Consumer complaint received 2016-08-24
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: GA
Product: Credit card
Issue: Billing disputes

Complaint:
I am following up on my case number XXXX. 

I received the attached letter from Citibank. They claim that they deny my disputed charges because I did not notify them within 120 days that the merchant had failed to provide the services I paid for. This is demonstrably false, given the documents I submitted, and their own handling of this case. 

A recap of my dispute appears below, taken verbatim from my letter to Citibank of XXXX XXXX, 2016 : " I purchased XXXX oil change packages for our cars from XXXX XXXX XXXX. They were for XXXX premium, synthetic oil changes each. XXXX package was for our Honda, the other for our Jeep. 

Before I could get all XXXX changes, they went out of business. I wish to charge them back for the oil changes that were not provided to us. We are still owed XXXX changes for the Honda, and XXXX for the Jeep. Per you customer service representative, I am providing copies of our credit card statement, as well as the original sales invoices for both transactions. Please note, this card was canceled due to a fraud alert. It was replaced by XXXX card number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

The total charge for the Honda was {$270.00} ; the balance due us is XXXX changes, XXXX % of the total, or {$100.00}. 
Total charge for the Jeep was {$220.00} ; the balance due us is XXXX changes, XXXX % of the total, or {$130.00}. 

The total we should be refunded is the sum of both, {$240.00}. '' Citibank actually issued a conditional credit for the Honda oil change of the amount in dispute, {$100.00}. This obviously calls into question the entire idea that I did not make my dispute within their 120 day time frame. 

Based upon the above conditional credit for the Honda, I continued to dispute the charge for the Jeep, which led to opening CFPB case number XXXX. Citibank has displayed bad faith in handling this dispute. They have required me to resubmit my dispute and other documents as many as six times, alleging that they had become " lost ''. This is questionable, as after the first " loss '', I began submitting my information via email to their dispute department with copies to myself. 

Citibanks'claim that I did not dispute in time is contradicted by the fact that I submitted my dispute as soon as I was denied the services I had paid for. 

The background to the denial of services is that XXXX XXXX XXXX sold their business to XXXX and made no provision for the services they still contractually were obligated to me for. 

I am attaching a copy of Citibank 's letter of XX/XX/2016 denying my dispute alleging that I did not submit the dispute within their arbitrary 120 day time frame. The above proves the specious nature of this claim. 

I encourage the CFPB to closely examine the abusive nature of Citibank 's handling of this case. Their claim to have lost multiple documents multiple times is an insult to, and an abuse of the American financial system.

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 monetary relief