Consumer complaint received 2021-07-01
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CO
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:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a camera set that listed as its top feature a 1 year subscription with XXXX for monitoring. When the item arrived and I installed the cameras and went to register them XXXX indicated these only had a 3 month subscription. I contacted the merchant and was told that they would happily exchange the item and I asked them if the new item they would send would have the 12 month subscription as it was clearly advertised. After a few messages the merchant stopped communicating, especially after I shared with them that I spoke to the manufacturer and that they confirmed that this camera system never sold with a 12 month subscription. The final message I received from the merchant was a text saying that they do not sell that camera system with a 12 month subscription - despite that on that very day they messaged me that their listing still showed as the number one feature - a 12 month subscription. I thought long and hard about the next steps I wanted to do. The sale that XXXX had on the XXXX cameras had ended by the time the order had arrived at my house and I have gone to register the cameras only to find that I was a victim of fraud. Knowing that an " exchange '' would result in me getting the exact same thing and not what they were offering on their listing, I notified Citi and decided to be fair and placed an amount in dispute that was equal to the {$9.00} XXXX plus applicable tax ) per month for the months I was promised by the merchant that the merchant admitted they did not offer despite advertising that and my paying more than the competitors believing that what they listed in their ad was true. Citi shows that on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, I opened the dispute. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, I sent them the evidence as their guidance says to send documentation via FAX or e-mail. In a later phone call, Citi admitted that items received via FAX while they did see them in my file, the system " was not able to read them '' so I had to send them again via email. 

Despite providing clear evidence proving that I was a victim of misrepresentation, Citi refused to follow their own procedures concerning billing disputes. I provided a fax on XX/XX/XXXX that provided all the evidence they needed including a case number from a call I made to XXXX who said that the do not sell these types of cameras with a 12 month subscription and that the merchant was " mistaken '' in advertising their product with a subscription that is " never offered. '' Citi continually provided me with notifications and letters saying that I was responsible and continually closed the dispute. On XX/XX/XXXX, I provided a signed letter indicating exactly what happened and included in that PDF a copy of all the evidence, again. However, Citi ( it is claimed they were all automated ) notified me on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX that they determined I was responsible. In reviewing Citi 's own guidance, as well as the legal definitions of misrepresentation, the merchant 's activities clearly fit into the definition of misrepresentation. They knowingly listed as the first key feature something that they knew was false. The offer of a 12 month subscription, a significant value of {$9.00} a month, was what induced me to make the purchase. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving another notice that the dispute was closed and Citi determined I was responsible, I again texted Citi and the agent could not help. He provided me with the dispute number and the first call was disconnected. I called again and asked for a supervisor. The agent said that Citi provided me a {$92.00} credit and that the notifications I was receiving was " automated '' and in 7 to 10 business days from XX/XX/XXXX, the app would properly reflect that I was not responsible. I explained that every time I logged into the app and saw how my own credit card company blames me as a victim of misrepresentation and holds me, the victim, responsible, was very upsetting. On multiple occasions I requested a supervisor and the agent refused to connect me to a supervisor saying that the app would be corrected in 7 to 10 business days from XX/XX/XXXX and I just needed to be patient. I explained how upsetting it was to be a victim of a merchant and then to be a victim of my own credit card company with which I charge thousands of dollars a month on with the belief and understanding that when I am a victim of fraud or misrepresentation, the credit card company would hold the fraudulent merchant responsible. Here, despite my getting the merchant to admit that their listing was fraudulent and my providing all the elements that Citi needed to prove the merchant engaged in fraudulent activity, Citi re-victimized me through their " automated '' process that continually blamed me leaving me to feel that it is my fault for believing that what is clearly listed as a number one feature of an item might actually be false. I worked hard to try and resolve the issue with the merchant until it was clear that they defrauded me and if I had returned the item, the next cheapest replacement was more than {$100.00} more since the sale on XXXX was no longer running. No matter what I did to try and resolve it on my own, I would have lost a significant amount of money due to the merchant 's fraud, so I turned to Citi seeking their help and invoking my rights under a clear case of misrepresentation. I was proactive getting them evidence they could use to hopefully pursue the merchant for intentional misrepresentation. Yet, the only action the " investigation '' seemed to provide was the finding that I, a clear victim, was responsible. Citi led me to believe that even if you prove you are a fraud victim, tough, oh well. Citi, the multi-billion dollar company blames me for allowing myself to be a victim. That is a truly sad example of what customer service should NOT look like.

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