Consumer complaint received 2020-11-14
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: WA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone

Complaint:
To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB From : XXXX XXXX XXXX Re : Citicards CBMNA, acc. # XXXX Recently I disputed the Citicards account noted above with the three Credit Reporting Agencies. On receiving the results of that investigation I then sent a Direct Dispute with Citi in accordance with : Additional Furnishers ' Duties Under the FACT-Act ; 312 of the FACT-Act expands furnishers ' affirmative duties concerning the accuracy and integrity of the information they furnish, contains a provision that allows consumers to file disputes directly with the furnishers, and specifies the procedures furnishers must follow in responding to direct disputes. 

Please see the attached letter I sent to Citi describing my Direct Dispute and including a copy of the XXXX Report described in my letter. I have not knowingly or inadvertently missed each or any of the payments on this account as described in the attached copy of my credit report for this account flowing its investigation by XXXX. Which clearly documented the account as well as demonstrating the Citicards had identified both myself and the account in their response. 

Please then see the attached letter from Citicards, where the first line reads ; We received your credit bureau dispute. Where the Direct Dispute demonstrated in my letter to them was simply ignored by Citicards. There can be no mistake in my letter as it demonstrated the authority under the Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act. This places Citicards in direct Volation of the FACT-Act. 

Where in their response, I use this word carefully as a response can in no way be confused with a Reply, which requires answering the request and questions put forward, Citicards has behaved as if theyre simply obtuse and unable comprehend the information provided in my Direct Dispute. 

Preferring instead to send me a generic response placing an additional nine ( 9 ) proposed conditions. Attempting to place additional burdens on myself, the consumer, in order to proceed with their proposed credit bureau dispute. Which has been clearly demonstrated as a Direct Dispute in accordance with 312 of the FACT-Act. While also demonstrating the credit bureau dispute that had already been accomplished and also demonstrated to Citicards in my letter to them. 

None of the information I provided to Citicards can be disputed. Where the quotations can all easily be described, for example, in the : NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTERS REPORT, AUTOMATED INJUSTICE : HOW A MECHANIZED DISPUTE SYSTEM FRUSTRATES CONSUMERS SEEKING TO FIX ERRORS IN THEIR CREDIT REPORTS XX/XX/XXXX Please see a copy of page 21 of this report attached which clearly demonstrates : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ).

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