Consumer complaint received 2025-10-20 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: AR

Complaint narrative:
I am a XXXX XXXX Veteran with XXXX XXXX engaged in writing as a latent passion. My birth name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. However, since XXXX as an Assessore for teacher licensure in the State of Arkansas, I have done business as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I entered into contracts specifically with a self-publishing company that I found online to edit XXXX manuscripts on or about XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX indicated that the cost for editing XXXX manuscripts through XXXX XXXX would be {$600.00}. I was officially " onboarded '' as a client by XXXX XXXX, my initial XXXX XXXX. I was offered a Book Marketing Proposal, which I submitted to Citibank along with other communications between me and Authors Hike. Because of the 100 % XXXX XXXX noted in the proposal under the " XXXX '' heading, I saw no reason to suspect that the XXXX deliverables would be anything to worry about. In all, {$34000.00} was extracted from loans and financial accounts. On XX/XX/XXXX, I accepted the proposal at the discounted price of {$8500.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, my new Project XXXX, XXXX XXXX, presented me with a XXXX and Noble Distribution Proposal with a 100 % guarantee, a purported 200 % + ROI and a total net profit of {$31000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX direcred me to make a wire transfer of {$5000.00} to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Wyoming. {$7000.00} was submitted for a XXXX XXXX for an autobiographical book. A dispute arose over the lack of professional Trade-Craft compliance when the {$8500.00} Book Marketing Proposal was rolled out with no LCCN, ISBNs, Published Identification or Disclaimer on the Copyright Page. Communications by Zoom was deemed ineffective after the XXXX XXXX asserted a " misunderstanding! '' From that point forward all communications had to be written. XXXX XXXX balked at this demand and as a result, an empasse was reached with the contracts terminated of XX/XX/XXXX and full refund was demanded. Authors Hike agreed, issuing several XXXX XXXX XXXX and finally a schedule of payments which at the time did not include XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is where " XXXX '' becomes the refunding agency of record as my Citibank account showed them as the source of refunds between XXXX and XXXX. Whden the refunds ceased and communications with Authors XXXX ended, it was then that I filed a chargeback with Citibank because, instead of the full {$26000.00} promised by the end of XXXX, only {$2500.00} appeared. Citibank identified other charges processed by XXXX and initially granted the {$600.00}, {$1900.00}, and the {$4800.00} back to my account until the investigation by Citibank into my complaint by XXXX XXXX revealed that XXXX XXXX was not the player they presented themselves to be. All of the responses that Citibank received frfom me showed my relationship with Authors XXXX. There was absolutely no communications between me and the entity that this complaint is being filed against. XXXX XXXX located in XXXX. Citibank relied on falsified documents, where XXXX, replaced communications between me and XXXX by modifying the records to read " XXXX. Where my communications about the {$85000.00} Book Marketing Proposal noted Authors Hike, the document I provided Citibank, the document they relied on XXXX XXXX XXXX Proposal XXXX. The Proposal that I sent to Citibank showed a 100 % guarantee to be processed in XXXX to XXXX hours if a resolution could not be reached. I provided a termination letter that was ignored, and the XXXX XXXX that Citibank accepted was XXXX from XXXX with a tiered refund arrangement. XXXX asserted that I was unresponsive and that all deliverables were met, which belies the truth. I am now requesting that CFPB reevaluate the principals in my XXXX chargeback request and demand financial repair of {$7300.00}. Suppose there is a need for more documentation as to what was delivered or fulfilled. In that case, I have no problem identifying or providing the facts from the communications that cover the period of the contracts between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. The offer to provide free services and the 100 % refund was a no-brainer in the idea presented, but it was obviously an intended deception in hopes that the time element would be used in their favor. I contend Citibank 's accounting of time should commence from XX/XX/XXXX, when the last transaction on my XXXX CitiBank XXXX was documented, not when the service was initiated.

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