Consumer complaint received 2019-05-16
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: IL
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Fees or interest
Sub-issue: Problem with fees

Complaint:
This complaint is in response to Citi, their usage of programs including Payment Safeguard, and the refusal to refund fees taken from me, the continued use of the program, the unethical responses that show conflicts and changes to their story, and overall predatory practices. 

The simplest breakdown of my complaint is the following. After numerous requests regarding refunds via Citi and Payment Safeguard they have declined. However, through the course of these requests through phone calls, and the CFPB Citi has shown holes in their story, exposed themselves to inaccuracy, and has either lied or acted unethically. Citi claimed initially that I signed up for a program called payment safeguard over the phone in XXXX. Via their letter they say that there are not phone records of this due to time and I further express that I never signed up for it. That in and of itself should be grounds for refund based off of their XXXX fine and ordered payback. Then in a second letter where they declined refund they admit that I never signed up for Payment Safeguard in that the program I supposedly signed up for ( which I still maintain I did not ) underwent a name change that was not communicated to customers. This also should demonstrate that I should be allowed refund in that my story truly does show I never signed up for a Payment Safeguard. 

Further discrepancies arise between the two letters when looking at the mailed statements they claim to have sent, and emailed statements. The first letter says two letters were mailed about ending Payment Safeguard in XXXX and they attempt to say there were never undeliverable but fail to address that undeliverable should not warrant an argument in that no letter would be mailed back to them unless it was certified mail. Further, they discuss emails and undeliverable without addressing how something from Payment Safeguard would likely go to an email as spam because of the predatory nature and inability to be found online. Thus they did not communicate effectively the name change, the predatory nature, or the issues with this fee that appeared on statements. 

As to their claim that they mailed monthly statements that addressed how to cancel Payment Safeguard that is simply untrue. As per the attachment there is no information regarding what Payment Safeguard is, what it does, or why enrolled. Per the attached statements it is clear that there is only a phone number with zero explanation or information. In fact the phone number listed is one of 5 listed on a statement. Simply put, Payment Safeguard is listed as a fee and is predatory. 

Finally, in the documents on the CFPB website it clearly states that Payment Safeguard enrolled clients of Citi would not need to do anything to receive a refund which is contrary to the information from the most recent Citi letter. Nowhere in the CFPB documents does it state a timeline, a due date, or a timeframe in order to receive a refund. This is all the more difficult when an individual did not sign up for a program, was unaware they were enrolled, and did not know how to end fees that amounted to thousands of dollars. Especially when Citi changed program names, was held culpable and fined by the CFPB, and took advantage of consumers.

Citi took advantage of consumers, paid refunds to some, and is attempting to get out of refunding my account over contradictory information that is misleading and frankly flies in the face of the information the CFPB has given out. A full refund should be granted for any and all fees taken from my account on behalf of Citi and the supposed Payment Safeguard. The fact that they still work with this predatory arm is shameful and misleading. As a customer of Citi for XXXX years I am appalled to be so taken advantage of by an arm of the company that can not even be contacted by phone. Finally, if they can not prove I enrolled, that alone should be grounds based off of the CFPB payout. 

Below, is my previous complaint which also expresses dates, holes in the Citi framework, plan, and customer handling experience. 

In XXXX of XXXX during a conversation I was made aware of an issue with Citi due to something called Payment Safeguard. After doing some digging I realized that I was enrolled in this program and tried to find out what it was. Unfortunately there is no tie to Payment Safeguard anywhere on the Citi website, and as the attachments show there is not a Payment Safeguard website that exists. I was able to track down a phone number via a statement and called to find out what the program is. I was then told of services and a plan that I never enrolled in. I instantly cancelled my enrollment because I was unaware I was a part of it and slowly came to the realization that Citi and Payment Safeguard had taken thousands of dollars from me over the course of years. I went back through old statements and looked on in horror to see that this payment safeguard is simply listed as a fee and not an extra service, nor something I enrolled in. It is on the second page and looks like a charge and nothing else. Without knowledge of being enrolled in the program it is impossible to know what it is and it only looks like the cost of doing business with Citi.  After finding out about this program that I was enrolled in without my knowledge I did more research only to find that the CFPB fined city XXXX XXXX dollars and ordered them to pay back XXXX XXXX to duped customers which I was one of. However, I never received a refund, nor any communication from city in or around XXXX when this refund took place. Nor did Citi send out any information when they were fined in XXXX to individuals enrolled in Payment Safeguard what had happened with the fine, what the program was, why they were in the wrong, or what to expect regarding refunds. Aside from newspaper stories and what was published by the CFPB it appears they swept things under the rug. At the end of XX/XX/XXXX I reached out to numerous Citi customer service reps and was told repeatedly that they could not give me any information on Payment Safeguard because it is a separate department and could only show that there was a case that I requested pending. Further, I called Payment Safeguard numerous times and all they could say was that a request was sent for review to some department in Citi that was impossible to transfer me to. I repeatedly said that I never enrolled in this program, wanted my money back, and was frequently passed around. In one instance when I called the payment safeguard number it redirected me to a service that tried to sell me services as opposed to any customer service. In XXXX of XXXX I received a letter from Citi saying that I enrolled in this program in XXXX and that because I was covered by the program I could not receive a refund. I immediately inquired for a new review because a. ) I never signed up, b. ) they issued refund for their practice with this company ( something I should qualify for ) c. ) was never notified of the program, details, supposed benefits d. ) was not notified of they refunds, payouts, or the issues involved. I received another letter saying the same thing, that I signed up in XXXX and would not receive a refund. I then set up a complaint with the CFPB regarding some of the information that I stated clearly above, and my need for a refund for any and all fees paid to Payment Safeguard based off of Citi 's deceptive practice for which they were fined. Yesterday, I received notice from Citi that I will not receive a refund based off of weak and deceptive claims that do not answer the questions answered. As I have always said I did not enroll in the program. Citi claims that I did over the phone in XXXX but does not have any record to prove this as they clearly mention in the letter attached. This alone, along with their fine and fee should be grounds for a refund. They were proved deceptive, can not prove I signed up which I state I did not, and should thus refund all fees from XXXX XXXX. Second, they state that there were communications sent in XXXX, one via email and one via mail. These communications were never received, nor can Citi prove they were delivered. Their letter states that they did not receive notice that they were " undeliverable '' but only certified mail would be returned to the sender and a letter from Citi would not have met this criteria. Thus, to use that as legal standing is once again deceptive and simply incorrect. Finally, as the letter states the fees are listed on the statement which is true but also not clear nor understandable. There are numerous numbers, fees, lines of interest, etc. on every statement. As an individual that did not sign up, did not know of the program, and without any knowledge of it there is no way to know it was an add on. It is only listed as a fee and does not state it is with a separate company or outside entity. All of these reasons clearly show the pattern that Citi engaged in and has continued to even though they were fined and were forced to submit refunds. These continued practices along with no proof of communicating to me the consumer, nor proof of my enrollment qualify for a refund and should have happened in XXXX. Marrying this with their lack of communication of the program, what it entails, or that Citi was found liable for their practices further shows that there should be a refund. The letter Citi sent is flawed, makes blanket generalizations, carries no proof of good faith operation, nor consumer conscience. It only shows a weak attempt to skirt the issue and not address what should have been made right in XXXX via refund. Further, the communication they claim they sent in XXXX does not do anything and should not mean anything considering the company was found liable in XXXX. Citi was cited for deceptive practice and supposed communication that can not be proved is not grounds worth standing on in light of the finding by the CFPB. A full refund should be issued immediately.

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