Consumer complaint received 2024-12-16
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (NC)

I made 5 purchases of pet food from a small business pet food retailer over the course of about 6 months ( XXXX - XXXX, XXXX ). Shortly after my last purchase in XXXX, XXXX my previously healthy dog was diagnosed in XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. For various reasons both my vet and I were suspicious that the dog food may have caused her illness and I submitted a complaint to the NC Department of Agriculture. The complaint and investigation took months and upon completion of the investigation, it was determined by the Department of Agriculture that the food was defective and not safe for consumption. It was also determined that the product was misbranded and misrepresented. As such a do not sale order was issued by the NC Department of Agriculture. 

I attempted to open disputes online in XXXX, XXXX with Citibank for these 5 purchases based on the fact that they were misrepresented and defective. Citibanks online system would not allow me to open the disputes online because they were over 90 days old. When I called Citibank I continued to be told that I could not open disputes because they were over 90 days old, even though I mentioned that certain reason codes for disputes are supposed to have up to 540 days to file chargeback disputes. I explained that according to the Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules document, which is on the Visa website and which all Visa issuers must follow, it is specified that a card holder has up to 540 days from the date of transaction to file a chargeback dispute when a product is not as described or defective or misrepresented. 

Throughout this entire process every person I have spoken with at Citibank in the disputes department has not been educated on the 540 day rule. Each person has only been familiar with the 90 day rule and each person has automatically discounted any transaction over 90 days as being too old. However, I was eventually told that I could email or fax my dispute and supporting documentation to XXXX if it was over 90 days, but that I had to try to get a refund from the merchant first. 

After trying to contact the merchant to ask for a refund with no success, I requested Citibank to open chargeback disputes for each of the 5 purchases I made as shown in the attached email from XX/XX/XXXX ( Costco Citibank Visa Billing Dispute.eml ). I provided detailed information about the disputes with supporting documentation proving the product was misrepresented and defective as shown in the email from XX/XX/XXXX. The charges disputed were as follows : XX/XX/XXXX - purchased XXXX libs for {$36.00} XX/XX/XXXX - purchased XXXX XXXX for {$36.00} XX/XX/XXXX - purchased XXXX lbs X XXXX for a total of {$69.00} XX/XX/XXXX - purchased XXXX lbs X XXXX for a total of {$69.00} XX/XX/XXXX - purchased XXXX lbs X XXXX for a total of {$69.00} Citibank finally opened dispute cases for the following XXXX charges at the end of XXXX but failed to open any dispute cases for the other XXXX charges made on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX for {$69.00} each. 

XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX - XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX - XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Despite providing all the documentation needed for the disputes, Citibank continued to delay investigating my disputes and requested more information on each of the XXXX cases they opened. I once again provided the same information to them again as shown in the emails dated XX/XX/XXXX. See files XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX I mentioned once again that I was disputing the charges due to the fact that the product was misrepresented and defective. I also mentioned again that the supporting documents include email correspondence with the merchant as well as supporting documentation showing that the product was defective and misrepresented. 

I called Citibank on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke to XXXX in billing disputes. I asked her why the other two charges from XXXX and XXXX never had dispute cases open and she did not know. She said she would send a request to have those two disputes open as well. I also followed up this conversation with an email as shown in the attachment ( Missing billing disputes.eml ). On XX/XX/XXXX I received notices from Citibank on the two charges from XXXX and XXXX stating that the charges were too old and that they could not assist me. ( XXXX and XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I spent over 2 hours on the phone with XXXX ( ID XXXX in AZ ) explaining everything to him again. Each time I called it seemed that Citibank would purposely make things difficult by acting like they were not familiar with my case, and it seems this is done intentionally to discourage filing chargebacks. After explaining everything in detail several times to XXXX, he agreed with me and issued a credit on one of the charges in the amount of XXXX for case ID XXXX. XXXX claimed he could not issue credits for the other charges because they were supposedly still open but said he would put a note in XXXX to issue a credit if it is closed in banks favor. XXXX also opened case ID XXXX with a reference to my XX/XX/XXXX email to open disputes for the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX charges of XXXX. 

I also received an email on XX/XX/XXXX stating that the disputed charge of XXXX had been resolved in my favor and a credit was issued ( Your dispute has been resolved.eml ). However, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received notification that the XXXX charge made on XX/XX/XXXX had been closed stating that the charges were too old and that they could not assist me. ( XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX I called and spoke with XXXX in Billing disputes ( Team ID XXXX in AZ ). I had to explain the details of everything to him yet again, including the 540 day rule. He said he was sending an email referencing all the charges to senior supervisors in the disputes department. He said the email would be requesting the disputes team to re-open the XX/XX/XXXX dispute and to either issues credits for the XXXX XXXX charges made in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX or to open disputes with the merchant for these due to the fact that the charges were for a product that was misrepresented and defective ( not fit for consumption ). He said he would follow up and put notes on my account. 

I never received any further correspondence regarding these disputes so I sent the attached emails on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX requesting that the XXXX disputed charge from XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) be reopened and that chargeback disputes be opened for the XXXX charges made on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I requested for Citibank to either file chargeback disputes with the merchant for these XXXX charges or issuecredits to my account. See files Dispute ID XXXX .eml and Please Open XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

In these emails I reminded them again that all Visa members are required to comply with the Visa Core Rules document, which outlines dispute resolutions and chargebacks, and that the Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rulesdocument can be accessed on the Visawebsite. I also notified them that in accordance with the chargeback laws and the Visa Core Rules, consumershave540 daysfrom the date thetransaction was processedto file achargeback with the issuingbank if the reason for thechargeback is misrepresented or defective merchandise, which is Dispute Condition 13.3 : Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Service in the Visa Core Rules document XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX