Consumer complaint received 2021-01-16
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
I filed a chargeback dispute on XX/XX/20 with Citi ( R ) Cards regarding a Visa merchant purchase of {$5400.00} with XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/20. The dispute case is XXXX. The charge was for a hardwood flooring hold. The salesman talked us into holding a flooring product called XXXX, telling us we should since it's almost sold out. He said it was a " one time only, last lot special buy. '' We still had not had our home measured to know how much to buy and were unprepared to purchase yet, so he persuaded us to hold it without telling me the hold was non-refundable. He told me to just hold the XXXX of it that they had left in inventory as the easiest for them so I agreed to that and signed the contract. the salesman said we would just change the actual amount to buy once we had a chance to measure it. I didn't have my reading glasses on at the time so couldn't read it, I could see the very large signature line and signed it since I trusteded the salesman. He gave us a sample to take home, and right away we knew it was the wrong color. I returned the sample and told the salesman to release the hold within an hour. When I couldn't find a suitable replacement by the third business day, I asked for a refund of my hold, and they refused saying the contract I signed says all deposits are non-refundable. I never received the goods since I released the hold. 

An advisor told me the best solution was to file a chargeback dispute with the credit card company. Initially, the original reason was that I did not receive goods/services. The merchant said we could choose an exchange of equal or greater value. My husband noticed on the contract that although the salesman had told us to hold XXXX of it, he actually entered XXXX of it. Since I couldn't find anything, I considered giving our {$5400.00} hold credit to our kids. On XX/XX/20, our son-in-law visited the store to look at flooring, and another salesman told him that the XXXX flooring was so popular that they ordered XXXX of it and another XXXX was in transit. He video recorded the visit and the salesman also let him take a photo on their computer of this other salesman quoting to sell XXXX of it. We have compelling proof with this photographic evidence that the contract was misrepresented. I called Citi Dispute Resolutions and the phone rep said she would change the reason code. I told her we learned that we learned that the contract was invalid, since the product that was misrepresented as a " last lot, one time special buy '' was not. It was something they could and did order more stock of. Had it not been misrepresented to me, we never would have been coerced into holding it. An advisor told me this pressure sales tactic is knows as " fraud in the inducement. '' If false information is given to the consumer which induces them into a contract, it is a valid reason for breach of contract. 

Citi letter to me asking for documentation and evidence said, " When providing supporting documentation, please do not send photographs or smart phone pictures, as they are not compatible with our system. '' I was very concerned, since my compelling evidence proving the misrepresentation, which is a valid reason to nullify a contract, was critical. When calling Citi Dispute Resolutions customer service representatives a few times to try and find out how I could be able to present my compelling photographic evidence, one rep told me she thought if I sent hard copies of the photos in the mail rather than the firewall email method, they could be seen. So I sent a very detailed packet of documentation including the photos of the computer monitor at the merchant 's store proving that the contract is null and void due to : 1.The product was advertised to me and also stated in the contract to be a one time only last lot special buy, and we had irrefutable photographic proof it wasn't. 2.The salesman had entered a grossly inflated quantity of flooring of XXXX when the amount was still unknown. I had proof our house is only XXXX and much is tile we aren't replacing, so the XXXX the salesman instructed me to hold, plus the further inflated amount of XXXX are fraudulent amounts. 3. The salesman was listed as XXXX XXXX when it was actually XXXX. 

Despite me both emailing and sending in the documentation to Citi, by chargeback was reversed. The reason was that the contract said the hold was non-refundable, and that their system doesn't allow photographs. Did they not see the hardcopies I sent in the mail, or does Citi just not accept photographic evidence at all. Online, I read that Citi accepts photographs as compelling evidence. When I went to check the status of my claim, I noticed that the reason for the chargeback dispute was cancelled goods/services. Although this was also a reason as we never received the flooring since we released the hold within an hour of placing it on the day the charge was made, the primary reason was misrepresentation. The salesman telling us the flooring would likely sell out before we got a contractor over to measure our quantity, that it was a one time only special which induced us to hold it, is a case of fraud in the inducement ( along with the other 2 errors in the contract ) all valid reason to void the contract. 

Citi 's policy of not allowing any photographic evidence to be submitted makes it unfair to present my case effectively. This inability to accept photographic evidence has harmed me financially of {$5400.00}. I received no benefit from this merchant transaction. I received no help or benefit from Citi either, since their system of not accepting compelling proof in the form of photographic evidence in unfair and unjust. How can it be a fair investigation if a consumer is disallowed from providing irrefutable compelling evidence?

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