Consumer complaint received 2020-03-01
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. (CA)

The following letter was written and sent on or behalf by our attorney after our personal letters and phone calls with Citibank received no response - at all - from Citibank. 

LEGAL MATTER TO BE DIRECTED TO CITIBANK LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND ITS GENERAL COUNSEL To the General Counsel of Citibank , N.A . : I have been retained by XXXX and XXXX XXXX, holders of Citibank credit cards, to file legal action against Citibank as a result of its failure now for more than three months to comply with its legal obligations regarding the fraudulent use of two of the XXXX credit cards despite the fact that they promptly notified the Bank of such fraud and fully cooperated with the Banks investigation of it. Nonetheless, the Bank has wrongfully refused to credit the XXXX for the fraudulent charges, as a result of which they have been forced to seek legal representation. 

Although they have brought all of the relevant underlying facts to the Banks attention on numerous occasion, I will do so once more so that there can be no doubt of the Banks unjustified recalcitrance in resolving the XXXX claims and its liability to them to credit all of the fraudulent charges made against their accounts. 

More particularly : CREDIT CARD ENDING IN XXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX  Citbank credit card number ending in XXXX was used fraudulently by someone who somehow obtained sufficient information regarding their card to make forty-three ( 43 ) separate individual fraudulent charges to XXXX without the knowledge or consent of the XXXX  and without possession of their card on which these charges were made. The XXXX  discovered these fraudulent charges on XX/XX/XXXX, and immediately notified the Bank of them, confirming that they had been fraudulently made. The Bank advised the XXXX  that it would promptly open an investigation and credit their account as to ALL of these fraudulent charges, assuring them that, under federal law and Citibank governances, they were not liable for them and that the Bank would absolutely refund the charges and any applicable interest. 

To date, three and half months later, Citibank still has not done so, but has reversed only five of the 43 fraudulent charges. During this time the Bank has made repeated unreasonable demands upon the XXXX in more than two dozen emails, claiming that, if the XXXX did not IMMEDIATELY respond to the Banks latest inquiries ( to which the XXXX  had already responded repeatedly ), it would close its file without reimbursement of the charges. Notwithstanding the unreasonableness of the Banks demands, the XXXX responded to them all, and, after each, was advised by the Banks representatives that all of the 43 fraudulent charges would be credited in their full amount. Now, three full billing cycles later, the XXXX  are still waiting for such credit.

On one of these calls with the Bank, the Banks representative advised the XXXX  that each of the 43 fraudulent charges ( all made in the same 24-hour period and all made to the same entity XXXX ) had to be reviewed individually, which was causing the delay, but certainly the review would be completed no later than XX/XX/XXXX. Despite the illegitimacy of the Banks professed excuse for delay, given that the same information applies to all 43 of the charges the Bank has still not credited the XXXX against these charges even after the expiration of its own unreasonable timeline. 
The total fraudulent charges made on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX under the card ending in XXXX were {$8000.00}, against which, to date, the Bank has credited only {$580.00}. If, as the Bank has acknowledged, the facts of its investigation support issuance of a credit for this sum ( not that it could have found otherwise ), how do these exact same facts not justify issuance of the remainder of the credit? 
CREDIT CARD ENDING IN XXXX : Because of the fraud on their credit card ending in XXXX, the XXXX  replaced that card with one ending in XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, no long after receiving their new card, it was stolen from XXXX XXXX purse while the XXXX  were visiting XXXX. Again, they immediately contacted Citibank to advise it of the theft, and also filed a complaint with the XXXX Police Department ( which report has already been turned over to the Bank several times ). This time, obviously, the thieves did have possession of the stolen card, and, despite the XXXX quick action in reporting the theft and cancelling the card, the thieves were able to make three ( 3 ) purchases at XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) totaling {$3100.00}. 

Despite the XXXX  prompt and complete compliance with all of their obligations regarding the reporting of this theft, and supplying all information available to them, the Bank has not, again for more than three months, credited them against these fraudulent charges. Even more outrageously, the Bank advised the XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, that it was closing its investigating with a determination that {$2000.00} of these charges were not fraudulently incurred. On what basis did the Bank reach this conclusion? On the professed basis, according to their correspondence, that the XXXX supposedly advised the Bank that the credit card had remained in their possession, so that those charges for which the credit card was presented by the thieves had to be authorized!! Trying to give the Bank the benefit of the doubt regarding its totally fallacious reasoning, it appears that the Bank confused the first fraudulent charges ( regarding card XXXX ), for which the card never left the XXXX possession, with the second fraudulent charges ( regarding card XXXX ), for which the card was stolen and clearly in the thieves possession. The Bank needs to straighten out these two claims, which it apparently can not keep separated notwithstanding requiring the XXXX   again to respond to literally dozens of emails demanding information from them that they have already repeatedly provided. 

Is this how Citibank generally treats its cardholders? It will be interesting to discover that in litigation, should that become necessary, as, to date, it appears that it will be lest the Bank decide to honor its obligations to the XXXX  without further delay. If this is indeed how the Bank generally treats its cardholders in an effort to gain an improper financial benefit from them, the Bank may well find itself liable for punitive damages and for a class action suit. 

My instructions from the XXXX  are to begin drafting a complaint against the Bank, and to file it when ready without further notice to the Bank. It will take me a week to 10 days to do so. This window will represent the Banks final chance to avoid litigation by reversing all of these fraudulent charges against the XXXX credit cards. Absent notice to me that it has done so before the complaint is filed, the XXXX  will let the trier of fact provide its verdict, and doubt that any trier of fact will find any sympathy with the Banks unjustified, indeed outrageous, delaying tactics.

One final irony : I personally was the victim last week of credit card fraud in the amount of several thousand dollars. I reported it immediately and my bank handled the entire matter within two hours. That is how banks are supposed to treat their cardholders. It is up to Citibank to choose whether it wishes to learn that lesson the easy way or the hard way. 

Nothing in this letter is meant to waive, nor shall or may be construed as waiving, any rights held by the XXXX, all of which are expressly reserved. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney for XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX