Consumer complaint received 2022-10-25
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Fee problem

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX case ( XXXX ) on this account was marked " closed '' but the issue was not resolved satisfactorily. I then submitted a new case ( XXXX ) accordingly, only to receive a curt response that " This complaint lists someone the company does not recognize as their customer or their customers authorized representative. '' If they are sidestepping the issue due to an email address not matching, that issue is now fixed with this re-submittal. Suffice to say, as a joint owner, I am 100 % qualified to act as representative on this account. 


While there was opportunity to provide " feedback '' on the original case 's closure, it seems like Citibank still needs to explain the refund rationale and, more importantly, further refunds are still due. 


I find it curious that Citi has chosen to refund an apparently-arbitrary and only partial amount of the fees charged. Further, they provide no explanation as to why they think only such a partial refund is warranted. I want everything refunded. 


This issue / complaint arose because they have a broken process and no effective controls to prevent this bad outcome ( that being improper migration of children from XXXX to adult deposit accounts ). I might even say we are broaching XXXX territory here, frankly, to the extent that insufficient notice was provided and the product migration to a level of monthly fee that is exhorbitant itself defies common sense and fairness. Not withstanding the foregoing, I also submit that they had established a PATTERN OF PRACTICE for years where there was no fee whatsoever on the account. I don't think they can simply fall back on a passive " well, it's in our disclosures '' as just cause to implement these fees. It's also not clear the extent to which they apprised directly the newly-adult joint owner on the account of the fee implications ( such as a welcome letter delineating change in terms ). 


Since XXXX of XXXX, there have been 14 charges of monthly service fee @ {$25.00}. 


In response to prior CFPB complaint they did refund 7 ( as well as a courtesy single-fee refund done in XXXX unrelated to the Complaint ), thus 8 total refunds. Citibank provided absolutely no rationale for how they chose to refund only 7 of the fees in the original response, though later apprised me, perhaps due to my feedback lamenting the same it was " courtesy ''. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF 7 MONTHLY FEES WERE VALID TO REFUND, THEN SO TOO SHOULD THE OTHER 6 ( again soon 7 after XX/XX/XXXX cycling ). 


Therefore, I believe Citibank should still refund another {$150.00}. ( 14 fees @ {$25.00} less 8 already refunded = XXXX {$25.00} ). 


This is exactly the kind of frustrating thing the XXXX XXXXXXXX loves to write about, so maybe I'll get some action via them. 


Original complaint : My son turned XXXX in XX/XX/2021. He had a XXXX  checking account on which I, his father, was responsible individual. It was not an active account but had collected hundreds of dollars of funds that were birthday & holiday gifts over the years from relatives. Upon turning XXXX, his account matriculated into some kind of higher-end Citibank " Priority '' checking account with a ( whopping ) $ 25 monthly service fee. It looks like since his turning XXXX a year ago he has been charged that fee 13 times ( and one was refunded out of courtesy ). When I log in online I can still see the account as I guess I'm still an authorized signer on the account. I don't believe Citi has a good process to right-fit customers that become adults in this situation. A {$25.00} fee amounting to hundreds of dollars charged in the last year is unconscionable.

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