Consumer complaint received 2026-04-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit 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.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX charges totaling {$13000.00} to XXXX ( Reservation XXXX ) disputed under FCBA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) services not delivered as agreed. Cases : XXXX ( {$3200.00} ), XXXX ( {$360.00} ), XXXX ( {$3400.00} XXXX, XXXX ( {$3500.00} ), XXXX ( {$2500.00} ). Disputes opened in XX/XX/XXXX. Initial responses issued XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledged {$1400.00} partial merchant credit while XXXX XXXX was fully denied citing " merchant provided documentation. '' All XXXX formally denied XX/XX/XXXX. Comprehensive rebuttal with extensive evidence submitted. Citi denied all XXXX again on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has had multiple opportunities to properly investigate and failed every time. SMOKING XXXX XXXX IDENTICAL XX/XX/XXXX FORM LETTERS : All XXXX second denial letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, are word-for-word identical across different cases, different amounts ( {$360.00} to {$3500.00} ), and different transaction dates spanning XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Every letter states : " We have reviewed all of the documents... we have no options available to assist you... Please contact the merchant directly ... This is our final letter. '' XXXX different disputes. XXXX form letter. This contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX letters which treated cases differently proving the XX/XX/XXXX closures were automated batch processing rather than individual case review. Furthermore, Citi 's own internal records state : " CM REQUESTED TO REOPEN THE DISPUTE, BECAUSE OF DISCREPANCY THAT THEY ENCOUNTERED DURING THIERE STAY, THEY ALREADY SUBMITTED A DOCUMENTS REGARDING WHAT HAPPEN. '' Citi 's own system confirms documents were submitted and deficiencies existed. XXXX XXXX CONTRADICTION : For Case XXXX, Citi stated XX/XX/XXXX, it was " continuing to investigate. '' XXXX days later XX/XX/XXXX XXXX simultaneously closed all XXXX cases with identical form letters. XXXX days is not sufficient to review comprehensive evidence across a XXXX stay. This sequence confirms rubber-stamp closure, not substantive review. FAILURE 1 INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( XXXX ( a ) ( B ) ) : Citi accepted merchant 's documentation for Case XXXX without meaningfully weighing comprehensive counterevidence submitted photos with measuring tape, temperature readings, voice recordings proving host prior knowledge, XXXX appliance failure timelines, and a documented {$2400.00} mathematical error in XXXX 's own email XXXX Neither denial round mentions any specific evidence submitted or any engagement with individual claims. FAILURE 2 BURDEN OF PROOF NOT MET ( 1666 ( i ) ) : For 1666 ( b ) ( 3 ) disputes Citi must PROVE services were delivered per agreement. Citi did not address : ( a ) XXXX electrical outages in XXXX hours with non-functional safety equipment and documented host prior knowledge ; ( b ) Property requiring XXXX hours guest cleaning upon arrival ; ( c ) Dining table measuring XXXX '' XXXX '' mathematically incapable of seating XXXX people in property advertised " Sleeps XXXX '' ; ( d ) XXXX days of documented washer-dryer failure host replaced unit XX/XX/XXXX, admission of deficiency ; ( e ) XXXX days of indoor temperatures measuring XXXX. FAILURE XXXX NO SPECIFIC EXPLANATION ( 1666 ( a ) ( B ) ) : FCBA requires written reasons why charges were correctly shown. " We have no options available '' is not a reason. Citi 's " final letter '' declaration explicitly cuts off further inquiry leaving the CFPB as the only available remedy. ADDITIONAL CRITICAL FACTS : Merchant acknowledged deficiencies by paying {$1400.00} ( 10.9 % of charges ) proving deficiencies existed yet Citi concluded services were delivered per agreement. Merchant 's XX/XX/XXXX email contains a documented {$2400.00} mathematical error stating " 30 % of nightly rate for XXXX days '' but calculating 10 % reported XX/XX/XXXX, never corrected. This FCBA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) violation Citi also failed to address. This is NOT a cancellation dispute all XXXX charges cover fully occupied periods ( XXXX XXXX ). Property was occupied XXXX nights with deficient services consumed throughout. XXXX days of merchant resolution attempts were exhausted before filing with Citi. Requested relief : Credit {$3800.00} to account shortfall between reasonable 40 % compensation ( {$5200.00} ) and inadequate 10.9 % ( {$1400.00} ) merchant provided. Direct Citi to conduct genuine case-by-case investigation with specific findings on each deficiency category, meet burden of proof under FCBA 1666 ( i ), and provide all documentation used in investigations per 1666 ( a ) ( B ).

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