Consumer complaint received 2021-05-17 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I logged onto my account online following an early fraud alert text with an unauthorized charge, to which I replied I didn't recognize the charge. I then saw online that a large number of fraudulent charges had been made from XX/XX/XXXX to present totaling nearly the entire credit line. When attempts to dispute the charge online consistently triggered an error message, I called the Citi Fraud Department at XXXX XXXX Pacific Time. Many calls were needed because after automated message and hold music with " high call volume '' messages, they kept disconnecting me and making me start over. Close to XXXX XXXX, I eventually connected to a representative, who noted the fraud report to the charges, but proceeded to say that only once their investigation concluded ( in 45-60 days ) would I be given a credit. 

As the law ( Truth in Lending Act, as implemented by Regulation Z ) requires that a credit card lender stay collection of charges timely reported to be unauthorized entirely and fraudulent, and as the industry practice to comply with that is to issue a provisional credit for such charges pending investigation that would either be reversed or made permanent upon conclusion of investigation, I attempted to clarify with the representative that while determination of a credit/final confirmation of nonobligation to pay the charges would not occur until after a finding of fraud following investigation, I would receive a provisional credit or otherwise have collection of the disputed debt stayed while the investigation is pending. 

However, the representative instead indicated that no credit would be given until after the investigation, and while any interest charges I might pay on the disputed charges would be refunded if the investigation found in my favor, I would still be required to make at least the minimum payment based upon the total ( including fraudulent ) balance to avoid late fees and the irreparable harm of reports of delinquency being reported to the consumer credit bureaus. She took this position even while on notice that there were no undisputed balance outstanding on the card, as before the unauthorized charged I had a {$0.00} balance on this account and had authorized no new purchases since that, thus making any payments due during the investigation towards the fraudulent charges. Effectively, the bank said I'd be required to front the disputed charges while they investigated to avoid very adverse consequences. 

When I persisted with objecting to this based on the TILA, the representative not only did not budge, but tried to misdirect my call when I requested a supervisor to the " customer support '' team to avoid it going to someone in her own chain of command, because I objected to " billing '' requirements, even though I had no general concerns about how billing works and the TILA requirements for charges reported as fraud is clearly handled by a banks 's disputes department. After many iterations of insisting I get a supervisor in the fraud department, and excessive hold time, I was transferred to a supervisor whom she'd incorrectly headed off I had a " billing, '' not a " fraud '' issue. 

After having to clear the waters, the supervisor failed to offer any assurances they would stop collection pending investigation or would not require minimum payments. Rather, he indicated that provisional credits are sometimes issued, but it is all " case by case '' and he could not comment on how my disputes would be treated and whether or when I'd get a provisional credit. While he indicated it would " make sense '' for me not to be required to make payments on the disputed balance while the investigation was pending or at all to the extent I'd had a {$0.00} balance of undisputed charges, he declined to confirm that would be what would happen in my case. He further declined to confirm that's what would happen in a case where all of the charges disputed were categorized as reported fraudulent and unauthorized when made, and not, say, a dispute with the merchant over whether the corresponding goods or services had been received. 

While he invited me to follow up with a different department during business hours to find out what the position will for sure be, as both the representative and supervisor described practices in at least some subset of the cases they handle that would violate TILA, and as I'm unavailable during business hours XX/XX/XXXX and the statement closes XX/XX/XXXX ( at which point reports to credit bureaus would reflect these charges unless at least provisionally credited ), I'm moving forward with this complaint.

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