Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX and its servicing agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are attempting to collect and furnish information regarding an alleged Citibank account while repeatedly failing to provide competent validation of the alleged debt, lawful proof of ownership, or documentation establishing authority to furnish and collect the account. On XX/XX/year>, I mailed a formal written debt validation demand and legal dispute to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via certified mail. The correspondence was delivered on XX/XX/year>. In that dispute, I specifically demanded competent validation pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and Texas Finance Code Chapter XXXX. The company was specifically requested to provide : complete chain of title documentation purchase and sale agreements account-level assignment documentation proof that this specific account was included in any alleged transfer proof of lawful ownership of the alleged debt proof of authority to collect in Texas proof of authority to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies a complete itemized accounting of the alleged balance competent business records sufficient to establish ownership and balance accuracy Instead of providing competent validation, the company responded with generic billing records and a self-generated account summary report prepared by XXXX itself. The company failed to provide any competent account-level purchase documentation, assignment documentation, bill of sale, or lawful chain of title establishing that XXXX XXXX XXXX actually owns the alleged debt. The company also failed to provide competent business records sufficient to establish ownership, transfer history, or balance accuracy under applicable evidentiary standards, including records capable of satisfying the business-records requirements typically required for admissibility under Rule XXXX ( XXXX ). Despite these deficiencies, the company has continued collection activity and continued furnishing information regarding the alleged debt to consumer reporting agencies. The furnishing itself contains material inconsistencies and reporting defects. The account is reported inconsistently across consumer reporting agencies, including conflicting classifications and creditor descriptions. One bureau reports the account as a factoring company account, while another reports it as a debt buyer account. The account also references Citibank despite the alleged creditor relationship involving XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. These contradictions demonstrate a failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The company also failed to provide competent evidence establishing : that XXXX XXXX XXXX lawfully acquired the alleged debt that the alleged account was legally transferred from the original creditor that XXXX XXXX XXXX has lawful authority to collect the debt in Texas that XXXX XXXX XXXX has lawful authority to furnish information regarding the alleged debt to consumer reporting agencies Under Texas XXXX XXXX XXXX, once a written dispute is received, the debt collector is required to investigate the dispute and correct inaccurate information. The company failed to properly investigate and instead continued collection and furnishing activity without competent validation. The companys conduct violates : FDCPA XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) FDCPA XXXX XXXX. XXXX FDCPA XXXX XXXX. XXXX FCRA XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) FCRA XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) FCRA XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX Texas XXXX XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX XXXX XXXX I also previously filed a CFPB complaint regarding this matter. The companys response again failed to provide competent ownership documentation or account-level transfer evidence. Instead, the company continued relying on conclusory statements and generic summaries that do not establish lawful ownership, lawful standing, or furnishing authority. The company has now had extensive notice of these defects and deficiencies yet continues collection and furnishing activity anyway. Continued reporting and collection activity after repeated written notice of defective validation constitutes willful and deceptive conduct. Any continued assignment, transfer, resale, or furnishing of this alleged account after notice of these defects would perpetuate inaccurate and unverifiable consumer reporting and further increase the harm caused by the companys conduct. The company should immediately cease all collection activity, permanently delete all associated credit reporting, and cease furnishing any information regarding this alleged debt unless and until competent validation and lawful ownership can actually be established.

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