RE : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the amount of XXXX After several ( 3 or 4 ) attempts of conversion of funds by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX for amounts ranging from over {$5000.00} to over {$3000.00}, I received a call from Citi Card Fraud department asking if I was authorizing those transactions. I told them NO. And later the charge of the above amount appeared on my statement. Afterwards I was tossed back and forth between Fraud and Dispute departments and reiterated that the company was attempting to steal from me. The company claimed that I owed them that money because of damages for a car. However, the cost was grossly over charged ( {$8300.00} for an {$800.00} part ). Also, I purchased the rental car company 's insurance and was not responsible for the charge of the part of the car that supposedly incurred damages. I was requested to send in documentation which I also sent into the Citi Card Benefits Administration.  They sent me a letter saying that after reviewing my rental car contract that their car rental insurance was not an option because I was ineligible due to the fact that the benefit only applies if I had declined the rental company 's " collision loss/damage insurance. Based on the information provided you accepted the loss damage waiver. '' This is proof that I was not responsible for the charges that the company is claiming. The rental car company also did not provide me with a final rental agreement reflecting the charges. They did not bill me. Also the documents they provided do not reflect even the same charges that they tried to acquire and ultimately took. Lastly, the bill they provided was a fake with a VIN number that does not even match the car that I rented. Also, I contacted Citi Executive Response and XXXX has been very helpful but she says the company is claiming negligence on my part and at this point she can not put the charge into a continued dispute/investigation status. I am requesting that Citi Bank do a Forced Charge Back on the Merchant. The  bill of the charges that they created is a fake. The document for the total cost has a date of XX/XX/XXXX yet the charge is for XX/XX/XXXX. The VIN number for the car I rented matches a car from XXXX. I rented a XXXX XXXX. Also, it is obvious that a transmission for a XXXX should not cost the value of the car. Even if these people were not trying to " rob the foreigner '' ( as stated by the former employee that gave me the rental the day of pick up ) the charges should not be more than {$1200.00}. With the various attempts to acquire money XX/XX/XXXX through various credit card " swipes, '' it is obvious that they were just trying to collect whatever monies they could steal. If the credit card company is just going to take the word of a thief despite all evidence of robbery over the word of a high credit scored, professionally state licensed doctor, past government employed consumer then there is something wrong with this system. After speaking to my attorney and an insurance claims officer and both explaining that Citi Bank should have fought for me, I have made a decision that I am not paying thieves and Citi bank is capable of retrieving their money from the merchant. That rental company should have had to prove why they charged me the amount they charged if I am telling Citi that they charged  me an incorrect amount. Where is the itemized bill from the rental car company, proving that I owe them? Oh, it is the fake document they produced after the disputes. 
And as you can see I have been going back and forth with these people at XXXX XXXX and all communication has been through a third person. I have nothing more than a name, XXXX XXXX, which Citi Back Executive Response team gave me. This person, nor the people there will contact me directly. They even hired a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( from Utah ) 5 months after the incident to see if they could collect more funds from me. XXXX said that # 1 It is odd that it took them 5 months to reach out to them. # 2 that the charges are grossly over charged and that " I am looking at a transmission online now that is {$800.00} for that car. '' # 3 The VP of the company and their own in house legal said after reviewing the claim and contract that I should be covered by the loss damage waiver, that there was no negligence that they deemed because there was no warning for the road defect, and that the claim they are closing without pursuit. Lastly, when I asked for a phone number and email address to the company that hired them and that claims I owe them, the claims specialist said the person will not give them permission to share their information with me. So again, this company is hiding from me. This person by the name of XXXX XXXX who is the General Manager over " XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) is the one that is the head of the operation and sending both XXXX ( who has swept this under the rug ) and Citi bank false documentations.