Product: Credit card or prepaid card

I filed a dispute with Citibank on XX/XX/XXXX regarding a {$2700.00} charge on my credit card by XXXX XXXX via XXXX for home improvement services. I provided Mr. XXXX with my inspection report dated XX/XX/XXXX for the recent purchase of my residence in XXXX XXXX, MD. Mr XXXX stated that I needed a new garbage disposal per the inspection report. However, page # 11 of the inspection report stated that the average life span of your disposal is 8 to 10 years. The garbage disposal was working fine per the inspection report and this service was unnecessary. Second, I paid Mr. XXXX to insert gutter guards and clean all gutters. Unfortunately, the gutter guards fell off some of the gutters, while others were sticking up and misaligned. Mr. XXXX hired a sub-contractor to perform this work. I have texted Mr. XXXX several times to come out and fix the gutters and insert the remaining gutter guards near the rear patio area. However, Mr. XXXX told me that he wanted to be paid extra for this service. I emphasized that he was already paid. 
I also hired Mr. XXXX to remodel and update the bathroom on the first floor of my residence. The job was poorly done, and I had to pay a second contractor to repair and fix this bathroom. In addition, Mr. XXXX and I had a contract in which I would pay him {$200.00} weekly to perform plumbing, HVAC, and handyman tasks for up to 30 hours per week if needed. The contract requires both parties to provide a 30-day notice to terminate the contract. Mr. XXXX does not respond to any text messages or e-mails. I have asked him repeatedly to provide me with the original key for the smart lock to my front door and the code to a key lock box located on my front porch. Again, I have not received a response. In addition, I gave Mr. XXXX approximately {$1500.00} in Home Depot gift cards to purchase various home improvement items for me. I have asked Mr. XXXX for the receipts of these items repeatedly and he has declined to provide them. I find it suspicious that on numerous occasions, Mr. XXXX has asked me to pay him via XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Mr. XXXX had indicated to me that his business is new and that he doesnt report this income to the IRS. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank requesting " A review from a second similar merchant, based on the invoice, indicating the work performed by the original merchant was incorrectly or unnecessarily completed. This merchant opinion needs to be written on their letterhead or include a copy of their business card. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank sent me a letter stating, " The documentation you supplied did not contain a letter from a second, similar merchant stating the work performed by the first merchant was incorrectly or unnecessarily completed. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent Citibank an e-mail stating, " Are you serious? I received notification that the merchant won the dispute because I apparently didnt send the second contractors invoices for repair. See below for an email dated XX/XX/XXXX, in which I not only attached invoices, I attached a home inspection report, cancelled checks, a detailed letter, and the two invoices. I dont think that I can make it any easier. I suggest that Citibank reconsider its decision. Its not my fault that Citibank personnel dont read the emails and attachments. Please make sure that you scroll down the long list of attachments. '' Issue # 1- I was not available to Citibank 's request for the merchant 's opinion on a letterhead with copy of business card as requested on XX/XX/XXXX. I had made it clear to Citibank that I had been ill and under physician 's care during most of XXXX and XXXX. Furthermore, I also made it clear that I was a XXXX XXXX of the United States XXXX XXXX XXXX. Citibank has been provided with proof of my XXXX XXXX status many times in the past. 

As such, I believe that Citibank has violated my rights under the Servicemember 's Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) which states, " Servicemembers absent from duty for a lawful cause or because of sickness, wounds or leave are covered by the SCRA. '' The vast information provided was overwhelmingly sufficient. Citibank had to interact with XXXX. As such, I believe that the merchant didn't have the funds to repay the bank so they ruled in his favor despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The merchant 's rebuttals consisted of insufficient one to two sentence responses. It is sad how Citibank treats XXXX XXXX servicemembers.