Consumer complaint received 2020-04-12 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Trouble using your card — Can't use card to make purchases
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
From XXXX XXXX XXXX  PST to XXXX XXXX XXXX  PST, Citi employees have engaged in pattern of restricting COMPLAINTANT 's account with false cause, then refuse to properly verify him to unlock the account. There were total of XXXX account restriction over the course of 3 days. 
( 1 ) XXXX at XXXX XXXX  after adding the card to XXXX XXXX  upon activation of replacement cards. 
( 2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX  after adding the card to XXXX XXXX [ Interacted via phone call on XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  ] ( 3 ) XXXX at XXXX XXXX  after adding the card to XXXX and XXXX XXXX on devices or accounts that have already been verified by previous representative, though it is expected that most users who receive their new replacement card ( s ) add the new numbers to previously added accounts and merchants. [ Interacted via phone call on XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  ] ( 4 ) After COMPLAINTANT successfully made transactions and locked/unlocked the card on XXXX at XXXX XXXX. 
Representative initially resisted unlocking the card by claiming that it needs have the verification letter be read by the COMPLAINTANT to verify him. However, COMPLAINTANT pointed out that " if Citi can verify the COMPLAINTANT using the verification letter using the same mailbox ( as Citi faces same risk of wrongly verifying the true identity of the recipient of its letters/cards either way ), it also should easily be able to fix the issue by sending new replacement cards to the same mailbox. '' Each time COMPLAINTANT pointed out this strangeness, Citi employees have unlocked the account, just to restrict it again later on. It is questionable whether the true intent of these lock/restrict activities on Citi 's part is the truly guard the validity of the transactions or to frustrate COMPLAINTANT 's user the credit card. COMPLAINTANT also has other accounts with Citi, however, Citi selectively chooses to allow the other card to be used as a verification method while encouraging the COMPLAINTANT to put all his credit card accounts in to online mobile banking accounts, which would make it easier for Citi to lock COMPLAINTANT 's entire portfolio of Citi accounts, should Citi employees choose to manually intervene yet again. ( Since locking the mobile account for usage of one credit card would lock all accounts, as opposed to keeping those separate to prevent the restriction of one account from affecting the other ). 
[ On XXXX at XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  ] When confronted as to why Citi has shifting reasons behind being unable to properly verify the COMPLAINTANT, Citi indicated that it can't reuse verification methods that have been used by previous representatives. It is baffling that further interactions regarding the card could have been prevented had previous representatives who exhausted verification methods successfully unlock the account, but rather leave it locked in order to have the next representative use it as an excuse to keep COMPLAINTANT 's account blocked.

Closest guess COMPLAINTANT has at this point is that Citi is attempting to block or restrict accounts that have additional authorized users that can obscure Citi employees ' way of tracking COMPLAINTANT 's movement and spending habits. By forcing COMPLAINTANT to be the only authorized user on the account, Citi can more easily trace the COMPLAINTANT and his activtiies. ( By constantly causing dispute/restriction issues, Citi maybe trying to justify future inquiries as part of a regular or ordinary routine. However it keeps failing to apply the same procedure or criteria against all other users as well as failing to have call/text/email/case records that would support its claim of carrying out ordinary procedures ).

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