did not address XXXX even though I had expressly identified it as the applicable standard. The letter did not address the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement, did not address the invoice, did not address the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX merchant pay online emails, did not address my XX/XX/XXXX written articulation of the unauthorized-use theory, and did not acknowledge the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence. It summarized Citis prior position, without addressing any of the specific points raised in my XX/XX/XXXX letter or XX/XX/XXXX feedback. This indicates that the response did not reflect the deliberate and thorough review Citi had promised. \n\nSecond, Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter stated that, with the investigation complete, the disputed amounts would be included in the Balance Subject to Interest Charge, and Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter reaffirmed that interest would now accrue. I object to interest being assessed on the XX/XX/XXXX charge while Citi has not meaningfully addressed my claim under the applicable TILA, FCBA, and Regulation Z standards, including whether the charge was authorized and what evidence supports Citis determination. Citi acknowledges in its XX/XX/XXXX letter that the disputed amounts were properly excluded from interest accrual during the pendency of the dispute. An investigation that does not satisfy the reasonable-investigation requirements of 1026.13 ( f ), and that applied a credit-card-fraud standard rather than the unauthorized-use or billing-error standards required by 1026.13 ( a ) and 1643, does not entitle Citi to resume interest assessment on amounts that remain in dispute under 1026.13 ( g ).\n\nThird, Citis reversal of the conditional credits on XX/XX/XXXX and its decision to treat the disputed {$3600.00} as a valid balance has had a measurable adverse effect on my credit. My XXXX  score declined from XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, which is a XXXXpoint drop ( Ex. 23 ). The decline tracks Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX reversal of the conditional credits, which inflated my reported credit utilization on the Citi account at a time when the underlying authorization question remained unresolved and the disputed {$3600.00} should not have been treated as a valid balance under 1666a. \n\nUntil Citi evaluates the XX/XX/XXXX charge under the correct legal standard and produces evidence supporting any conclusion of authorization, the disputed {$3600.00} should not be reported as a valid balance, should not accrue interest, and should not be treated as a settled item on my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-19T17:10:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27514","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22350932","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-05-19T16:11:21.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Although the <em>letters</em> <em>were</em> dated XX/XX/XXXX, they <em>were</em> not delivered through my portal until XX/XX/XXXX a seven-day delay confirmed by the portal screenshot, which shows a 'Date Sent ' of XX/XX/XXXX for both <em>letters</em> ( Ex. 19 ). The XX/XX/XXXX response deadline therefore gave me only seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the <em>letters</em> ' XX/XX/XXXX date."]},"sort":[10.991876,"22350932"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13625192","_score":10.705542,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint due to Capital Ones repeated and unlawful mishandling of a credit card billing dispute under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( Regulation Z ), and its unlawful retention of a credit balance under 12 CFR 1026.21. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I made four charges of {$3800.00} USD each to a XXXX seller using two XXXX accounts , all linked to my Capital One credit card. I paid a total of approximately\n\n{$15000.00}. On JXXXX XXXX XXXX, I initiated a dispute with Capital One for all four charges, clearly stating that I never received the item. Despite submitting extensive documentation including conversations with the seller confirming non-shipment and discussions about a refund Capital One denied one of the four disputes.\n\nCapital One justified its denial by citing an incorrect dispute reason ( item not as described ) submitted on XXXX a week after I filed the Capital One dispute. This retroactive use of a XXXX case categorization, which was later closed by XXXX due to the active Capital One dispute, should have had no bearing on Capital Ones investigation. They also improperly demanded a return shipping tracking number even though I never received the item. \nIn an effort to correct the categorization, I submitted multiple letters and documents and was told on XX/XX/XXXX that a recategorization might be possible. I submitted a letter and the same supporting documents 23 more times. After follow-ups on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, I received denials with no acknowledgment of the recategorization request, even though Capital One reps had told me they would re-review it. \nThen, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that my dispute could no longer be reconsidered as it was outside the 90-day window even though delays were caused entirely by Capital One 's inaction and they had repeatedly asked for more evidence during that 90-day period. This is clearly unjust and outside the intent of Regulation Z. \nAdditionally, in XX/XX/XXXX, after realizing I was approaching my credit limit, I paid Capital One {$11000.00}, creating a credit balance. Capital One misrepresented that I could access those funds while my dispute was pending. However, I was later told that I would not be able to use any of the {$11000.00} until the dispute was resolved, which could take 90 days. After repeated conflicting information and being told I would maybe get a response by mail, I had to research and cite federal law to Capital One before they finally agreed to return the funds which they were required to do under 12 CFR 1026.21.\n\nI believe this situation represents multiple violations of federal consumer protecti\n\non law, deceptive practices, and unfair denial of dispute resolution rights. FOR MORE IN DEPTH DETAILS OF WHAT OCCURRED PLEASE SEE BELOW : I made 4 payments of {$3800.00} usd to a XXXX seller from 2 different XXXX accounts linked to the same capital one card number. There were 3 charges on one XXXX account and 1 charge on another. For all 4 charges, I called my credit card company to dispute the charges on XX/XX/XXXX on the grounds that I had never received the order. By XX/XX/XXXX after contacting capital one several times, they said they reached out to XXXX but XXXX had not responded. I called XXXXl several times between XXXX XXXX XXXX asking them to respond to capital one 's dispute but they claimed that they never received any dispute claim from capital one. Wanting my money back expeditiously, I then filed a dispute on XXXX for the same single charge of {$3800.00}. However, I incorrectly categorized the dispute as \" the item looks different/defective '', when in reality I didn't receive the item at all and it was never shipped by the seller. On XX/XX/XXXX I escalated the dispute to a claim and was told by XXXX that the seller had 10 days to respond and if the seller did not, they would decide in my favor as the buyer. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received 2 emails from XXXX One was a request for more information for the following information and I was given three days to respond : \" Please provide the following details so we can complete our investigation : The URL of the website where the purchase was made The URL of the item purchased by you Letr us know the intension of purchase whether for personal use or for reselling Any other details that you feel may be helpful regarding the description and purchase agreement with your seller '' Then 9 hours later I was informed that they could no longer investigate my case because \" We received notice that you disputed the following transaction with your financial institution or credit card company. '' After that, all 3 of the charges paid on my other XXXX dispute were returned to me, but the single charge on the other card was denied and capital one responded to me stating \" The merchant provided the following information to support the transaction : Confirmation showing no return per policy was received '' Capital one proceeded to ask me for return tracking information on an item that I never received. They requested the following information \" A copy of your sales invoice or purchase agreement with the date and proof of cancellation/return. '' The cancellation/return policy of the merchant, if available, and whether you were advised of the policy at the time of the sale. \nA description of how you tried to resolve the dispute with the merchant. \nA refund voucher or other documentation ( if you received any ) supporting your claim that a credit is due to your Capital One account. '' I provided them screenshots between myself and the seller speaking in the carousell.com chat window that I needed the item by XXXX. I also included screenshots of us trying to figure out the best method of payment as the amount was too large to be paid via XXXX Conversations about delay in payment due to XXXX  holding funds. Conversations with me saying i want a refund because it will not arrive on time. as well as conversations with the seller saying that they were trying to issue me a refund but they were having difficulties transferring funds from their XXXX wallet. Capital one denied my claim with the aforementioned evidences provided. After about a month of me providing screenshots, I was told by capital one that the reason the one charge was rebilled while the others were returned to me was because I miscategorized the reason for the dispute. They said it was filed as a damaged/not as described item. However, I never told capital one that I received the item and it was damaged. I explained in full detail at the time of filing of the dispute with them that I had never received the item and I'd never finished paying for it. In filling out the form incorrectly on XXXX, a week after I had already filed a claim on capital one, that's where I checked the incorrect reason for the claim and then my claim on capital one was denied for an incorrect reason input on XXXX days after I initiated a claim with capital one. \nI gave the same evidence for all 4 payment disputes but on XX/XX/XXXX for the first time, I was told by Capital One after 2 or 3 submissions of evidence ( the conversations between me and the seller discussing the expected delivery date, XXXX, the issues with paying on XXXX, the decision to pay in installments via XXXX, holds on the XXXX payments causing delays, and another discussion where I explicitly stated to the seller that if I couldn't pay in full soon that I would cancel and remaining payments and request a refund for the payments already made to the seller, and screenshots of the conversation between me and the seller with the seller agreeing to refund the partial payments, as well as evidence of them trying to refund the payments via XXXX but they cited issues with transferring money from their bank account to their XXXX wallet ) that I had incorrectly filed the dispute even though that was on the XXXX platform a week later and not with Capital one on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Capital one told me that they could try to get the categorized correctly if I wrote a letter explaining the situation ( they refused to give me the specific talking points that would get the case categorized correctly the continuously only advised that I explain the situation and also provided evidence of when me and the seller discussed an estimated delivery. I drafted and sent the following letter and submit the same files I'd previously submit 2 or 3 times before. The letter stated the following : \" Dear Capital One Disputes, I am writing to clarify the situation regarding the item in question. The total value of the item is XXXX  XXXX, of which I have paid approximately XXXX XXXX to date. However, I have not received the item and do not expect to, as I never completed the full payment. I have initiated several disputes with your company under the following case numbers : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. In these disputes, I clearly stated that I never received the item, yet my claim was denied based on evidence provided by XXXX regarding the non-return of the item. I find this decision puzzling, as I am unable to return an item that I never received. The product listing explicitly states that I am eligible for a refund, and I have provided correspondence between myself and the seller via XXXX messenger, email, and XXXX, where the seller agreed to issue a refund. However, the seller expressed reluctance to proceed, citing concerns about XXXX fees. Despite my efforts to research and share step-by-step instructions on how to process a refund without incurring these fees, the seller consistently refused to follow the necessary steps to complete the transaction. Instead, the seller sent screenshots of an empty XXXX wallet, claiming an inability to transfer funds to her account. While up until that point, I researched issues surrounding this transaction for both the buyer and seller and provided my findings to the seller, I am not a XXXX representative, and I could not provide further support when it came to XXXX wallet transfers beyond the website links I had already shared. I repeatedly urged the seller to contact XXXX directly, providing her with the appropriate contact details. Despite this, the seller continued to offer various excuses, the final one being that she was on vacation and could not contact XXXX, despite having access to XXXX, email, and XXXX messaging during this time. At this point, I informed the seller that if she refused to resolve the issue by contacting XXXX, I would be forced to initiate a chargeback. The seller essentially dismissed my concerns, telling me to proceed with the chargeback if I wished, as she did not want to be bothered while on vacation. I agreed to cease further communication and have since refrained from any further contact. Given the circumstances, I believe I am entitled to a refund and would appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter promptly. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, '' After submitting that letter, I did not hear back from capital one for a week. On XX/XX/XXXX, during this time, I reached back out to them to find out about the recategorization of the dispute. On the same day they hastily got back to me stating that my claim was denied once again. I didn't notice the denial until XX/XX/XXXX. I called them again because while i understood they denied the claim again, there was no mention of the recategorization of the case. I spent hours being transferred and re explaining the situation and they said they would follow up with their staff about the re categorization but once again they hastily responded to me on the same day stating that the claim was denied. But I didn't notice it until XX/XX/XXXX, ( when I spoke to them on XX/XX/XXXX I in no way expected such a swift response as the capital one rep told me it would take days to deliberate ) I checked my capital one account and thats when I saw they responded the same day XX/XX/XXXX with another denial but no update on the recategorization of the case. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted capital one again. Once again, spending hours explaining the situation, submitting evidence for the case to be recategorized correctly, and at the end of the call I noticed that XX/XX/XXXX was now outside of the 90 day dispute window and I asked the representative if that would be a problem and she told me that they would still consider my case. On XX/XX/XXXX the same day after the call, I received a correspondence from capital one stating that because the case was 90 days or more old that they would be closing it for good and that there was nothing more to help me further. I also forgot to mention another major issue. In XXXX after I made the 4 charges of {$3800.00}, and I was still going back and forth with the seller about the payments on XXXX and were dealing with the holds from them, I realized that I was hitting my credit limit so I paid capital one {$11000.00} to cover the charges Id made. The limit was {$14000.00}. By XX/XX/XXXX when I filed the claim, i was told incorrectly that the amount i was disputing would be temporarily credited to my account and that I would have access to those funds. So when I received an email from capital one stating, \" Your card is over its {$14000.00} credit limit, but we went ahead and approved your {$7.00} purchase at XXXX * XXXX XXXX on XXXX. XXXX. '' I was confused and called into capital one because I believed I had access to $ XXXX XXXX temporarily refunded payments of {$3800.00}. The rep assured me that they saw my payment of {$11000.00} and that I must have received that email in error. They advised me to use the card like normal so on XX/XX/XXXX when I had to pay a bill for {$5600.00}, I thought I had access to the {$11000.00} i paid, plus the 4 charges of {$3800.00}. Instead the charge was declined and I received another email stating that they had let another lesser charge be charged to my account as a courtesy. At this time I was very upset, I was told by a capital one supervisor that because the amount I was disputing surpassed my credit limit that not only did I not have access to the disputed funds, I also didn't have access to the {$11000.00} XXXX paid back in XXXX and that I wouldn't have access to those funds for up to 90 days. I hung up angrily and called back. I requested my {$11000.00} back and they said they could put in a request but nothing was guaranteed and said that they would \" MAYBE '' respond to me via postal mail in a week. That \" maybe '' didn't sit right with me. I hung up and called back and explained the situation to another agent 's supervisor and she told me that the previous rep was wrong and that I should maybe get a response in 3 weeks. I lost it. After much research I finally found that the United States federal law was not on capital one 's side and I found a law/regulation that stated that in cases of overpayment of a credit card ( which I had done ) the credit card company must make the funds available or issue me a check for the amount overpaid. It was only after I called back with the knowledge of the us law/regulation, that they sent me correspondence agreeing to send me a check for the {$11000.00}. This case has been thoroughly mishandled by capital one since week one of me filing a dispute with them about the charges and this is what led me to attempt to file a dispute through paypal a week later. My trust was completely eroded with their company after only one week into the initial dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSummary of Events : XXXX charges of {$3800.00} each made via XXXX XXXX accounts linked to the same Capital One credit card. \nDispute filed with Capital One on XX/XX/XXXX for all XXXX charges reason : item never received. \nCapital One attempted to contact XXXX, but XXXX said they had no record of the inquiry. \nI also filed a dispute via XXXX for XXXX charge, but accidentally chose the wrong reason ( \" item defective '' instead of \" item not received '' ). \nThat XXXX dispute was later closed by XXXX because they were informed of a credit card dispute and it is their policy to close all disputes once the credit card company gets involved.\n\nCapital One refunded 3 charges, but denied the 4th, allegedly due to the dispute reason on XXXX ( even though that reason was selected after the Capital One claim ).\n\nCapital One requested return tracking for an item never received, and denied the claim even after being given chat evidence showing I never received the item.\n\nIm now being charged interest on the {$3800.00} balance for an item never received, late fees, and have had 3 reports to the credit bureau stating I have not paid Capital One.\n\nUnder Regulation Z ( Truth in Lending Act ), credit card issuers must : Allow cardholders to dispute charges for undelivered goods/services within 60 days of the statement date. \nConduct a reasonable investigation when a dispute is filed. \nNot require proof of a return if no item was received. \nProblems with Capital Ones handling : They asked for a return tracking number, despite my clear and consistent assertion that the item was never received. This violates Regulation Z.\nCapital One denied my claim based on an irrelevant XXXX dispute reason ( especially one filed after the credit card dispute ), they have failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, as required by law. \nCapital Ones denial reason contradicts my evidence and statements, which illustrates a failure to consider the context properly.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-20T10:40:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"11570","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13625192","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-05-20T10:19:40.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXX I escalated the dispute to a <em>claim</em> and was told by XXXX that the seller had 10 days to respond and if the seller did not, they would decide in my <em>favor</em> as the buyer."]},"sort":[10.705542,"13625192"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6433703","_score":9.907427,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I first contacted Citi bank back on XX/XX/XXXX to try to block the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX from being able to debit my account as I had been trying for 2 weeks prior to unenroll myself from their automatic payments for a service. Once I realized that XXXX XXXX XXXX wasnt going to try to help me I decided to go straight to my bank for assistance. On XX/XX/XXXX I called in and spoke with an agent and I explained to them what was going on and that I needed to block the merchant. The agent apologized for my experience with the merchant then proceeded to inform me that he did whatever needed to be done to block the merchant from being able to make any future transactions. I then thanked them and hung up. I then proceeded to call back within the first 2 weeks of XXXX because when I was reviewing my bank account, I noticed that there was the 2 changes from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX one in the amount of {$300.00} and a second in the amount of {$560.00} that had posted to my account. I called in because the transactions had posted and I needed answers as to what did I do wrong for this to have happened. I spoke with a different female agent who when I explained what happened, proceeded to try to skirt around any accountability from Citibank and instead kept trying to reroute my call to the claims department. When I noticed how I wasnt being given any proper explanation as to what happened and why it happened, I decided to ask the agent point blank to stop trying to skirt the issue and answer my question which was did the previous agent who assured me he had taken care of it actually follow proper protocol to complete my request? Yes or No? to which the agent tried again to not accept any responsibility on XXXX part and again tried to redirect my call to dispute. I did interrupt her and said Stop dancing around my question. I need an answer yes or no? Finally after the agent realized that I would not drop it she finally answered that no, the agent did not follow protocol. Once I received the verification, I needed I then allowed for my call to be transferred so that I could now get this issue resolved. Upon speaking with my first claim agent, I explained to him everything that happened including the mistakes made by the first customer support agent as well as the lack of accountability from the second agent I had just spoken with. I proceeded to also ask the claims agent to please explain to me what needs to happen in through and to inform me of any additional steps that I may need to take so we can finally get this resolved which he did. He did make sure to explain to me that I need to make sure to keep an eye on my mail as Citibank might send me correspondents requesting additional info so that they can investigate and resolve the issue. I then thanked the agent and hung up. The next time I called back into Citibank regarding my case was back on XX/XX/XXXX as I had received a letter from Citibank regarding a debit card that I did not have. When I called in the agent that I spoke with told me that upon checking the system he did not see any notes as to what that letter could be in regard to. When I asked him can he double check to see if perhaps it could be referring to my case/dispute as maybe it was referring to the debit card that had been closed out, he said that there was no way for him to see the numbers of any previous cards I had. He assured me that he checked my file and notes thoroughly and that there was nothing needed from me at this time. He even advised that the letter couldve been a scam so to just ignore it. XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from Citibank saying that because I failed to respond to previous requests for more information regarding my dispute that my case was being closed and the credit that had been given to me was going to be debited to my account. I was obviously very confused and upset so I called in and was finally able to speak with a supervisor by the name of XXXX who informed me that I was told incorrect information during my last call on XXXX and that Citi had in fact reached out requesting more information and that he didnt understand why that agent failed to inform me of that and instead told me there was nothing needed from me. XXXX stated to me that the letters are right here in your file so there was no reason for that information to have not been available to that agent when you called in. \nHe shouldve informed you. After my conversation with the first supervisor I proceeded to provide all the information requested of me and I faxed in the dispute letters needed. I called the bank again to verify that my letters were received and I got verbal confirmation that they were. I was then told that my case would be escalated and would be resolved in 5-7 business days. I waited the allotted time frame and then proceeded to call Citi back to ask for an update as my account was still overdraft. I was then told by a different supervisor in the dispute team that I was given incorrect information again and that it would take 14 business days. So I waited again and called back and was told again that I was told by yet another supervisor that it would actually take 90 days to process. I was obviously upset but agreed that I would wait the needed time. I proceeded to call back XX/XX/XXXX as that was when I was told to follow up and was told by another supervisor that there was no update however, she had escalated it to get me a response within 2 days. I had asked if there was a way for them the back office to let the front office know that the reason for my account being overdraft was due to Citibank 's own error, however I was made aware that they do not not have interdepartmental communication so that it was on me to let the front office know. I had advised that supervisor that I really needed a speedy response as my account was set to be closed on XXXX COB due to being over drafted. She understood my urgency and let advised she would call me back. She called back that same week and told me she confirmed that the credit in the amount of {$560.00} was approved and that I would be getting a letter confirming that, the only issue was that it was set to be credited to my account on XX/XX/XXXX which would be too late as my account would be closed on XXXX COB. She had advised me that she was trying to get her leadership to do a manual override and have it credited to my account on XXXX so that my account wouldn't be closed. I was however advised by multiple associates at Citibank that in the even my account would be closed before Citi finished their investigation, that it wouldn't be an issue as a check would be issued and mailed out to my place of residence. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter in the mail that my account was closed due to the extended overdraft. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter dated for XX/XX/XXXX that my dispute was resolved and closed in my favor and that I would be getting the credit in the amount of {$560.00} posted to my account. Since my account was closed I called the bank again to ask for a time frame of when I would receive this check. The new agent I spoke with told me that they were waiting on their processing department to process the issuing of the check and to please give them 7-10 business days. I waited the allotted time and my check has never arrived. In the time since XXXX of XXXX I have contacted Citibank numerous times via phone calls & via social media. Each and every single time I am told numerous conflicting information. I have been told my check has been issued and mailed, I have been told there is no update on either of the 2 disputes I have filed with them, I have also been told that all supporting information has not been received by them and I have also been told that \" sorry we have no answers for you, please continue to be patient ''. I have been extremely patient with them since I first contacted them in XX/XX/XXXX. I feel as if I have done everything I can possibly do and I need assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-14T02:38:56.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90805","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6433703","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-01-14T01:38:36.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX <em>stated</em> to me that the <em>letters</em> are right here in your file so there was no reason for that information to have not been available to that agent when you called in. \nHe shouldve informed you. After my conversation with the first supervisor I proceeded to provide all the information requested of me and I faxed in the dispute <em>letters</em> needed. I called the bank again to verify that my <em>letters</em> <em>were</em> received and I got verbal confirmation that they <em>were</em>."]},"sort":[9.907427,"6433703"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3377698","_score":7.7277756,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"COMMUNICATION BETWEEN XXXX XXXX AND CITI : I'm a XXXX-year-old single  XXXX woman who has lived in my home for over 40 years. I XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for medical reasons. Since then Ive depleted my XXXX and have been doing my best to live on XXXX XXXX. Its only possible because I have a reverse mortgage and, therefore, no mortgage payments. Of course, the downside is that the mortgage company owns most of the equity in my house. My responsibility under the terms of the reverse mortgage is to pay my insurance premiums and keep my house in good repair. So, when my air conditioner flooded my bedroom and living room, it was my responsibility to get the damage repaired. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to replace the floors throughout my house and to replace the walls and closets in the master bedroom which had been damaged by the flood. The contracts I signed total {$22000.00}. I paid XXXX XXXX {$18000.00} which included all of my savings, half of the insurance money awarded, and {$9000.00} charged to my Citi MasterCard. A {$3500.00} charge on XX/XX/XXXX to Citi for  XXXX XXXX was an obvious duplicate of the same charge on the previous day. It was removed from my account on XX/XX/XXXX, after I brought it to Citi 's attention. The remaining {$5500.00} remained on my MasterCard. I dont know if Citi recovered the {$3500.00} duplicate charge from the Mr. XXXX XXXX. \n\nMr. XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX abandoned the job on XX/XX/XXXX, after providing only a fraction of what he had promised to do and significantly damaging my home. Most important, he stole the money I had paid him to buy flooring for my entire house which he never bought. At that time, Citi suggested I dispute the charges for XXXX XXXX on my MasterCard because I had not received the services promised. The man in Citi Customer Service told me, Dont you worry, Citi has your back. The charges were removed from my account when I filed my dispute. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received notice that my disputes were open and Citi sent forms for me to complete for the transactions on XX/XX/XXXXfor {$2000.00} and XX/XX/XXXX for {$3500.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, since the two transactions I was disputing were identical, I submitted both of them on one Citi dispute form. With the form I sent copies of the contracts, a detailed explanation of the dispute, sales receipts, receipts of my payments, a list of all my email contacts with the merchant since he left and disconnected his phone, and photos of the damage to my property inside and out. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Citi saying they had completed the review of my {$2000.00} dispute for the charge on XX/XX/XXXX but did not have enough information to support the claim. The conditional credit, interest and fees were being reversed from my account, and they told me I should contact the merchant. There was no mention of the {$3500.00} charge on XX/XX/XXXX that I submitted with the {$2000.00}. \n\nI called Citi Billing Disputes when I received the letter. Because I submitted the two transactions on one dispute form with one set of attachments and their computer can only recognize one, it confused the computer. The {$3500.00} transaction was being processed and the {$2000.00} transaction was rejected since it appeared to the computer that it was submitted without documentation. They agreed to move the documentation attached to the {$3500.00} claim over to the {$2000.00} claim and reconsider it. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from Citi Billing Disputes regarding both claims. They needed three things : ( 1 ) If the service involved merchandise, I should make it available for the merchant to pick up, and they needed the date I attempted to return the merchandise with the merchants response to the return request for credit ; ( 2 ) The last date I received service ( which Id already clearly given to them in answer to the same question on the forms they had me complete and in the narrative I wrote ) ; and, ( 3 ) A review from second similar merchant with proof directly comparing the contracts with all items purchased and the comparison may not include only simple overviews. They noted that their system can only support black and white PDF copies. ( My color photos never made it to the Dispute Dept. ) The next day, XX/XX/XXXX, I called Billing Disputes and told them ( 1 ) I didnt receive credit from the merchant because I purchased services not supplies and had nothing to return for credit. Also, the merchant moved and was nowhere to be found ; ( 2 ) The last date of service was XX/XX/XXXX ; ( 3 ) I will obtain a report from a professional comparing the condition of my house to what was promised in the contracts. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX in Billing Disputes asking for the same information they had asked for on XX/XX/XXXX and I had answered by phone on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent an email responding that ( 1 ) The dispute was for services only ; no merchandise was involved to return for credit ; ( 2 ) Last date of service was XX/XX/XXXX when Mr. XXXX XXXX sent his assistant to do some plaster work for a few hours ; ( 3 ) The XXXX   County Building Inspector who examined my home on XX/XX/XXXX in regard to the XXXX XXXX contracts agreed to follow up his visit with a report to Citi specifically explaining what he found compared to what had been promised. I would forward that report as soon as received. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from Billing Disputes which was a duplicate of the prior emails on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I emailed them that I had sent the first two items of information requested and apologized for the delay sending the written review from the building inspector. I said Id follow-up and get back to them right away. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I talked to XXXX in Billing Disputes about the {$2000.00} transaction that was still on my statement. She said shed have an investigator reconsider the {$2000.00} dispute and take it off my statement while it was being reviewed. She told me to send the information they requested as soon as possible. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Citi Customer Service Team sent a letter to me regarding both transactions requesting the same three pieces of information requested in the XX/XX/XXXX email. It directed me to return the letter with the requested information by XX/XX/XXXX so Citi could continue the investigation. ( Theres a single reference number on the correspondence referring to both disputed transactions : XXXX. ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent an email to Billing Disputes telling them I realized I owed them the report comparing the services received to the services promised. I said today, for the third time, Id contacted the county building inspector who surveyed the job and said he would write the report for Citi. I again expressed to him the urgency of this matter and explained that, if I didnt hear back from him in two days, Id hire someone else to do the comparison. I told Billing Disputes about my conversation with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to remove the {$2000.00}, and explained, once again, that Id sent the first two pieces of information ( which I repeated ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Customer Service and spoke to XXXX who eventually transferred me to Billing Disputes where I talked to XXXX. I wanted to let someone know the report and last piece of information they needed was on the way and to ask that my dispute not be closed until they had it to complete the review. XXXX said there was nothing he could do to assure my dispute would stay open but I should send the information right away. XXXX said I may get a couple extra days before my cases were closed depending on the investigators case load. If the investigator had a heavy caseload, my disputes could sit on the desk for a day or two before review in which case they could be accepted after the deadline. However, if the inspector picked up the disputes to review them on XX/XX/XXXX and the  information requested was missing, the cases would be closed for good. Apparently, these are rules established by Mastercard, not Citi, and are not flexible. \n\nAt XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, I sent an email to Billing Disputes explaining that Id tried to keep them updated on my attempts to get the letter they needed. I told them it was promised to me by the XXXX County Building Inspector who investigated the job in depth for the county hearing and, since the county needed the same information Citi was requesting, the inspector said he would write the letter to Citi from his report. I wrote that despite my phone calls and emails, he hadnt done so, and that Id had to hire someone else who was reviewing the job and contracts and emailing his report to them that day. I summarized my story, the money Id lost, how Id tried my best to provide everything Citi needed, and how important it was for them to decide in my favor. I pleaded with them to wait until they had the report later that day before making a final decision. \n\nAt XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, as promised, I sent an email to Billing Disputes with a detailed 2-page letter from a professional ( approved in advance by Citi ) comparing the services  promised by XXXX XXXX XXXX to the services they actually provided and didnt provide. I said Id told them, at least six previous times, the last date of service was XX/XX/XXXX,  and that I had also explained several times that I received services and, therefore, had no supplies to return to this merchant. Also, that I had told them Mr. XXXX XXXX had moved from his apartment, disconnected his phone, closed his business and was nowhere to be found. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX in Billing Disputes referring to both transactions. He requested ( 1 ) the last date I expected service ; and, ( 2 ) a description of service with itemized invoice. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I emailed Billing Disputes that : ( 1 ) The last date I expected service was sometime prior to XX/XX/XXXX, when my homeowners insurance was due to expire. My policy was not being renewed due to the flood damage but I was told the company would consider reinstatement if the damage was repaired prior to the expiration of my current policy on XX/XX/XXXX. Mr. XXXX XXXX assured me the job would be finished in no more than two weeks when we signed the contracts in XX/XX/XXXX. I reminded him on a regular basis how important it was for him to complete the job before my insurance expired. ( 2 ) I attached copies of the contracts with detailed descriptions of the services to be performed and the charges. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Citi thanking me for sending the information they requested regarding the {$3500.00} transaction on XX/XX/XXXX disputed as of XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Citi Customer Service Team sent me a letter regarding both the {$2000.00} and {$3500.00} transactions. It said that Citi was not able to further assist me since I didnt respond to their request for documentation supporting merchandise was made available for pick-up. They said they needed this to support their request for credit from Mr. XXXX XXXX bank. The letter also said any further dispute would have to be directed to the merchant, that the Citi investigation was completed, and that the conditional credits for these charges + interest + fees were rebilled to my Citi MasterCard. \n\nI had clearly explained to Citi on numerous occasions that I received services not merchandise. I also had told them more than once that the merchant, Mr. XXXX XXXX, was nowhere to be found -- - not by me, the County, the police, or the State. I had explained to Citi that he had moved his family from their apartment, disconnected his phone, closed his business and his XXXX  XXXX XXXX bank account. \n\nI called Customer Service in response to the XX/XX/XXXX letter and explained the situation again. They told me that once a dispute was closed, it could not be reopened ( Mastercard rules, not theirs ) but that I could resubmit the disputes and they would be considered. \n\nNote : On XX/XX/XXXX,. before I had received Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX rejection letter, I called them to see when I could expect to see the charges on my bill conditionally removed. I was told it generally takes 7-10 days to remove dispute charges. I also called to check on the status of my claim and was told the person working on my disputes would call me in 3-5 days. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I resubmitted the disputes. I sent four emails to Citi, two for each transaction ( {$2000.00} and {$3500.00} XXXX because there were too many attachments for any single email, and I was required to send duplicates of all documents to allow each transaction to be processed independently. To further support my disputes, this time I was able to include the XXXX County Order that fined XXXX XXXX {$1000.00} and ordered them to pay me {$17000.00} for services they didnt provide. The Order also recommended I receive {$5000.00} from XXXX County, the maximum retribution they can pay. ( This has since been awarded to me. ) Mr. XXXX XXXX did not show up at either of the hearings. I followed up with Citi by calling Billing Disputes to assure they had received my new claims. They received them on XX/XX/XXXX and told me to give them 7-10 days to review. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Citi sent me a letter thanking me for providing the information they requested regarding the {$2000.00} dispute on XX/XX/XXXX and assigned it a claim number. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from Citi saying my account was overdue. I was automatically paying $ XXXX/mo. on my account toward a 0 % interest balance transfer so it would be paid off when due XX/XX/XXXX. Because they had added the conditional disputes, etc. back to my account, {$100.00} didnt cover my minimum payment. I told them Billing Disputes had received my disputes on XX/XX/XXXX and said it would be 5-7 days before the charges were conditionally removed from my account again ; therefore, I thought my {$100.00} payment would be more than required to cover my minimum payment. Obviously that hadnt happened so I paid the extra amount due. Then I talked to XXXX in Billing Disputes who told me he would assure the two transactions ( total {$5500.00} ) and the accumulated interest ( {$210.00} ) be removed from my account while my disputes were being  reviewed. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Citi Customer Service Team sent me a letter regarding both disputes. It said that, as they had told me in previous letters, Citi has no further recourse in this matter. The investigation was closed. The letter also said this was their final letter about the matter and I should consider this investigation complete. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, before I received the XX/XX/XXXX letter, I received another collection call. I called XXXX in Billing Disputes and was told the interest would be removed and my account would be adjusted. He told me not to worry because, even if they denied my disputes and put them back on my account, they would not charge me interest for the time they were being reviewed. ( Unfortunately, XXXX was wrong. ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Billing Disputes and spoke with XXXX about the XX/XX/XXXX denial letter. XXXX told me to ignore the letter finalizing my claims, to tear it up. He explained that it was probably an old form letter sent out before the reviews on the resubmitted disputes began. He said something about my disputes being high dollar cases that took longer to be reviewed. He told me to wait 7-10 days and call back if I hadnt heard anything, and if I was asked for any more information, to give it to them asap. He also said that I should disregard anything else that was not from the investigator reviewing the second submissions. \n\nIn mid-XX/XX/XXXX, I called Citi to find out the status of the duplicate set of disputes I submitted. In summary, I was told the XX/XX/XXXX letter was correct and final and to drop it. For a month I tried to get the reason my disputes were denied. I talked to Customer Service and Client Focus and Billing Disputes on numerous occasions. I spoke to supervisors and managers and tried to obtain an email or other address for anyone who could at least tell me why I was denied. One man said it was because I didnt try to return the merchandise for credit as Citi had requested multiple times. When I told him there was nothing to return, the merchant was gone, and I had told Citi this many times, he said I should have ripped up the flooring that was installed and returned it to XXXX XXXX  for credit myself. Ridiculous! Who would have even thought to do this?! But I would have gladly had someone rip up the partial flooring and try to return it if anyone at Citi had told me that was what I needed to do to have them remove the {$5500.00} from my account! \n\nApproximately {$500.00} was spent on supplies and {$200.00} was estimated as the value of labor for all work done at my house before XXXX XXXX abandoned the job. I even asked Citi to deduct this entire amount from the {$5500.00} charged on my Mastercard and remove the remaining {$4800.00} from my account as payment for services not received. I already had sent Citi receipts for the few supplies purchased and statements from XXXX County and a letter from another professional detailing what little work was done before leaving my home looking like a war zone. My request to Citi was denied. I was told that, if I received any part of the services promised, no matter how insignificant, Citi had to treat my dispute as a complaint about receiving unsatisfactory services and any attempt to rectify the situation would have to be directed to the merchant. \n\nWhen Citi reversed the XXXX XXXX charges and interest back to my account, I didnt have the money to pay the bill in full. I increased my monthly payments to {$200.00} because so much of my payment was going to pay interest. ( Ive always paid my bills in full and dont remember ever paying interest on a charge account in 50 years -- - until now. ) I called Citi Customer Service and explained that my retirement savings were spent, and I was having difficulty trying to live on $ XXXX/mo. XXXX XXXX. I told them I had no idea how I could pay my routine expenses plus add this {$5500.00} for services I never received and pay a new contractor to do the work XXXX XXXX was supposed to have done. I pleaded with them, since I was a loyal, long-time customer, to at least lower my interest rate. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, a letter was sent to me from XXXX XXXX, V.P. declining my request for payment assistance to amend some of the terms of your existing Credit Card XXXX because I didnt qualify as an extreme hardship case. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Citi Customer Service to ask for part of my payment to go toward paying down my balance transfer debt so I could pay it in full when it became due. They said my payment had to be applied toward the charges with the highest interest, XXXX XXXX {$5500.00} charges. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called the number the XX/XX/XXXX letter directed me to call. After I went through my entire story and asked them to explain the letter, I was told they didnt handle extreme hardship in that department and transferred me to Client Focus. I explained my circumstances and asked why I didnt qualify as an extreme hardship case. They couldnt tell me. I asked for the definition of extreme hardship or a hypothetical case so Id better understand why I didnt qualify. They didnt answer. I ended up with the direct phone number to Client Focus and instruction to call them in a few weeks so they could further investigate my case. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Client Focus directly. After telling my story one more time, I was told they would reevaluate the extreme hardship decision and get back to me. I never heard back from anyone. \n\nI'm attaching what I think will be helpful to support my complaint including the contracts ; the report requested by Citi from a professional comparing the contracts to work done ; the page from my Citi MasterCard statement with XXXX XXXX charges ; the citation issued following the county hearing, and, receipts for all purchases by Mr. XXXX XXXX. I have copies of all my payments to Mr. XXXX XXXX ; a summary of all my emails to and from Mr. XXXX XXXX, the dispute forms sent to Citi ( three times ), and other documents I can make available if needed. \n\nI continue to work with an attorney from XXXX XXXX XXXX and with the attorney who has been assigned this case in the State Attorney 's office. The State recently located Mr. XXXX XXXX living in XXXX XXXX, FL,. He was arraigned by the State Attorney 's Office on XX/XX/XXXX and has a hearing scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-18T21:03:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"333XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3377698","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2019-09-17T04:09:52.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Then I talked to XXXX in Billing Disputes who told me he would assure the two transactions ( total {$5500.00} ) and the accumulated interest ( {$210.00} ) be removed from my account while my disputes <em>were</em> being  reviewed. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Citi Customer Service Team sent me a letter regarding both disputes. It said that, as they had told me in previous <em>letters</em>, Citi has no further recourse in this matter. The <em>investigation</em> was closed."]},"sort":[7.7277756,"3377698"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11361869","_score":3.806563,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this letter to formally request a full investigation into the financial practices of JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX, particularly regarding the handling of securities, as well as the resulting financial implication for consumers, including myself as well as their treatment of customers and their accounts. I sent a security registered mail to XXXX XXXX that was delivered XX/XX/XXXX with a communication instructing XXXX XXXX to properly redeem the instrument and credit my account noting that if he didnt have the authority to redeem the instrument to forward it to the Indenture Trustee. My account was not credited nor was the security returned to me. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent a copy of the security I had sent to XXXX XXXX registered mail to Chase XXXX XXXX Chase Card XXXX XXXX addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( due to her signature being on SEC filing documents ). It was delivered XX/XX/XXXX. The copy of the security was accompanied by a communication informing her the original security was sent to XXXX XXXX which had not been redeemed nor had it been returned and instructed her to properly credit my account as well as provide me with the accounting pursuant to UCC 9-210 in accordance with GAAP and the Truth and Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C 1601 ). This also went unacknowledged. On XX/XX/XXXX I filed a CFPB complaint due to the lack of compliance in accordance with UCC 8-505 through UCC 8-508 which is securities fraud. In the complaint I requested the accounting pursuant to UCC 9-210 in accordance with GAAP done by a certified CPA as well as the security that I had sent returned to me if it was to be rejected and not credited to my account. The complaint was responded to on XX/XX/XXXX in which my complaint/concern of the handling of my securities was completely ignored as well as my requests for the accounting pursuant UCC 9-210 . On XX/XX/XXXX I sent, certified mail, letters revoking POA for each entity within Chases transaction structure ( Chase XXXX XXXX, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Card XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) These were all delivered XX/XX/XXXX. Within each letter it was stated that a form XXXX had been properly filed with the IRS. I also sent on XX/XX/XXXX a security registered mail to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX office which was delivered XX/XX/XXXX. Again, this security was accompanied by a letter of instruction of the same nature as the others previously sent also requesting the accounting in accordance with GAAP on both the public and private side done by a certified CPA and my security returned if they were being rejected. I have not received the security nor any correspondence. I then received a call from JPMorgan Chases executive principal office about a complaint ( reference # XXXX ) that had reached their office. I originally thought this had to do with my securities. When I called back I was informed it was about my revocation of POA. The woman named XXXX said she had no idea why I was sending this ( being the POA revocation ) to Chase and also stated that there was no POA on file. I informed her that I was revoking JPMorgan Chases POA over my account even though she supposedly had no idea what I was talking about, that I wanted the Durable POA I had provided placed on my account as well as the revocation letter. That I now have the power as the agent over my person and am now the custodian over my account. I then told her that my account was being improperly handled and that JPMorgan Chase was fraudulently handling my securities. She then told me to send an email to an address that was provided to me about my issues regarding the securities. I sent the email on XX/XX/XXXX which detailed every letter I had sent, all the securities I had sent, informing Chase of the violations and their duty to act in accordance with UCC 8-505 through UCC 8-508 , informing CHASE of my rights as an entitlement holder, and my rights to the accounting pursuant UCC 9-210. Reiterating that CHASE has been committing securities fraud and violating their Indenture agreement that is on file with the SEC as well as being in breach of their fiduciary duties. I demanded a proper crediting of my account and requested again, the accounting in accordance with GAAP on both the public and private side done by a certified CPA. This email has gone unanswered. Prior to this on XX/XX/XXXX I sent JPMorgan XXXX XXXX address, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , a security registered mail that was delivered XX/XX/XXXX. On this security I had done a restrictive endorsement. I then received in the mail from JPMorgan at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a correspondence that said We are unable to accept the enclosed securities for your investment account ending in XXXX  We received the following stock/bond certificate ( s ) for deposit into your investment account it further states We are unable to accept this item for deposit into an investment account. This item is not transferable. With this response was the security that I had sent along with the instruction letter. I had also sent a security registered mail to JPMorgan XXXX address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX registered mail that was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX. This security was accompanied by a communication instructing JPMorgan XXXX to redeem the security and credit my account. It is now XX/XX/XXXX and my account has yet to be credited. Today on XX/XX/XXXX I emailed JPMorgan Chase executive principals office ( via an email address provided to me by XXXX ) a pre-arbitration email in which I also stated that I would be mailing the pre-arbitration letter to each entity listed herein. The email contained all my supporting documents. It was later today at around XXXX that I attempted to use my credit card and the transaction was declined. I called the number on the back of the card and they informed me my account had been shut down due to suspicious activity which they also had shut down my checking and savings account due to suspicious activity even though the debit card and savings account had never been used accept to put {$50.00} in both accounts to keep the account open. JPMorgan Chase is clearly retaliating against me due to the fact that I am asserting my rights and demanding what is owed to me. This is illegal and deeply concerning when in conjunction with the securities fraud, the breach of fiduciary duties and the unjust enrichment that has been occurring for months now. It has been since the inception of this account that I have been lawfully sending stock/bond certificates to JPMorgan Chase for proper redemption to proper crediting to my account. It has been since then that JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have been committing securities fraud as well as acting in unfair, deceptive, and abusive ways and in breach of their fiduciary duties.\n\nIt is clear in JPMorgans correspondence that I have in fact been in possession of securities ( stock/bond certificates ). This fact is evidenced/validated by the forensic audit that traced my statements and the credit card receivables to CHASE XXXX XXXX XXXX Class A ( XXXX ) notes with the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. UCC 8-501 defines a securities account as ( a ) \" Securities account '' means an account to which a financial asset is or may be credited in accordance with an agreement under which the person maintaining the account undertakes to treat the person for whom the account is maintained as entitled to exercise the rights that comprise the financial asset. ( b ) Except as otherwise provided in subsections ( d ) and ( e ), a person acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary : ( 1 ) indicates by book entry that a financial asset has been credited to the person 's securities account ; ( 2 ) receives a financial asset from the person or acquires a financial asset for the person and, in either case, accepts it for credit to the person 's securities account ; or ( 3 ) becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to credit a financial asset to the person 's securities account. ( c ) If a condition of subsection ( b ) has been met, a person has a security entitlement even though the securities intermediary does not itself hold the financial asset. ( d ) If a securities intermediary holds a financial asset for another person, and the financial asset is registered in the name of, payable to the order of, or specially indorsed to the other person, and has not been indorsed to the securities intermediary or in blank, the other person is treated as holding the financial asset directly rather than as having a security entitlement with respect to the financial asset. UCC 9-102 defines Account as, means a right to payment of a monetary obligation, whether or not earned by performance, ( i ) for property that has been or is to be sold, leased, licensed, assigned, or otherwise disposed of, ( ii ) for services rendered or to be rendered, ( vii ) arising out of the use of a credit or charge card or information constrained on or for use with the card. UCC 8-102 defines a Security as an obligation of an issuer or a share, participation, or other interest in an issuer or in property or an enterprise of any issuer : ( i ) which is represented by a security certificate in bearer or registered form, or the transfer of which may be registered upon books maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer ; ( ii ) which is one of a class or series or by its terms is divisible into a class or series of shares, participations, interests, or obligations ; and ( iii ) which : ( A ) is, or is of a type, dealt in or traded on securities exchanges or securities markets ; or ( B ) is a medium for investment and by its terms expressly provides that it is a security governed by this Article. It defines Instruction as means a notification communicated to the issuer of an uncertificated security which directs that the transfer of the security be registered or that the security be redeemed. UCC 8-505 says, ( a ) A securities intermediary shall take action to obtain a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if : ( 1 ) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary ; or ( 2 ) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to attempt to obtain the payment or distribution. ( b ) A securities intermediary is obligated to its entitlement holder for a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset if the payment or distribution is received by the securities intermediary. UCC 8-506 says, A securities intermediary shall exercise rights with respect to a financial asset if directed to do so by an entitlement holder. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if : ( 1 ) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary ; or ( 2 ) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary either places the entitlement holder in a position to exercise the rights directly or exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to follow the direction of the entitlement holder. UCC 8-507 says, ( a ) A securities intermediary shall comply with an entitlement order if the entitlement order is originated by the appropriate person, the securities intermediary has had reasonable opportunity to assure itself that the entitlement order is genuine and authorized, and the securities intermediary has had reasonable opportunity to comply with the entitlement order. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if : ( 1 ) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary ; or ( 2 ) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to comply with the entitlement order. ( b ) If a securities intermediary transfers a financial asset pursuant to an ineffective entitlement order, the securities intermediary shall reestablish a security entitlement in favor of the person entitled to it, and pay or credit any payments or distributions that the person did not receive as a result of the wrongful transfer. If the securities intermediary does not reestablish a security entitlement, the securities intermediary is liable to the entitlement holder for damages. UCC 8-508 says, A securities intermediary shall act at the direction of an entitlement holder to change a security entitlement into another available form of holding for which the entitlement holder is eligible, or to cause the financial asset to be transferred to a securities account of the entitlement holder with another securities intermediary. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if : ( 1 ) the securities intermediary acts as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary ; or ( 2 ) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to follow the direction of the entitlement holder. UCC 8-401 says, ( b ) If an issuer is under a duty to register a transfer of a security, the issuer is liable to a person presenting a certificated security or an instruction for registration or to the person 's principal for loss resulting from unreasonable delay in registration or failure or refusal to register the transfer. There is clear and conclusive evidence that JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have been committing securities fraud by willfully ignoring lawful instructions and requests with respect to the stock/bond certificates obtained by me in good faith, in which I am entitled to have properly redeemed and credited to my account in which every entity listed here is obligated and has the authority to handle in accordance with the law. \n\nIn addition to the clear violations of the law, JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. are in clear breach of the Trust Indenture on file with the SEC which defines a Holder means, when used with respect to any Note, a Noteholder. Defines Note or Notes means any note or notes of any Series, Class or Tranche authenticated and delivered from time to time under this Indenture. Defines Noteholder means a Person in whose name a Note is registered in the Note Register or the bearer of any Bearer Note ( including a Global Note in bearer form ), as the case may be. Section 3.07 Payment of Interest ; Interest and Principal Rights Preserved ; Withholding Taxes says, ( a ) Unless otherwise provided with respect to such Note pursuant to Section 3.01, interest payable on any Registered Note will be paid to the Person in whose name that Note ( or one or more Predecessor Notes ) is registered at the close of business on the most recent Record Date and interest payable on any Bearer Note will be paid to the bearer of that Note ( or the applicable coupon ). Section 3.08 Persons Deemed Owners says, Title to any Bearer Note, including any coupons appertaining thereto, shall pass by delivery. The Issuing Entity, the Indenture Trustee, the Owner Trustee, the Beneficiary, Chase USA and any agent of the Issuing Entity, the Indenture Trustee, the Owner Trustee, Chase USA or the Beneficiary may treat the Person who is proved to be the owner of such Note pursuant to subsection 1.04 ( c ) as the owner of such Note for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and ( subject to Section 3.07 ) interest on such Note and for all other purposes whatsoever, whether or not such Note be overdue, and neither the Issuing Entity, the Indenture Trustee, the Owner Trustee, the Beneficiary, Chase USA nor any agent of the Issuing Entity, the Indenture Trustee, the Owner Trustee, Chase USA or the Beneficiary will be affected by notice to the contrary. Section 6.11 Unconditional Right of Noteholders to Receive Principal states and Interest ; Limited Recourse states, Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Indenture, the Holder of any Note will have the right, which is absolute and unconditional, to receive payment of the principal of and interest on such Note on the Legal Maturity Date specified in the related Indenture Supplement and to institute suit for the enforcement of any such payment, and such right will not be impaired without the consent of such Holder. Section 10.01 Payment of Principal and Interest says, With respect to each Series, Class or Tranche of Notes, the Issuing Entity will duly and punctually pay the principal of and interest on such Notes in accordance with their terms and this Indenture, and will duly comply with all the other terms, agreements and conditions contained in, or made in this Indenture for the benefit of, the Notes of such Series, Class or Tranche. In these sections of the Indenture Chase USA is to be replaced with JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . pursuant to the merger date of these two entities which occurred XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFederal Reserve Act section 16 part 2 states Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or acceptances acquired under section 10A, 10B, 13, or 13A of this Act, or bills of exchange endorsed by a member bank of any Federal Reserve district 12 U.S.C 1431 Powers and duties of banks says, ( a ) Borrowing money ; Issuing bonds and debentures ; General powers- Each XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  shall have power, subject to rules and regulations prescribed by the Director, to borrow and give security therefor and to pay interest thereon, to issue debentures, bonds, or other obligations upon such terms and conditions as the Director may approve, and to do all the things necessary for carrying out the provisions of this chapter and all things incident thereto. Not only is it clear that JPMorgan Chase has provided me NO value, it is clear that I am the one providing ALL the value to JPMorgan. I provided my original application which is the security collateral for JPMorgan to get funding at an at par rate with the Treasury as well as the credit card receivables which I supply by use of MY credit that JPMorgan then sells for BILLIONS of dollars evidenced by the XXXX report. \n\nI am NOT gifting JPMorgan these assets. These assets generate value far greater than the debt incurred each month and due to the fact that I am the one providing the assets I retain an equitable interest in the proceeds generated pursuant to UCC 9-203. As a consumer I am protected under the Truth and Lending Act 15 U.S.C 1601 et seq. and have a right to transparency and equitable treatment in financial transactions. JPMorgan is profiting BILLIONS of dollars because of what I provide them, which is why I receive monthly stock/bond certificates that are to be credited to my account to offset the obligations I have incurred. In my attempt to properly claim the equity I am owed and my rights as a consumer JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have retaliated and conspired against my rights ( 18 U.S.C 241 ) violating principles of fair dealing and good faith under UCC 1-304 attempting to deceive and defraud me through blatant lies in regard to the nature of the securities I hold as well as steal the assets I have lawfully and legally obtained and have a right to, breaching their fiduciary duties and shutting down ALL of my accounts denying me my right to credit. The CFPB was explicitly created to protect the rights of consumers to be protected from unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial practices. These are egregious actions taken against a consumer who in good faith is asserting their rights under the law due to unjust enrichment that is validated by forensic data and the financial institutions own words.\n\n12 U.S.C 1833a Civil Penalties clearly states that ( a ) In general Whoever violates any provision of law to which this section is made applicable by subsection ( c ) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount assessed by the court in a civil action under this section. ( b ) Maximum amount of penalty 1 ) Generally The amount of the civil penalty shall not exceed {>= $1,000,000}. ( 2 ) Special rule for continuing violations In the case of a continuing violation, the amount of the civil penalty may exceed the amount described in paragraph ( 1 ) but may not exceed the lesser of {>= $1,000,000} per day or {>= $1,000,000}. ( 3 ) Special rule for violations creating gain or loss ( A ) If any person derives pecuniary gain from the violation, or if the violation results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the violator, the amount of the civil penalty may exceed the amounts described in paragraphs ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) but may not exceed the amount of such gain or loss. \n\nXXXX XXXX and JPMorgan Chase have been in continued violation for XXXX business days. Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX has been in continued violation for XXXX business days. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as Indenture Trustee have been in continued violation for XXXX business days. It is evidenced above that JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have derived pecuniary gain from these violations and I am experiencing an extreme loss. The failure on the financial institutions behalf to properly comply with the law has impacted my credit report which has shown that I have an incredibly high debt to income ratio which has impacted my ability to obtain other forms of credit explicitly being denied. It has also caused me to struggle to make ends meet due to the lack of available credit on my account, causing me to be delinquent on multiple obligations. Needing to go to extreme measures such as obtaining a forensic audit which cost {$2500.00}. This has caused me extreme stress, having to continuously stay up late into the night to find ways to force proper compliance as well as work longer hours due to being denied my right to credit. Closing my account has deprived me of my right to credit leaving me with no funds for food, gas and other basic needs. Every signature I give, and every credit or security I create is intrinsically tied to the divine and natural right to provide for myself and my family. Credit fuels opportunity and opportunity is my right. \n\nIt is the duty and obligation of JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. to act in accordance with the law. It is their fiduciary duty to act in my best interest, to properly handle my securities, to allow me access to my credit, to provide me the equity that I am truly owed. The forensic audit I had done on my account which the auditor is willing to testify to in a court of law, traced my statements and the credit card receivables to CHASE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) notes with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. JPMorgan confirmed this by stating that I was in possession of stock/bond certificates. This is clear and conclusive evidence that 1. I am entitled to the payment of these securities. 2. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have been committing securities fraud. 3. I am owed equity due to the value I am providing per the credit card receivables. 4. JPMorgan Chase is retaliating against me asserting these rights by closing my account. 5. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. are in breach of their fiduciary duty. 5. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have acted in bad faith. 6. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have conspired with one another to financially injure, oppress, and intimidate me from exercising my rights secured for me by the laws of the United States. 7. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. actions have constituted unjust enrichment. 8 JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. have violated consumer laws. 9. JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. are in violation of consumer laws. \n\nThese are conclusive violations of the law and it is clear that JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. believe that because they control access to consumers ' financial wellbeing that they can get away with acting in bad faith, abusing, deceiving, stealing and intimidating consumers when they seek to claim their rights or the equity owed to them under the law. It should be taken very seriously the extent to which they have gone to rob me of my rights and entitlements as a consumer and as the one loaning them securities that they profit billions of dollars off of. I implore the CFPB to alert the SEC of the securities fraud that has been committed by JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan XXXX, Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-03T04:23:43.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"598XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11361869","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-01-03T03:58:50.000Z","state":"MT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXX I sent, certified mail, <em>letters</em> revoking POA for each entity within Chases transaction structure ( Chase XXXX XXXX, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Card XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) These <em>were</em> all delivered XX/XX/XXXX. Within each letter it was <em>stated</em> that a form XXXX had been properly filed with the IRS. I also sent on XX/XX/XXXX a security registered mail to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX office which was delivered XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[3.806563,"11361869"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":9,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":9}]}},"product":{"doc_count":9,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Bank account or service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":9,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Making/receiving payments, sending money","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"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":9,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":9}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":9,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":8},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":9,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":9}]}},"company":{"doc_count":9,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Crown Asset Management, LLC, Duluth, GA Branch","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":9,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"PR","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":9,"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":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":9,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_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":{}}}