Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXX sectional sofa from a third-party seller ( XXXX ) on XXXX for {$1200.00}, charged to my Citi XXXX card. The sofa was advertised with an XXXX seat height and XXXX overall height. These specifications were safety-critical my household includes elderly and XXXX individuals who require a minimum seat height to sit and rise safely without risk of falling. The sofa arrived XXXX After XXXX full days of expansion exceeding the seller 's stated XXXX period the sofa reached only approximately XXXX XXXX in seat height and XXXX XXXX in overall height. I have photographic evidence showing a tape measure against the sofa confirming this measurement. The shortfall of nearly XXXX XXXX exceeds the seller 's own stated measurement tolerance of plus or minus XXXX XXXX by more than double. On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from a third-party seller ( XXXX ) on XXXX for {$1200.00}, charged to my Citi Visa card. The sofa was advertised with an XXXX seat height and XXXX overall height. These specifications were safety-critical my household includes elderly and disabled individuals who require a minimum seat height to sit and rise safely without risk of falling. The sofa arrived vacuum-compressed. After seven full days of expansion exceeding the seller 's stated XXXX period the sofa reached only approximately XXXX XXXX in seat height and XXXX inches in overall height. I have photographic evidence showing a tape measure against the sofa confirming this measurement. The shortfall of nearly XXXX XXXX exceeds the seller 's own stated measurement tolerance of plus or minus XXXX XXXX by more than double. I requested a full refund and asked the seller to arrange pickup. The seller 's manager responded in writing that they were based in XXXX and unable to send a crew to retrieve the item. The seller stated they would provide prepaid return labels only if the sofa was first repackaged in its original vacuum-compressed form a process requiring industrial equipment unavailable to residential consumers. No labels were ever provided. This conditional offer is not a genuine return remedy it is a precondition that is physically impossible for a residential consumer to fulfill, making the return option illusory in practice. I provided the seller with written pickup deadlines of XX/XX/XXXX for confirmation and XX/XX/XXXX for physical removal. The seller did not act. I issued a formal Notice of Abandonment on XX/XX/XXXX, with a deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. The seller did not respond. The sofa was removed from my residence on safety grounds its continued presence posed an ongoing hazard to elderly and XXXX household members. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed an XXXX XXXX XXXX claim. XXXX denied the claim, stating the seller had provided a return option despite that option being physically impossible. XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX subsequently provided two contradictory written responses : one representative defended the repackaging requirement as valid ; another acknowledged that items can not always be returned in original packaging. No resolution was offered. On or about XX/XX/year>, I filed a Merchandise Not as Described chargeback dispute with Citi XXXX for {$1200.00}. I have submitted extensive documentation including the seller 's written admission, before-and-after listing screenshots, photographic evidence of the actual measurements, the Notice of XXXX, and both XXXX XXXX emails. My concern is that Citi may apply standard return policy requirements to what is a seller misrepresentation claim not a change-of-mind return. Under Visa 's chargeback rules ( Reason Code 13.3 ), a return is not required when the merchant has made return physically impossible or refused to facilitate it. Both conditions are documented here. I am requesting the Bureau 's assistance in ensuring Citi applies these rules correctly and resolves this dispute in the cardholder 's favor.

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 monetary relief