Product: Credit card

THE MERCHANT PURCHASE : I hired XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to send out tank and soil samples for a residential oil tank for DEP certification. It was required by the buyer of my home so I could close on the sale. XXXX filed a report with the DEP that the tank and soil failed testing, filed with them that the site was undergoing remediation, and told me I had to pay him {$25000.00} to clean the soil and properly dispose of the tank. He said it was a requirement of the DEP. 

THE MERCHANT DISPUTE : When XXXX was confronted with 1 ) documentation in the form of a raised seal from the State of New Jersey that the tank and soil were already certified as clean years earlier, and 2 ) filled with DEP certified matter, and 3 ) the lab he hired denied failing the site and 4 ) the lab he hired said the site was clean, and 5 ) my lawyer retained a new company to re-test, after all that, XXXX still insisted that I needed to pay him {$250000.00} to " clean '' up per the State of New Jersey. XX/XX/XXXX I contacted the DEP directly, they contacted XXXX regarding the complaint and all the documentation I provided them, and he completely backtracked and withdrew his filing in a matter of minutes. I had a letter from the DEP before lunch, and they specifically spelled out that XXXX had reported the erroneous test results and that he never should have reported it. 

THE MERCHANT PAYMENT : XXXX said he would not charge me for anything it since it was his error and I had to pay double for the new company to re-test everything. Believe me it was a big fight but that 's where we landed. I called it into Citi on XX/XX/XXXX letting them know to reverse the charge and that XXXX XXXX was not contesting, sent them all of the documentation they asked for, and we were all set. With the letter from the XXXX it 's all pretty straight forward for everyone. Everyone put a period and moved on. Then on XX/XX/XXXX something happened and Citi released parial funds for {$2300.00} to the credit card I had supplied XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX charges were indeed closed out without being contested, as promised. I do n't know what happened between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Citi originally said it would not be a problem and logged everything, and even XX/XX/XXXX when I called in to find what the charge was for they said it was an error. Now they are saying the disputes department people were not authorized to tell me it was an error ( ok ), and XXXX decided to pay XXXX XXXX on it 's own ( ok ), and I have no way to contact XXXX and there is no one I can contact to pursue further ( not ok ). 

Citi said it was sent to secret arbitration, just moments ago the first I 'm ever hearing about this, so secret they can not give me any details because it is all secret. So Citi tells me XXXX had a secret arbitration unbeknownst to me, and I was n't informed of the arbitration nor given the chance to defend myself because I do n't need to know, and Citi is prohibited to share any of the interactions or processes of the arbitration. The whole thing is illegal and a violation for me to know anything about it other than XXXX decided to make a payment, because they need to pass that piece along to me because I 'm the one who actually needs to make the payment. All they are legally allowed to tell me is just that I 'm not allowed to pursue it with XXXX or anyone else at Citi. Period. Really? Is this really true? Can someone please confirm this is true? If this is America in XX/XX/XXXX then it is what it is and I 'll adjust my expectations.