Consumer complaint received 2022-12-28
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: MA
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed

Complaint:
I opened my Citibank checking account in XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote my first check from the account in the amount of {$150.00} payable to a contractor named XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX then deposited my check at XXXX XXXX, which told him that the check bounced. XXXX XXXX contacted me on XX/XX/XXXX to ask me what was going on. I immediately logged on to citi.com and chatted with a Citi CSR named XXXX. He told me my check had not bounced and was in the process of clearing. I then requested that Citi write a letter to XXXX XXXX  explaining that Citi did not in fact refuse payment on my check. He told me he could not do that but to call Citi 's call center. I then did so, and the front line agent repeated what XXXX said ( that the check was in the process of clearing ), but she was able to read XXXX XXXX name on the check, and that struck me as odd. I asked her if you can see the whole check, why hasn't it cleared? I wasn't satisfied with her answer and asked to speak to a supervisor. The supervisor said that Citi had in fact denied payment for the check b/c I didn't activate my checkbook. The chat was still open with XXXX, so I went back to him and told him the call center told me that Citi had denied payment b/c I didn't activate my checkbook. He too was unfamiliar with this policy and said he would file a complaint on my behalf. He said I would hear back from Citi via e-mail within 24-48 hours about my complaint. This was yet more false information that Citi CSRs gave me during this debacle, as no one ever got back to me. I have included screenshots of the misinformation I was given by XXXX. 

I was in shock, as there is no notice on my checkbook that I need to activate my checkbook, nor anything in the account agreement about activating checkbooks. In fact, I'd never heard of a requirement to activate a checkbook. The account agreement does in fact discuss activating debit cards, and debit cards arrive with stickers on them explaining they need to be activated. 

In contrast, my checkbook looks like a normal checkbook with no stickers or other notice explaining that I supposedly need to activate my checkbook to use it. This is a bizarre and unusual policy, and in fact, there is no record of it anywhere in Citi 's account agreements. If Citi does indeed have such a bizarre and unusual policy, then the checkbook should be emblazoned with warnings about their unusual activation policy. I will attach a picture of my checkbook ( with the account number cropped out ), so you can see that it looks like a normal checkbook, i.e. one that doesn't require activation. Furthermore, if Citi does indeed have such a policy, Citi should have contacted me to verify that I indeed wrote the check before wrongfully dishonoring it. I have Citi credit cards, and Citi also likes to make my life difficult by rejecting charges I try to process on my Citi credit cards. However, Citi often will send me a text asking if I had indeed attempted the charge in question. Why didnt Citi do that for my check, especially given that dishonoring a check is a grave matter in banking? 

Citi wrongfully dishonored my check based on what by all accounts appears to be an imaginary checkbook activation policy. Even two of Citis own front-line agents did not know about this imaginary policy and thought my check was in the process of clearing given that I had sufficient funds in my account. Even if this apparently imaginary policy somehow actually exists, it is so bizarre and unusual that Citi MUST properly notify customers about such a bizarre and unusual policy. And yet my checkbook isnt emblazoned with warnings about this activation policy despite that my debit and credit cards always are, and everyone expects that such cards have to be activated. 

By wronfully dishonoring my valid check, Citibank has violated Uniform Commercial Code 4-402 and owes me damages. Besides the fact that I had to spend hours trying to rectify this matter with Citi 's unhelpful, outsourced customer service which repeatedly gave me misinformation ( in writing, which I have documented ), I had to pay a {$30.00} stop payment fee on the check b/c XXXX XXXX demanded immediate payment of the {$150.00} that I owed him. Since I was unable to meet him in person, I had to send the funds via XXXX and thus had to stop payment on the check in case XXXX XXXX  presented it again. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX was charged a returned deposit fee by XXXX XXXX. Finally, I may have been reported to XXXX or a similar agency for writing bad checks.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation