Consumer complaint received 2020-02-03
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: VA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: Store credit card
Issue: Problem when making payments
Sub-issue: Problem during payment process

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX I made the minimum payment due of {$240.00} for our Home Depot account. On XX/XX/XXXX, I went into the store to make a {$5000.00} payment intended to pay off a promotional balance and pay down the card balance. My husband and I are paying down/paying off accounts in conjunction with a refinance and were timing transactions to report to the credit bureau and adjust our credit rating to ensure that we could qualify for a 0-1.99 % interest rate offer that expires on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XXXX I called Home Depot Credit services because I received the bill and noticed my payment was not allocated correctly. They applied the entire amount to our revolving balance in lieu of paying off the promotional balance in the amount of {$1400.00} and having the remainder pay down the revolving balance. We made the payments in a specific fashion on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX to avoid what is currently {$620.00} worth of deferred interest and because all previous communications ( documented in their system ) stated and reiterated that the default allocation method within 60 days of the promotion expiration would be as follows : 1 ) Minimum amount due applied to revolving balance 2 ) Remaining amount of payment applied to the promotion. 

I was on the phone with Home Depot Credit Services for greater than 1 1/2 hours today ( XX/XX/XXXX ). The first representative I spoke with, XXXX, tried to reallocate the payment but said that she couldn't because I was not the primary cardholder on the account. I explained that if she looked into the details/note on the account she should see that all previous calls/transactions were done so by me. I also explained to her that my husband had sent in a form authorizing me to handle this account previously. She said the system physically would not allow her to do it because she was in the account under my name. I asked her why the system did not allocate like it should have ... and she stated that she wasn't sure. She confirmed that I was correct in my understanding of how payments should be allocated. Stating ... '' There was something definitely wrong '', but the system wouldn't let her fix it. I verified with her that the call was being recorded ... she said yes that it should be. 

She transferred me to SCRA Services incorrectly and they transferred me back to HD Credit services. This time I spoke with XXXX who also said he couldn't do anything to reallocate the money because I was not the primary account holder. I stated that I wasn't asking for specific amounts to be put anywhere. I was asking that the allocation be corrected to how it was " supposed '' to be allocated. He confirmed that the account was paid within the 60 day window ( 57 days to be exact ) and that it should have paid the promotional balance in full. Again I verified with him that he believed the call was being recorded before I asked for an escalation. 

XXXX escalated the call to XXXX. He admitted that he understood it was common practice to communicate 60 days in lieu of 2 billing cycles. I explained that I had spoken to numerous HD credit services representatives ( 2 of which were just previous to speaking with him ) that specifically verified it was 60 days prior to the promotional expiration. I explained that if it was indeed 2 billing cycles then other communications with HD credit services were incorrect and intentionally misleading. It seemed suspect that they would knowingly misrepresent the payment allocation method to consumers that specifically inquired about it. 

In addition, I explained that I was working to rebuild our credit by making this payment in time to have the payment positively reflect on my credit report for other financial transactions. He proposed an alternative to refund the money that I could then reapply and have it allocate correctly. It completely caught me off guard, and I expressed my concern, that their " policy '' would allow them to issue a refund check ( non secure at all ) at MY request, but they would not reallocate a payment on the account the way that it was supposed to have been allocated to keep the money on the account. In addition, because the new balance still was not showing on my credit report, there was potential that the payment would show on my credit report as a decrease and then a drastic increase again due to the refund depending on timing and the mail. This seemed far from an optimal resolution, that could have additional negative financial implications. 

I asked XXXX if there was an option to further escalate to someone who would be able to allocate the payment correctly. He said he could escalate but he wasn't sure they would be able to do anything. He contacted XXXX in the Executive Response Unit. 

I restated the issue for the 4th time to XXXX and she said that it didn't allocate the way I was told it should because it was not within 2 billing cycles. She said normally, the 60 days they stated falls within the 2 billing cycles, but this time it didn't. To further put things into perspective, I paid the $ XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and the billing cycle started on XX/XX/XXXX. Absolutely ridiculous. 

I asked her where it was stated that it's billing cycles in lieu of 60 days as communicated and she originally stated it was on the bill. Then after she reviewed it and I reviewed the bill while still on the phone, she admitted that it was not stated on the bill. She then said, that she believed it was on the terms sent out when the account was opened. For the record and for recording purposes, I verified that I've spoken to several HD account services representative who expressly provided information to the contrary since the time we've received the terms when the account was opened. 

I let her know, that although the representatives were respectful and appeared cooperative, I firmly believed HD credit services was practicing misleading and deceptive communication practices and that I would be reporting them to the CFPB. She stated that these complaints come to her area. I'm reporting this despite the fact that she gave me the impression that my issue would not receive another look or consideration. 

It makes no sense, when consumers are doing everything within the parameters provided by the company to work their way out of debt that companies are allowed to engage in business practices that entrap and/or expressly inhibit the consumers ability to be successful. 

Three ( 3 ) HD Credit services account representatives, today alone, said the payment allocation went to the promotion 60 days from the promotion expiration date. It would have been easy for them to do a one time reallocation of the payment to pay off the promotional balance admitting that they communicated the terms incorrectly. Especially in light of the fact that they admitted the miscommunication. Instead, their predatory practice of hindering payoff will most likely cause an unnecessary {$700.00} in deferred interest be applied to our balance to which they will continue to accrue additional interest. 

I told all of the representatives that my husband worked on a secure facility and that he wasn't allowed to have his cell phone for me to call him. I also told them that I managed this account and had been doing so with his permission for a long as it's been opened. They made no attempt to verify that I was the person who made all payment allocation inquiries previously, they made no attempt to verify that my husband filled out a form to keep on file that I had permission to do so. They made no attempt to review the account at all. 

Everything my husband and I are doing is to make ourselves more financially sound and credit worthy. We believed we were doing everything right and playing by the rules. And yet, we're in a situation where we even lose when we try to do the right thing and pay off debt. These predatory practices and " policies '' of misrepresenting information and/or intentionally misleading the consumer are egregious acts which should not be overlooked and allowed to continue.

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 non-monetary relief