Complaint sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

This is regarding several billing disputes that Citibank accused me of misrepresenting. The executive office employee that made these accusations was XXXX, and it occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. The call was recorded for quality assurance purposes, so I am asking that the CFPB request the call record. 

During this phone call, I had misrepresented several billing disputes and gave me a few examples : XXXX Store : Home Depot Purchase Date : XX/XX/XXXX Dispute Date : XX/XX/XXXX Permanent Credit Applied : XX/XX/XXXXPurchase : Two bags of lime Reason for return and dispute : one lime bag was torn and the other was water damaged ( torn contents got all over my car and was unable to apply the wet lime to our spreader ) Accusation : XXXX stated Home Depot claimed I never attempted to return the items. XXXX stated the items never were damaged, the bag did not leak in my car, I never attempted to call the store to complain despite telling her I was sure I could provide a phone record of the call. She implied I lied. 
Home Depot 's response : E-mailed and spoke to the general manager of the store, XXXX XXXX. He stated corporate office handles disputes and they only send him receipts to inquire if he agrees or disagrees. XXXX the store never could have confirmed whether I called or not. I sent him a copy of my phone records. He confirmed the call was made following the time stamp on the receipt and conceeded I must have complained and the return was not properly processed. Home Depot has offered to refund the account, but it is now well outside the dispute period. I proactively approached them on another previous dispute over XXXX 's seed ( this was not mentioned by XXXX ),  because I decided to just contacting merchants based on the little amount of documentation I was given. They agreed to refund this as well, because their website advertising for XXXX 's shows a different return policy than their store ( 90 days ). The XXXX  is involved in this complaint. 
Main problem : Citibank issued permanent credits to me on both disputes with no additional documentation required but also paid Home Depot on both transactions. In addition, XXXX stated they just wrote the {$10.00} off. She chalked it up to the dollar amount. But the seed purchase was over $ XXXX.The dispute number on the seed purchase is XXXX. 
Documentation sent : XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX Store : XXXX XXXX Purchase date : XX/XX/XXXX Dispute date : XX/XX/XXXX Permanent credit applied : No longer can access the date through Citibank 's  website because I withdrew the dispute to proactively resolve it with the merchant due to prior mistakes. They did send me documentation by e-mail stating they issued a permanent credit with no additional documentation required. Letters through Citibank 's notification 's page have disappeared, despite saying a 12-month history will be listed from the date made available, so I can not compare dates. 
Purchase : XXXX Reason for dispute : XXXX was not made properly. When a customer orders, they order at the cash register and then wait for the food or take it home to go. If something is wrong, a manager will refund in-store or over the phone based on receipt information. They do not ask you for the card. Refund was not processed properly.

Accusation : XXXX stated I never tried to return the item and implied because I tipped there was obviously nothing wrong with the pizza. I told her I had also complained frequently through their website on orders and she said I had not. 
XXXX  's response : This problem was address with XXXX XXXX, their assistant manager, and XXXX XXXX, their financial operations manager. XXXX confirmed a previous recent complaint on their website. XXXX apologized for failing to issue two credits ( I went back to a prior dispute as well to be proactive ). Both charges have been refunded to my credit card as of XX/XX/XXXX, and the dollar amounts exceed the amounts disputed. 
Main problem : Citibank issued permanent credits to me on both disputes with no additional documentation required but also paid XXXX  on both transactions. They also coded the disputes incorrectly as defective merchandise when I clearly disputed them as goods not as received or expected. A pizza can not be defective. In addition, XXXX stated they just wrote the {$18.00} off. She chalked it up to the dollar amount. But the other dispute was $ XXXX.The dispute number on this purchase is XXXX. 
Documentation sent : XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX, XXXX Store : XXXX Purchase dates : Dispute dates : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Permanent credit applied : No longer can access the date through Citibank 's website because I withdrew all the disputes for the year to proactively resolve it with the merchant due to prior false advertising problems, produce problems, and other problems within the store. They did send me documentation by e-mail stating they issued a permanent credit with no additional documentation required. Letters through Citibank 's notification 's page have disappeared, despite saying a 12-month history will be listed from the date made available, so I can not compare dates. 
Purchases : From as much as I was told, and from the amounts, items from the meat department Reason for dispute : False advertising and items not refunded properly. 
Accusation : XXXX stated I never tried to return the items in an accusatory tone and said one of the amounts disputed didn't even match the receipt. Maybe sales tax wasn't properly calculated? I have no idea because they have failed to send any type of follow up requests to me for additional documentation. 
XXXX 's response : I have been trying to get the problems resolved by e-mail for the last two weeks. On XX/XX/XXXX, I documented by phone how they are mislabeling items in the meat department. I have been talking to their district manager, XXXX XXXX, and he is refunding me for the withdrawn disputes that Citibank has rebilled. These are disputes XXXX for {$35.00}, XXXX XXXX for {$4.00}, XXXX for {$3.00}, and XXXX for {$20.00}. I am still waiting to hear from Citibank on withdraw XXXX for {$26.00}. Despite attempting to withdraw the dispute numerous times, the system will not allow me to do so. I have e-mailed billing disputes three times from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. I have received no acknowledgement by e-mail stating they will not withdraw the dispute, so I have no idea if XXXX was paid or not on this transaction. I have also filed an attorney general report against XXXX for false advertising. 
Main problem : Citibank issued permanent credits to me on all disputes with no additional documentation required but also paid XXXX. They only reversed several of them when withdrawn. In addition, XXXX stated they just wrote the {$20.00} and the {$35.00} off. She chalked it up to the dollar amount like on the other purchases. 
Documentation sent : XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX. 

Finally, XXXX stated I would not receive my rewards ' dollars. I stated it was nowhere in my agreement and said I had ordered my agreement online. She told me to go to XXXX 's website. Citibank is responsible for getting customer 's their agreement by mail. They sent out the wrong one. The one they sent doesn't even match my rate. 

Citibank needs to address XXXX 's behavior and they also need to start properly following up on disputes when a merchant doesn't agree with what the customer is saying. I know Citibank is capable of it, because they have done it on other disputes despite the dollar amounts in question. They don't have a consistent policy. XXXX also says there have been problems on other disputes, but Citibank has failed to address these in writing or over the phone and has issued permanent credits with no additional documentation in my favor. I have been proactively going through my dispute history to try to figure out what is going on. I'll further say it is grossly unfair to level this kind of accusation on items outside of the 60-90 day dispute period, giving little details, and just asking a customer to be proactive. I am buried in paperwork that could have been resolved earlier during the dispute period.