Product: Credit card or prepaid card

This complaint is in regards to a billing dispute Citibank case ID # XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX I created a billing dispute for a purchase made using my Citibank card on XX/XX/XXXX but the product never arrived from the merchant. I wrote to Citi that non delivery of purchase was the basis of my billing dispute because I will not pay for something that was never delivered. 

I contacted the merchant XXXX by telephone, 3 times and left messages each time on their answering machineNot one time did a person return my call in regards as to why the product was never delivered on the date promised. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX I emailed the merchant as well to inquire why the product was never delivered and to let them know the situation had gotten well beyond the 14 day delivery date. Again not one time did the merchant respond to my emails. 

On XX/XX/XXXX Citibank sent me a copy of the merchants reply to my billing dispute and Citibank preceded to close the case and hold me responsible for the charge, based upon afraudulent tracking number the merchant provided them as some kind of proof of delivery. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I wrote a letter in response to the fraudulent tracking number that the merchant had given Citibank please read below : This is my notice that I reject the merchant 's proof of delivery as insufficient and possibly fraudulent. 

If you enter in the tracking number given by the merchant at the shippers ( XXXX XXXX ) site, it clearly states, XXXX XXXX only received shipping info. 

XXXX XXXX shipping website indicates it never received a package for delivery from the merchant. 
Tracking # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX /XXXX  There is no delivery date, delivery time and delivery address indicated in the merchants ' tracking evidence. The destination says only " united states '', no where on the merchant 's evidence does it state my address. That's a big problem. 

If you enter in the tracking number, I was sent at the merchants own website XXXX XXXX which is now XXXX  ), they too have a progress tracker for shipping and it too shows that no package was delivered and that the shipper XXXX, never received the package to begin with. Progress tracker is listed as shipment info received, there is no delivery date, ship to name or address. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX  Special note : Website of the merchant was taken down and renamed, right after I created this dispute with Citibank, which is highly suspect. They are no longer XXXX, they are now XXXX attached is an email with a tracking number showing they were XXXX. 

In short, Citibank closed a case based on a random tracking number that the merchants own shipper denies having even received the product to ship therefore the tracking does not specify a shipping address, date and time of delivery, nor a ship to person name. 

I caution, Citibank is opening up the banking system to a world of fraud if all a scam company has to do is generate a tracking number at a shipping company, never deliver the package to the shipping company nor provide ship to name and address, then use only the tracking number as evidence of delivery and banks such as Citi would allow merchants to win billing disputes in this manner. 

A Tracking number alone does not mean an item has been given to the shipper, or that address, name are correct and delivery was made. 

Another complaint I have is that Citibank is not reading any of my evidence documentation sent in order to support my case. I believe this for two reasons, first example, is the failure to check the validity of the tracking number. 

Second example, on XX/XX/XXXX, I sent in more supporting documents to show that tracking number is fraudulent, and I sent it under the original previous correctID # XXXX. The automated system simply flagged it as a new case, instead of an addition to the original ongoing dispute, and sent out a form letter that this billing dispute could not be resolved because it was a new case past the time limitations of a new complaint .clearly my documentation never got reviewed by an actual person because it was not a new case, it was an addition to the original one.