Consumer complaint received 2019-09-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Add-on products and services
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX - purchase of a XXXX XXXX XXXX refrigerator, using the Citi card for the entire purchase. 

XX/XX/XXXX - refrigerator stopped cooling entirely. We scheduled the earliest available XXXX service tech appointment for diagnosis and repair, which would be a few days later XX/XX/XXXX - we filed a repair/extended warranty claim with Citi 's Benefits department. The refrigerator was past 1 year old so the manufacturer warranty no longer applied, and it is still in the period that Citi covered with its warranty. We also called Citi to confirm the extended warranty applied ( 14 minute phone call ) XX/XX/XXXX - the XXXX service tech diagnosed the refrigerator as being a total and complete failure which included a contamination of the sealed system. The problems he diagnosed are considered unable to be fixed, and he said the refrigerator would need to be entirely replaced. 
After this diagnosis, we submitted the following information to Citi 's benefits department : XXXX warranty terms, receipt of purchase, the XXXX service tech 's diagnosis, and photos of the refrigerator. This also included a phone call to Citi to confirm these were the documents they needed ( 19 minute phone call ) XX/XX/XXXX - we called for an update on our case, we were told it was still under review and that the adjuster had not looked at the case ( 4 minute phone call ) XX/XX/XXXX - we called again for an update on our case, we were told it was still under review and that the adjuster had not looked at the case ( 4 minute phone call ) XX/XX/XXXX - we called a third time for an update and were told that our claim was denied ; we had not been notified of this until we called to check for an update. My wife called twice ; her first call was disconnected after being on hold ( 10 minutes ), her second call ( 17 minute phone call ) determined that the reason for the denial was that the adjuster claimed that the refrigerator was still under the XXXX warranty. This is FALSE - the adjuster did not read the warranty document clearly and used the warranty duration for a XXXX Profile refrigerator, which is NOT our model of refrigerator. A third call from me ( 24 minutes ) did not provide any additional information or assistance into the incorrect decision from the adjuster. In order to have the adjuster ( XXXX ) review the claim again, she required us to submit more documentation proving that the warranty document we submitted ( which was pulled directly from Home Depot 's website ) matched our refrigerator for the 1 year warranty part. This meant submitting the owner 's manual and waiting on a new review of our claim, which had already taken 2 weeks. 

XX/XX/XXXX - we called for an update ( 7 minute phone call ) for any status changes with new documentation. We were told that the documents had not been received ; however, we had emails from Citi 's document system stating that the documents HAD been received by Citi. We had to RESUBMIT the same document from XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX - we called for an update ( 27 minute phone call ) and were told that the adjuster still had not reviewed the material we had resubmitted and that she had up to 2 weeks to respond. I insisted she call me before XXXX EDT on XX/XX/XXXX, which did not happen.

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