Consumer complaint received 02/20/2016 about Credit card () with CITIBANK, N.A. (CA).
Issue: Transaction issue

Complaint: This complaint is about a {$1000.00} credit card transaction from XXXX/XXXX/2016. Citibank is incorrectly coding the transaction as a cash advance instead of as a purchase. The item purchased was a gift certificate. 

I 've called Citibank 's agents at XXXX multiple times in XXXX 2016 to resolve this issue. They tried to deflect blame for this issue to XXXX or the merchant. 

But it is Citibank that is engaging in UNLAWFUL and unethical practices. 

According to California CIVIL CODE SECTION 1749.45-1749.6 ( a ) It is unlawful for any person or entity to sell a gift certificate to a purchaser that contains any of the following : ( 1 ) An expiration date. 
( 2 ) A service fee, including, but not limited to, a service fee for dormancy, except as provided in subdivision ( e ). 
... 

I called XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/2016 at XXXX regarding this transaction and they said it was coded as a regular purchase. XXXX did not break the law. But Citibank is because they attempted to collect a service fee ( a cash advance fee is considered a service fee ) for this gift certificate purchase along with interest. Furthermore they are reneging on obligations to award cash back reward bonuses for this purchase. Citibank is doing business in California ; they must follow California law regarding gift certificate sales and purchases. 

On XXXX/XXXX/2016 I called Citibank and spoke with XXXX. She said her manager was going to recode this transaction from a cash advance to a purchase. I inquired also about the interest fee and XXXX said everything would be resolved in 2-3 business days. However, 3 days later, they only issued a credit to the cash advance fee in the amount of {$50.00} and they did not refund the interest fee. And the transaction was NOT recoded as a purchase. 

On XXXX/XXXX/2016, I called Citibank at XXXX and spoke with an account manager XXXX who said she would be able to refund the interest charge of {$6.00}. I inquired about the cashback reward for this transaction and XXXX said that it would be ineligible. 

Citibank 's agents are behaving inconsistently with regards to this matter. The ones from XX/XX/XXXX said everything would be taken care of, and as of XXXX/XXXX/2016 they have yet to follow through. On XXXX XXXX, 2016 I made a similar purchase at the same merchant that was not listed as a cash advance by Citibank. It is unlawful for Citibank to collect cash advance fees from California customers for gift certificate transactions. 

Furthermore, Citibank has engaged in acts of false advertising by saying that the doublecash rewards card is " The only card that earns you cash back twice on every purchase with : No Category Restrictions, No Caps, No Enrollments in Rotating Categories '' because they applied a different automated rule to one transaction compared to another even though the merchant is the same and the types of goods are the same in both transactions. I received a cash back bonus for the XXXX XXXX 2016 PURCHASE, so I should also receive a cash back bonus for the XXXX XXXX, 2016 PURCHASE which Citibank incorrectly coded as a cash advance. Again, their agents from XXXX XXXX promised to recode the XXXX XXXX 2016 transaction as a purchase and reneged on their promises. On XXXX when I called and spoke to XXXX account managers, XXXX and XXXX, they behaved like the transaction should still be regarded as a cash advance. If that 's the case, why did XXXX offer to refund the interest charge? XXXX even suggested that I call XXXX AGAIN about the transaction and have them redo the transaction even though I already called them on XXXX XXXX and XXXX said they coded the transaction as a purchase. 

Citibank 's agents should have recoded the XXXX XXXX 2016 transaction as a purchase as they promised. Citibank is failing to provide their agents with the training and tools to resolve customer issues. I am disputing this {$1000.00} credit card transaction from XXXX/XXXX/2016.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief