Consumer complaint received 2018-06-05
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card
Sub-issue: Application denied

Complaint:
I protect my credit file. On XX/XX/XXXX I unlocked my credit reports. Since I protect my online identity, I use a VPN for privacy and was logged in at the time. I then applied to Citibank for a Citi Prestige. My credit file was hit with a hard inquiry : XXXX Cbna Inquiry from XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I received an email stating the application needed 7-10 days to process. I called several time over the week to finally receive a letter stating " Notice of Incomplete application. Reason, we could not verify the accuracy of the credit information on your application. In order for us to continue processing your application, please call us at XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX - XXXX, ET, 7 days a week. Have the reference number listed above when you call '' ( reference # or application ID XXXX ). 

Upon calling the number and providing the reference on XXXX @ approximately XXXX, I was asked my name and birthdate ( XX/XX/XXXX ). The operator indicated that the birthdate did not match and they will speak to someone ( There was a correction to my birthday on my credit file, which was off by one year - this correction happened over 5 years ago ). When the operator returned, he stated that they could not verify my identity and I would have to reapply. I asked for additional methods of verification as I have high government clearance and am more than happy to provide more proof of self. He stated that because the IP address was from a known fraud computer ( my privacy VPN ) they need more information, but would not provide why or what specifically denied me. 

This seems to be a discrimination against those who demand cyber anonymity and takes steps to ensure it. When asked for the specific reason for denial, the statement was, " We can not verify you, and we can not share what we use to verify you. '' This clearly falls into a vague statement, citing the Equal Credit Rights site XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX # apply Under - You also have the right to " Know why your application was rejected. The creditor must tell you the specific reason for the rejection or that you are entitled to learn the reason if you ask within 60 days. An acceptable reason might be : your income was too low or you havent been employed long enough. An unacceptable reason might be you didnt meet our minimum standards. That information isnt specific enough. '' I then asked for a manager and was directed to XXXX ( a supervisor and the highest level that can accept calls ). ( Later I asked for XXXX 's supervisor and contact information and was told only administration was above him and they do not take calls ) I stated my concerns and pointed out my reasons for using a VPN, along with the extra measures I take to control my Credit Reports ( locking/unlocking ). Restated the problem and asked for additional means to be verified. I was told the same response, " We can not verify the application and therefore deny it. '' Again, I asked specifically why my ID can not be verified and offered my ability to provide proof of self in many other ways. Again, responded with " We can not share why your identity can not be verified or what is used to verify your identity ''. ( I just want to state, on numerous background checks, it is very clear what information is used to verify you and what issues deny any verification or clearance issue. This statement seems unfair and unjust ) Additionally, I stated concern, as I already have a hard inquiry and my research in Citi Prestige showed commonly that if a prospect applies to Citibank more than once with 30 days the application would be denied. 

I pointed out the hard inquiry and if they could not verify me, that they would need to remove the hard inquiry as this is suspected fraud on their side. So I asked for the inquiry to be removed so that I may have a fair assessment of my credit without the erroneous ( in their words, " known fraudulent '' ) activity. Instead I was clearly told, " The application is genuine and therefore the inquiry can not be removed. The application is unverifiable and therefore denied. This is clear and can not be changed by anyone. '' This again seems both unfair and unjust. This is discriminatory in that someone who has not been disclosed that cyber anonymity from cyber predators will be denied credit. In addition, if they are citing unverifiable identity it is unfair and damaging to mark a credit file with a hard inquiry. ( In the perspective of fraudulent application, if Citibank or any other creditor is citing unverifiable identity/application as the reason for denial, the spirit of the law should not allow for questionable inquiries on a credit file ) I would like to pursue a class action suit against Citibank for this discrimination. 
I would also like to pursue a class action suit agains Citibank for questionable derogatory inquires on credit files as a practice. This is mean spirited at best and the law needs to prevent such inaction by Creditors as hard inquires needlessly drop credit scores and increase interest rates. This by nature benefits banks and is a conflicting policy in the above situation.

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