Consumer complaint received 2020-10-25
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: TX
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: Overcharged for something you did purchase with the card

Complaint:
To whom it may concern, I previously attempted to notify CITI via the CFPB of various violations and errors of federal and state statutes, the cardmember agreement, and the MasterCard Dispute Resolution Guide. The vast majority of the complaints and issues brought forth were ignored, however, as were all of the supporting documents I provided. To prevent this from occurring again, I will break the complaints up into smaller sections so as they can be individually addressed instead of being ignored. 

Additionally, you should already be aware I am covered under the Military Lending Act, which provides additional consumer protections to me while placing additional legal requirements upon CITI. This includes additional notices and documents CITI must provide, as well as the additional timeline which CITI must abide. 

I previously filed a complaint regarding the following charges which I submitted billing disputes for which CITI mishandled : {$620.00} XXXX XXXX charge billed to my previous account ending in XXXX on XX/XX/2020. 
{$180.00} The Home Depot charge billed to my previous account ending in XXXX on XX/XX/2020. 

However, the response CITI provided was deceptive, inaccurate, and failed to account for the violations and errors made by CITI while handling these billing disputes. I assume CITI did this to avoid taking responsibility for its legal and contractual obligations regarding billing disputes. 

The {$620.00} XXXX dispute, was filed as my reservation with XXXX was guaranteed to be available as a XXXX XXXX XXXX. When I attempted to pick up my guaranteed vehicle XXXX failed to have a car available to fullfill their obligation as outlined in the guaranteed reservation or the XXXX XXXX XXXX  Agreement and Terms of Service. I submitted to CITI the reservation ( invoice ), my XXXX XXXX XXXX Card, XXXX XXXX XXXX member agreement, terms of service, and a photo of the upgraded vehicle ( including the displayed signage related to the upgrade status. ) The XXXX XXXX Terms of Service indicate I can pick an upgraded premium vehicle for an additional $ XXXXday. However, because the only available car was an upgraded one I should not have been charged per the terms of service and XXXX customer Service Department. 


Per the MasterCard Dispute Resolution Guidelines, the following is a requirement to validate a chargeback : The cardholder engaged in the transaction The cardholder contacted the merchant, or attempted to contact the merchant, to resolve the Dispute The merchant refused to adjust the price, repair or replace the goods or other things of value, or issue a credit And the following : The merchant did not honor the terms and conditions of the contract with the cardholder including, but not limited to, 100 percent money-back guarantee, written promises, or return policy. 

Engaging in the transaction and the merchant refusing to adjust the price are requirements of a valid chargeback. However, in a response dated XX/XX/2020 CITI rejected the billing dispute stating : We are unable to assist you with your dispute since you accepted and used these services with the knowledge, they were not what you originally agreed upon. This represents a clear UDAAP, MLA, and FCBA violation, as well as a violation of the member agreement. 

The required documentation to validate and proceed with the chargeback as outlined by the MasterCard Dispute Resolution Guidelines are as follows : Cardholder email, letter, message, or completed Dispute Resolution Form Cardholder Dispute Chargeback ( Form 1221 ) describing the cardholder 's complaint in sufficient detail to enable all parties to understand the dispute. 
Optionally, documentation that supports the cardholder 's dispute including, but not limited to, the original receipt, invoice, work order, brochure, contract, or appraisal. 

In a letter dated XX/XX/2020 Citi states the following : We have to provide certain information to the merchant 's bank to prove a charge is invalid within 60 days from the post date of the charge. While we can understand your desire to obtain a credit, we can not mandate that the merchant issue a credit. We needed a copy of the receipt, invoice or sales slip that shows you should have been billed a different amount. This is yet another clear UDAAP, FCBA, and MLA violation. The dispute was originally filed within one week of the charge posting to my account. Any failure of CITI to submit it to the merchant 's bank remains the liability of CITI alone. Additionally, Citi stating We needed a copy of the receipt, invoice or sales slip that shows you should have been billed a different amount is extremely deceptive and abusive. As previously stated above and verified by the MasterCard Dispute Resolution Guidelines, CITI was already in receipt of all the documentation required to file the chargeback. Claiming otherwise would represent an abusive and face statement. CITI requiring only a limited few documents which I was never provided, and which are optional according to MasterCard only adds to CITIs violations. 

Additionally, CITI is legally obligated to provide me with the response from the merchant as well as all documents submitted and used in the course of this billing dispute. CITI has been repeatedly notified of its failure to provide me with documents of almost every billing dispute, yet has failed to correct its error, which is yet only one more violation. 

In regards to the Home Depot billing dispute CITI made the following deceptive and abusive statements : The merchant declined our request for credit and provided a receipt showing {$92.00} was refunded to your account, which appeared on your XX/XX/2020 statement. 

The merchant refusing to adjust the price, repair or replace the goods or other things of value, or issue a credit is a requirement according to the MasterCard Billing Dispute Guildelines. CITI claiming the merchant refusing to provide credit as the basis for not proceeding with a billing dispute or chargeback is highly deceptive and abusive. This statement also fails to absolve CITIs obligation under federal or state statutes. 

We sent you a letter dated XX/XX/2020 requesting that you provide documentation by XX/XX/2020 proving the merchandise was returned in accordance with the merchants terms and conditions. Because we did not receive valid proof, we are unable to further assist through the dispute process. You will need to contact the merchant directly or seek other means to obtain a credit if you wish to pursue this further. 

CITI received all required and signed documents, as well as optional documents including the original return receipt and the return refusal receipt. MasterCard states a merchant failing to honor the terms and conditions of the contract including return policies as well as the cardholder returning the goods or informing the merchant they were available for pickup as a valid basis for a billing dispute. CITIs claim of a failure to receive any proof to support the billing dispute is false and a deceptive act. Additionally, no documentation was ever provided by CITI regarding this billing dispute, despite their legal obligation to do so. CITI has been notified of this multiple times and failed to correct this error on their part. 

CITI routinely fails to properly review provided documents regarding billing disputes or investigate these disputes as required. More often than not, CITIs claims and responses are further examples of their unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts ( UDAAP ). UDAAPs are illegal, according to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 

Under FCBPA and MLA Citi is obligated to adequately process and follow any billing errors or disputes they are notified of. While the requirements to process and validate chargebacks are outlined in the MasterCard Dispute Resolution Guide. CITI routinely violates these obligations and fails to adhere to the correct outlined chargeback processes.

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