Consumer complaint received 2022-06-26
Product: Credit card or prepaid 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. (MI)

Re : Fraudulent Charges on My CITI XXXX XXXX XXXX Account I have been attempting to resolve fraudulent credit card charges which originally appeared on my XXXX, XXXX Citi XXXX XXXX XXXX bill. Initially, there were 30 such unauthorized charges of which 17 were with one company ( XXXX ) although 8 of these 17 charges were also credited on the same XXXX statement, leaving just 9 outstanding charges from XXXX. Since XXXX, Citi was able to eliminate all other merchants ' ( I believe there were 5 other merchants ) fraudulent charges, but not the XXXX charges. 

In XXXX and XXXX I spoke with several Citi employees about the fraudulent charges. My old card was cancelled and replaced with a new card within days of my confirming the charges were not authorized. I was reassured that all fraudulent charges would be taken care of and that I would be contacted if more information was required. On their Dispute Center Fraud tab, Citi indicates fraud was reported on XX/XX/XXXX although most individual charges show a dispute date of XX/XX/XXXX with about ten having XX/XX/XXXX as the date. 

We were relieved that our XXXX statement ( with a payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX ) included many credits ; however, only 1 of the 12 XXXX credits on the XXXX statement matched their remaining 9 outstanding charges from XXXX. In contrast, all of the other merchants credits matched the original fraudulent charges exactly. There was no documentation to enable reconciling which charges were outstanding or had been reduced or eliminated. It was possible to sum what XXXX charges remained outstanding from XXXX bill ( {$3900.00} ) and contrast that to the sum of the XXXX new XXXX credits ( {$3600.00} ). The difference- {$340.00} - was what remained as outstanding XXXX charges after XXXX statement. We were hopeful this difference would be eliminated by XXXX statement. 

Unfortunately, instead, Citi made matters much worse on the XXXX statement by issuing a number of partial credits and reversed credits at the same time that they claimed they had issued duplicate credits when they had not. Their dispute center postings, XXXX letters with dates between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and their XXXX statement are full of inconsistencies and errors with respect to the XXXX charges. Pursuing these problems has been compounded by the lack of ability to communicate with Citi about them. Their Dispute Center website has been down ( after linking to the online address, a message has often appeared stating it is unavailable and to try back later ) and multiple calls I have made to speak to a Citi representative have resulted in my being put on hold for longer than a half hour and then being hung up on. In one phone call when I did connect to an employee, he assured me that he would provide additional documentation on the credits and charges, but no such documentation has appeared. Instead, the only letters I received over the course of two weeks were seven letters from Citi regarding specific charges and credits that often referenced credits which never appeared on my bills and closed with the statement, We now consider this investigation complete.

As a result of the seven letters, XXXX confusing processing of credits and charges in XXXX, their lack of responsiveness to my inquiries and their inaccessibility, I prepared a 6-page letter in early XXXX reviewing the problems with their charges and estimates of what they should be. Two approaches were used. Both approaches emphasized monthly sums of charges and credits as it was not certain how a large number of partial credits related back to specific individual charges and credits. One approach summed legitimate authorized charges for XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX bills. The other approach summed XXXXrelated credits and charges for each month. The two approaches yielded similar results, indicating there were still over {$1300.00} in outstanding charges from XXXX that had not been credited. This amount did not include {$100.00} in charges that were put onto my account in XXXX nor the {$340.00} deficit in credits from XXXX. Besides sending this letter to Citi, I also forwarded it to the XXXX Attorney Generals Office. 

After sending the letter, I spent over a week reviewing my statements and the seven letters from Citi and attempted to piece together all the partial credits and their relationship to the original charges in XXXX. This led to another six-page letter which focused on the specific status of all 9 XXXX charges which had not been resolved by XXXX credits. It also highlighted the inconsistencies between the postings of charges and credits in my monthly statements versus what the XXXX Citi letters stated and what was posted in the Dispute Center. This letter concludes noting that a total of {$1800.00} should be credited to my account. 

To summarize, after initial positive responses by Citi to most fraudulent charges appearing on my credit card bill, the company has increasingly appeared unresponsive and inaccessible to concerns about how they have processed remaining outstanding charges. They have claimed there were duplicate credits when no such duplicates have ever appeared on my bills and reversed credits thereby double billing me.

I have had no indication that they would respond to two lengthy letters sent to them by express mail ( on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) which spell out the basis for why there are errors in their processing of charges and credits resulting in my being substantially overbilled by them. I fear they will assert that my questioning of the charges have been dealt with ( although they have not ) and/or are beyond a 60-day time limit, yet it is Citis erroneous processing of credits on the XXXX statement ( with payment due XX/XX/XXXX ) which has created the vast majority of the problem. Therefore, I am filing this complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and seeking the Bureaus assistance on resolving this matter.