Consumer complaint received 2019-05-08 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Confusing or misleading advertising about the credit card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
In XXXX of XXXX during a conversation I was made aware of an issue with Citi due to something called XXXX XXXX. After doing some digging I realized that I was enrolled in this program and tried to find out what it was. Unfortunately there is no tie to XXXX XXXX  anywhere on the Citi website, and as the attachments show there is not a XXXX XXXX website  that exists. 

I was able to track down a phone number via a statement and called to find out what the program is. I was then told of services and a plan that I never enrolled in. I instantly cancelled my enrollment because I was unaware I was a part of it and slowly came to the realization that Citi and XXXX XXXX had taken thousands of dollars from me over the course of years. I went back through old statements and looked on in horror to see that this XXXX XXXX is simply listed as a fee and not an extra service, nor something I enrolled in. It is on the second page and looks like a charge and nothing else. Without knowledge of being enrolled in the program it is impossible to know what it is and it only looks like the cost of doing business with Citi. 

After finding out about this program that I was enrolled in without my knowledge I did more research only to find that the CFPB  fined city XXXX XXXX dollars and ordered them to pay back XXXX XXXX to duped customers which I was one of. However, I never received a refund, nor any communication from city in or around XXXX when this refund took place. Nor did Citi send out any information when they were fined in XXXX to individuals enrolled in XXXX XXXX  what had happened with the fine, what the program was, why they were in the wrong, or what to expect regarding refunds. Aside from newspaper stories and what was published by the CFPB it appears they swept things under the rug. 

At the end of XX/XX/XXXX I reached out to numerous Citi customer service reps and was told repeatedly that they could not give me any information on XXXX XXXX   because it is a separate department and could only show that there was a case that I requested pending. Further, I called XXXX XXXX  numerous times and all they could say was that a request was sent for review to some department in Citi that was impossible to transfer me to. I repeatedly said that I never enrolled in this program, wanted my money back, and was frequently passed around. In one instance when I called the XXXX XXXX number it redirected me to a service that tried to sell me services as opposed to any customer service. 

In XXXX of XXXX I received a letter from Citi saying that I enrolled in this program in XXXX and that because I was covered by the program I could not receive a refund. I immediately inquired for a new review because a. ) I never signed up, b. ) they issued refund for their practice with this company ( something I should qualify for ) c. ) was never notified of the program, details, supposed benefits d. ) was not notified of they refunds, payouts, or the issues involved. I received another letter saying the same thing, that I signed up in XXXX and would not receive a refund. 

I then set up a complaint with the CFPB regarding some of the information that I stated clearly above, and my need for a refund for any and all fees paid to XXXX XXXX based off of Citi 's deceptive practice for which they were fined. Yesterday, I received notice from Citi that I will not receive a refund based off of weak and deceptive claims that do not answer the questions answered. 

As I have always said I did not enroll in the program. Citi claims that I did over the phone in XXXX but does not have any record to prove this as they clearly mention in the letter attached. This alone, along with their fine and fee should be grounds for a refund. They were proved deceptive, can not prove I signed up which I state I did not, and should thus refund all fees from XXXX XXXX. Second, they state that there were communications sent in XXXX, one via email and one via mail. These communications were never received, nor can Citi prove they were delivered. Their letter states that they did not receive notice that they were " undeliverable '' but only certified mail would be returned to the sender and a letter from Citi would not have met this criteria. Thus, to use that as legal standing is once again deceptive and simply incorrect. 

Finally, as the letter states the fees are listed on the statement which is true but also not clear nor understandable. There are numerous numbers, fees, lines of interest, etc. on every statement. As an individual that did not sign up, did not know of the program, and without any knowledge of it there is no way to know it was an add on. It is only listed as a fee and does not state it is with a separate company or outside entity. 

All of these reasons clearly show the pattern that Citi engaged in and has continued to even though they were fined and were forced to submit refunds. These continued practices along with no proof of communicating to me the consumer, nor proof of my enrollment qualify for a refund and should have happened in XXXX. Marrying this with their lack of communication of the program, what it entails, or that Citi was found liable for their practices further shows that there should be a refund. 

The letter Citi sent is flawed, makes blanket generalizations, carries no proof of good faith operation, nor consumer conscience. It only shows a weak attempt to skirt the issue and not address what should have been made right in XXXX via refund. Further, the communication they claim they sent in XXXX does not do anything and should not mean anything considering the company was found liable in XXXX. Citi was cited for deceptive practice and supposed communication that can not be proved is not grounds worth standing on in light of the finding by the CFPB. 

A full refund should be issued immediately.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation