Consumer complaint received 2017-08-23
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems
Sub-issue: Other problem

Complaint:
In XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice that XXXX / Home Depot did not receive a payment on my account ( card ending in XXXX ) and that my account was late. I called up XXXX customer service and explained to them that I had processed the payment online, but for some reason the payment did not get processed. They informed me that others had problems with the payment and billing software, particularly when a payment did not go through there was not notification of a failure to process. The representative told me that they would most likely be updating the software to make it more consumer friendly and then adjusted my account by waiving the late fee. The agent also informed me that XXXX would correct any late reporting and to call back if I see a late payment. In XX/XX/XXXX, noticing that I had a 30 day late reported with the credit bureaus ( the only late in 7 years on 14 credit accounts ), I called Citibank and spoke to customer service. After being mistreated by the agent, who essentially accused me of lying since she did not see any clear notes on the account. She then informed me that regardless of what had been committed to me, XXXX does not update credit reporting for software issues. After having enough of the degrading treatment, I asked to be transferred to a supervisor, who after 10 minutes on hold, reviewed the account and affirmed verbally on what was stated as a " recorded line '' that I was in fact correct, that the agent had mishandled the call and she apologized for the slight and insult. She said the agent was incorrect and said that she reviewed the notes of my call in XX/XX/XXXX and concluded that I was correct. She confirmed that the records show that I was not at fault as to the payment being late, noted that I was returned the late fee as verification, and then she informed me clearly and unambiguously that she would process a correction of the payment history, eliminating the late payment record of XX/XX/XXXX - and then asked me to call back in after XX/XX/XXXX if the late payment record for XX/XX/XXXX was not corrected on my credit file with the bureaus. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called to inform XXXX that my record or payment history was not corrected. I was then essentially treated to one of the worst experiences in customer service in a long time. From the time I spoke to the agent up to the office of the President, I could not believe how XXXX was going out of its way to question my integrity and prove I lied about something that could be easily be proven by reviewing the notes and any recorded calls, particularly the calls in XX/XX/XXXX. Ultimately, I ended up with XXXX XXXX in the Executive Response Unit, who was dismissive and disrespectful from the start. After a lengthy and fruitless conversation, in which XXXX XXXX stated that the prior supervisor who committed to correct the record with the credit bureaus had overstepped her bounds and his office was the only one that could correct the record and he would not because he did not see anything in the record to show that the supervisor in XX/XX/XXXX committed to the correction, and even if she did, he stated that the late payment in his opinion was not the fault of XXXX in spite of what the XXXX agent said in XX/XX/XXXX and the supervisor stated in XX/XX/XXXX. I voiced my displeasure immediately because XXXX XXXX did not want to resolve the matter but in my opinion was on a power trip and wanting to exercise his power over other supervisors. I am not going to allow myself to be called a liar, or my credit to be harmed simply because a turf war between a supervisor and the lofty office of the president. Further, XXXX XXXX after accusing me essentially of lying, committed to review the recorded calls or transcripts and call me by telephone in a few days. Of course, XXXX XXXX did not. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called the executive response unit ( should be called the ECU - because that is where complaints go to die! ) and was transferred to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX was immediately condescending, and informed me that he did not call me because he sent a letter. He stated he personally reviewed the records and concluded that I was not due the correction and that he had sent me a letter. I pressed XXXX XXXX as to why he did not call me after reviewing the recorded calls as promised and he simply stated that he sent a letter. I then asked XXXX XXXX if he pulled the recorded calls and/or transcripts as promised, and he hesitated to confirm. I assume there would be an internal record if XXXX XXXX requisitioned the calls or not, I questioned the veracity considering I know without any doubt what the supervisor informed me in XX/XX/XXXX. When pressed why he did not call me like he had promised he simply again reiterated he sent a letter. XXXX XXXX refused to review the matter again saying he made a decision and did not inform me of any other recourse. I asked him for the name of the President, which he provided as XXXX XXXX, and stated that I am not satisfied with his response, question the veracity of his statements that he reviewed all calls ( knowing exactly what I had been informed ), and stated that if necessary I would take this to arbitration if need be. I am reporting this matter because of violations of the FCPA in falsely reporting my account as late and a default by XXXX XXXX agreement in XX/XX/XXXX to correct my credit report record as had been agreed. I will not allow internal deficiencies, and low quality of customer service, devoid me of my rights. It is not fair or just that XXXX on one side recognize its error and then another office contradict and make a mockery of its customers. I hope this gets corrected, however I have little faith that the Office of the President will do the right thing by its customers, as opposed to protect its own in a petty self-aggrandizing defense of its power over the little guy. To me to deny a simple correction after the correction had been committed to by a supervisor, is beyond petty it is a violation of trust and an insult to the consumer.

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