Consumer complaint received 2025-10-23 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: CT

Complaint narrative:
XXXX billed my Sears Mastercard credit card {$500.00} for airline tickets on XX/XX/XXXX. I did not make the charge ; I did not authorize the charge. I have never done any business with XXXX. This is a letter that I sent to Mastercard on XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the ongoing lack of corrective action by Mastercard : " Attempting to resolve a fraudulent charge with Citi XXXX card caused the entire XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to become an ongoing period of torment for me. Commencing with my first call to customer service back in XX/XX/XXXX and continuing through the following months, I have been plagued by automated phone calls, emails, text messages, and an occasional form letter telling me that I have an overdue bill payment and that the contact is being made in an attempt to collect a debt. NO ONE from Citi XXXX card has ever contacted me to explain how my credit card number was apparently fraudulently used to pay for airline tickets. My use of the term apparently is based upon what XXXX and Citi XXXX card have said as I have not seen anything that actually documents that my credit card number was used for the charges that I have been billed for or specifically where those charges were made. The destination of the fraudulently charged tickets was the XXXX XXXX, but where were the tickets purchased and who purchased them? 
Repeated written and called-in requests to speak to someone concerning the ongoing harassment and billing have been in vain. I was told that I had not responded to a message from XXXX XXXX that contained a statement for me to sign denying that I made the charge. That statement was sent by regular USPS and took weeks to get to me, arriving several days before the return by date. I sent the signed document to XXXX XXXX by Certified Mail and I have the return receipt as well as the USPS electronic tracking record for both that document with enclosures and a subsequent set of documents that I also sent to XXXX XXXX. The alleged debt started off as a fraudulent charge on my credit card that I reported back at the end of XXXX when I noticed a charge from XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT that appeared on my online account before I had received a monthly statement. A second charge subsequently appeared. Then, a confusing series of additions and subtractions from my account were posted online. 
I initially called the number on the back of my then-Sears Mastercard to report the fraudulent charge. The person I spoke with had a very thick accent and there was a great of noise in the background wherever he was. I kept repeating that I could not understand him. The only thing that I could decipher was that the person said that he would report that my credit card was lost or stolen. I said that my card was not lost or stolen. He told me that he would report that it was stolen and I would get a new card. Thats when the Citi XXXX card ending in XXXX came into the maze. 
It seems that there is no way for a victimized customer to get a phone number or an email address that leads to an identifiable person within the CitiBank organization. The best that can be hoped for is a first name that might be a pseudonym and there is no number where the same person can be reached again. When the harassing calls to submit payment come in, they are automated and are actually a good example of entrapment as theres no actual person available to speak to, just options to pay ; no options to dispute the charge. 
In the law enforcement world, when there is a suspicion of an illegal act, such as stolen identity or a fraudulent billing, the investigation would concentrate on the incident and the perpetrator and would not concentrate on badgering or demeaning the victim ( s ) rather than identifying the perpetrator ( s ). Establishing when and where the original charges were made and the name of the person who made those charges would have been a proper opening of the investigation as would have been ascertaining from XXXX just exactly how the charges were made ; whether electronically or in person. How was the person who made the charges identified at that time? 
XXXX billed my credit card deliberately or mistakenly. Im sure that the charge was made during the commission of a criminal act. Someone, whether it was the person who made the charges or an accomplice, apparently took one or more flights to or from the XXXX XXXX on XXXX airline. It wasnt me. Citi XXXX card should be protecting me, their customer, rather than demanding that I pay for a charge that I didnt make with XXXX XXXX 
Please check my past use of the now-Citi XXXX XXXX, previously a Sears Mastercard , that I had since XXXX You will note that it was never used to pay for a flight. You will see that it was typically used to pay for antiques that were bought at auctions and the charges were usually paid off monthly. 
The fact that the fraudulently acquired airline tickets were used for travel to the XXXX XXXX and that other persons besides me were also fraudulently charged for tickets to the XXXX XXXX via XXXX strongly suggests that there is more than just credit card fraud taking place. The person that informed me of an identical situation involving fraudulent use of a MasterCard at XXXX for tickets to the XXXX XXXX had a XXXX MasterCard issued by XXXX XXXXAt some point, the original two ( or more ) charged tickets were temporarily taken off of my account. Then one reappeared. After spending a lot of time making phone calls trying to find out why there was a new charge on my account, a lady named XXXX told me that I had been credited for the two fraudulent charges, but then another charge came up in either XXXX or XXXX. She said that I was being billed again because I had not reported that charge as being fraudulent. I attempted to explain that I didnt report that charge because it was the same number as one of the previous charges that was supposedly being investigated, and, additionally, no one had notified me that there was another charge. It was a rebilling. If there was in fact a second charge ( or third, fourth or whatever charge as none of this has been logical ), why havent I gotten any of the fraud alerts that I used to get when I was attempting to use the card for my own purchases? 
It seems as if something either got diverted or overlooked during the merger/sale of Sears Mastercard tXXXX Citi XXXX XXXX. After having the Sears card since XXXX, I had gotten used to quality service and there was real customer service. That all went downhill in XXXX. 
Last week, I called several numbers listed online for Citi XXXX card and got transferred to other persons, some of whom spoke clearly, two did not. A lady named XXXX told me that I had to report the latest fraudulent charge in order for it to be investigated. She transferred me to someone that I could not understand who then transferred me to a gentleman named XXXX who was supposedly in the fraud department. No one gave me any of the phone numbers for the transferred calls, not that it would have made any difference as its impossible to do any follow-up when dealing through the phone maze and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX why are there two different names? Why are there two different operations with different XXXX XXXX Why are there two account/case numbers ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) for the same incident? Are different cases open for the old XXXX card and the new Citi XXXX card? I havent ever used the XXXX Citi XXXX card ; the charge on it was a rebill for the disputed charge ( s ) from the Sears Mastercard. ( This is all unnecessarily confusing, isnt it? Try being on my side of the incident. ) I have sent documents to both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and never received a follow-up response. Is the actual fraud unit different from those units? Do your departments communicate with each other? 
XXXX from the fraud section told me that the investigation was reopened now that I had reported it ( again ) and that the dunning calls would stop. The next day, the phone calls for payment ramped up. I called to opt out of getting the dunning calls for this matter, because I had not charged any airline tickets, and because the last listed ticket reference number was the same as the original number from XXXX. That number is XXXX XXXX. 
Whoever I spoke to relevant to opting out of the fraud calls said that if I didnt accept the dunning calls, no one could call me to inform me of the progress of the investigation or the settlement. She added that all communication would be henceforth be done by letter. I said that no one had yet called me with a progress report or answered any of my written questions either in writing or by phone and that I expected that opting out of phone calls would not affect that. She said that CitiBank had no way of calling me without using the automated system that I had just opted out of. (! ) That explanation seems to project the scent of something normally associated with bulls and pastures. Citi XXXX employees havent called over the last three months except to seek payment, never with updates ; how would things change? 
They did change - now Im getting dunning emails and the latest one had this address ( used in the letter heading above ) to write to and thats what this is all about. Past experience indicates that expecting an answer is futile, but I am again attempting to seek a proper resolution of this matter. Instead of CitiBank warning that calls may be recorded, customers should be cautioned to record the calls in order to document getting the run around. '' Mastercard keeps billing me for a fraudulent charge. The person named XXXX mentioned in the letter thought the whole thing was pretty funny as he laughed several times, but he apparently didn't do any follow up to correct the fraudulent charge. 

Mastercard 's customer service is useless to the customer, but benefits the criminal who uses the Mastercard fraudulently.

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