Consumer complaint received 2020-01-20
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (TX)

XX/XX/2019 XXXX attempted to charge my card ending in XXXX. Citi allowed one charge for $ XXXX to process and blocked the following two attempted charges for even larger amounts for more as fraud.My account was closed and a new card was issued. The chargewhich posted I filed a billing dispute for, as I was only provided a working driveable vehicle for about a day before being instructed to return the vehicle to the XXXX XXXX XXXX location who would provide me with another identical or better vehicle which I would be able to safely operate with my disability. A disability which was originally accommodated as legally required when I initiated the rental. The XXXX XXXX location refused to provide me with a safe, functional vehicle despite their requirement to do so under the ADA. I provided Citi with my written correspondence with XXXX, the case # 's they created and written commitment to void the contract out, in addition to my original contract which XXXX modified without my knowledge or permission. A temporary conditional credit was issued by Citi. Additionally, I filed acomplaint against XXXX with the Justice Dept and the Texas Attorney General for their many violations.Shortly after my new card being issued on XX/XX/XXXX, there was a new charge from XXXX for a toll road in New Jersey. I live in XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, I called CIti to dispute this charge as I did not make or authorize it. I was told my security preferences where changed and my new card number would not be provided to merchants as a convenience. Whichwould prevent XXXX from charging me further as I did not provide them my new card number. On XX/XX/XXXX however, XXXX charged my previous account which was closed and Citi allowed their charge on my closed account to post to my new account, despite my security preferences having been changed which should have prevented this. This charge from XXXX was for $ XXXX. The charge was marked as fraud and Citi closed the new account and issue a new card number. A week after noticing and reporting these fraudulent unauthorized charges On XXXX I called Citi once more to inquire why I was still being held liable for these unknown and unauthorized charges. At that time the security operations department simply told me the case was closed on the unauthorized charges since I had previous business with the merchant. They could not provide an explanation as to why the charge on an expired card was allowed to post when my security preferenceswhere changed. Fraud operations did however notify me the unauthorized charges were made without the card being physically present. Meaning the card was manually entered and processed. Yet Citi still states this charge which I did not authorize or even have knowledge of as valid and not fraudulent because I did business with this merchant in the past. A merchant who previously triggered a fraud alert and Citi blocked charges for. When I requested the documents used during the course of the investigation the agent stated she would terminate the line if I could not produce the contract for the fraudulent $ XXXX charge. That's a ridiculousrequest as I had no knowledge of the charge nor did I authorize it. So how could I provide such a document. 
The definition of unauthorized or fraudulent transactions are one that the card holder does not know about and/or did not authorize. Yet, Citi claims this unauthorized transaction where my cancelled card was manually entered is valid. This extremely against the law and the XXXX liability policy Citi claims to have.