Consumer complaint received 2021-09-10
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official

Complaint:
At XXXX XXXX Pacific Time on XX/XX/2021, I received at XXXX a blocked/sender ( " Restricted '' ) call from someone whom, after I pushed for her name, identified herself as " XXXX XXXX XXXX of " Document Servers. '' She would not tell me where she was located, but rather simply told me " Central California. '' She informed me she was " working on behalf '' of, but not working " for '' when I pushed her on that issue, " XXXX and XXXX. '' She informed me that she was preparing to initiate " civil action '' against me, and informed me that written communications had been sent to a former address of mine -- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Washington XXXX -- an address at which I have not lived for over ten years. As it turned out, which I learned when I contacted " XXXX and XXXX '' moments later, her call was connected to a purported Citibank credit card debt from almost 15 years ago. Under any conceivable stretching of the statute of limitations on the debt -- including taking into account any tolling or payments made -- the statute of limitations had expired a minimum of five years ago. In Washington, the state in which the Citibank debt was incurred and the state in which the Citibank account was opened, as well as, as indicated above, the state in which the address is that " Document Servers '' purportedly, according to " XXXX XXXX '' of " Document Servers, '' sent mail to me regarding the debt, the statute of limitations on such debt is six years, which still is fairly generous, comparatively among states, to creditors. I asked " XXXX XXXX '' for contact information for " XXXX and XXXX '' and informed her that she was never to contact me again in any manner. Still, at XXXX XXXX Pacific Time she called me twice and hung up. Not only was the purpose of the call clearly to illegally threaten me with suit over a debt barred from litigation by the statute of limitations, but also I consider " XXXX XXXX 's '' two hang-up calls to me after I informed her never to contact me again to constitute criminal harassment. 
I then called the number -- XXXX -- that " XXXX XXXX '' gave me for " XXXX and XXXX. '' The person who answered the phone simply answered the phone " litigation department. '' I immediately asked to speak to the person in charge. After several minutes a " supervisor '' named " XXXX XXXX '' got on the phone. One of the first things I asked him, being an actual law school graduate myself, was whether there was even one person in this " litigation department '' with a law degree. XXXX XXXX answered in the negative. I asked him what legal jurisdiction he felt he had to make contact with people and threaten-overtly and subtly -- civil suits over debt barred from suit by the statute of limitations. I also mentioned my legal background. He responded, " You sound like a smart person. I am certain you have heard of 'tolling agreements. ' A lot of our debt involves debt with 'tolling agreements. ' '' I suspect that almost none of " XXXX XXXX  XXXX ' '' debt involves " tolling agreements, '' and, regardless, " tolling agreements '' was completely irrelevant to the debt I was being threatened with being sued regarding. By that point XXXX XXXX also had long pulled up on his computer, at my request and using my phone number, the purported Citibank debt-at-issue. I asked " XXXX XXXX '' about " XXXX XXXX '' and he informed me he had " never heard of her. '' He informed me that " we use three organizations to make those type of calls. '' What happened here, on several levels, was patently illegal. 

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