Consumer complaint received 2025-12-03 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Citibank , N.A . ( Citi ) for their inadequate response to my previous CFPB complaint ( ID : XXXX ) regarding a disputed XXXX Anywhere XXXX credit card debt they claim I owe, which was being collected by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX I dispute this debt in its entirety and believe it may be the result of error, identity theft, or time-barred collection attempts. Citi 's partial validation does not meet FDCPA requirements ( applicable to XXXX as a third-party collector ), and they have failed to provide the method of verification under both FDCPA 1692g and FCRA 611 as part of their investigation into the debt 's validity and the accuracy of information reported to credit bureaus. 
Background : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I received a collection letter from XXXX for an alleged Citi debt ( account ending XXXX for {$5400.00} ). I promptly sent a written debt validation demand to Citi under FDCPA 1692g, disputing the debt and requesting cease-and-desist on all communications until fully validated. My demands included : full creditor details ; original signed contract ; detailed itemized history from inception ; proof of acquisition/chain of title ; last billing statement ; default date and statute of limitations proof ( Florida 's XXXX XXXX for credit card debt ) ; legal authority to collect in Florida ; all correspondence/judgments XXXX sworn affidavit attesting accuracy ; and all internal records/logs. 
XXXX responded briefly, confirming they sent a validation notice but ceased efforts and returned the account to Citi. Citi responded on XX/XX/XXXX ( Reference : XXXX ), confirming the account opened XX/XX/XXXX, last payment XX/XX/XXXX, and charged off XX/XX/XXXX. They enclosed statements from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ( showing recent fees/interest but no full history, charges, payments, or default details ). They declined to delete from credit reports, claiming accurate reporting, and added a dispute note ( " Completed Investigation of FCRA dispute consumer disagrees '' ). They processed cease-and-desist for communications but continue reporting to credit bureaus, damaging my credit. They noted no prior validation requests ( despite my letter ) and no signed application available ( online opening ). FDCPA doesn't apply to Citi as original creditor, but it did to XXXX. 
This response is incomplete and violates FDCPA 1692g ( for XXXX ) by not providing adequate verification. Courts require more than minimal docs for disputed debts, especially where identity theft or errors are alleged. Missing items include : Full unredacted signed contract/agreement with terms, interest rates, and amendments ( no signature provided, only partial statements ). 
Complete itemized history of all charges, payments, credits, interest, and fees from account opening to present, with dates/explanations ( only last 12 months provided ). 
Date of default and proof the debt is not time-barred under Florida law XXXX 
Proof of legal authority to collect in Florida ( license/registration for XXXX ) XXXX 
All creditor-to-consumer correspondence, judgments, or filings ( none provided ). 
Sworn affidavit from a knowledgeable person attesting accuracy. 
All internal records, logs, notes, recordings, or data. 
Proof debt not discharged, settled, or resolved.

Additionally, under FDCPA 1692g, I demand disclosure of the method of verification used to confirm the debt 's validity, including the specific steps taken, documents or sources reviewed, personnel involved, and any investigation conducted to ensure the debt is accurate and owed by me. This is necessary to assess whether their verification was reasonable and adequate, as required by law for disputed debts. 
Furthermore, under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), I demand the method of verification ( MOV ) used to determine the accuracy of this information reported to credit bureaus. Citi, as a furnisher under FCRA 623 ( 15 USC 1681s-2 ), must conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed items and provide the MOV upon request. Their response ignores this, failing to describe procedures like reviewing original records, contacting me, or verifying against internal systems. This violates FCRA by not ensuring accurate reporting.

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 non-monetary relief