Consumer complaint received 2025-10-29 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Unexpected or other fees — 
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
b'I am filing this complaint because Citibank improperly handled my billing dispute and ruled in favor of a merchant despite clear evidence that I never accepted or received the merchandise I was charged for. Citibank\'s flawed investigation process has resulted in me being charged XXXX for merchandise I refused and that was returned to the merchant.  As well as numerous emails to Citibank Billing and Disputes, I have sent a formal written dispute letter via certified mail on XXXX XXXX XXXX.  Tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicates it was received XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I purchased audio equipment from XXXX XXXX (Order XXXX) for XXXX using my Citibank Mastercard ending in XXXX. After more than two weeks with minimal communication and no shipment, I contacted XXXX XXXX to cancel my order due to their failure to ship within a reasonable timeframe.\n\nDespite my cancellation request, XXXX XXXX shipped the merchandise without my authorization. When XXXX  attempted delivery, I refused the package and instructed XXXX  to return it to sender in their shipping point at XXXX  CA.  I never signed for, accepted, opened, or took possession of this merchandise. The package was returned to XXXX  XXXX  via XXXX, tracking # XXXX\n\nI immediately filed a chargeback dispute with Citibank, explaining that:\n1. I had canceled the order before receiving anything\n2. The merchant shipped after I requested cancellation\n3. I refused delivery when XXXX  attempted it\n4. I never accepted or took possession of the merchandise\n5. The package was returned to the merchant\n\nCitibank conducted an investigation and ruled in favor of XXXX XXXX stating that the package was "delivered." This decision demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of consumer rights and the facts of this case.\nCitibank equated "a package arriving at my address" with "completed transaction and acceptance of merchandise." These are not the same thing.\n- A package that is "refused at the door and returned to sender" is NOT a delivered product\n- I never signed for the package\n- I never opened the package\n- I never took possession of the merchandise\n- The merchant received their product back\n\nCitibank is forcing me to pay XXXX for merchandise that:\n- I canceled before accepting\n- I refused when it arrived\n- I never possessed or used\n- Was returned to the merchant\n\nThis is a clear violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act.\n\nViolation of Fair Credit Billing Act (15 U.S.C.  1666):\nUnder the FCBA, I have the right to dispute charges for goods not accepted. A refused delivery is not an accepted good. Citibank\'s investigation failed to recognize this fundamental legal principle.\n\nImproper Investigation Standards:\nCitibank apparently accepted the merchant\'s claim that the package was "delivered" without:\n- Requesting proof that I accepted the merchandise\n- Requesting my signature confirming receipt\n- Considering XXXX tracking showing refused delivery\n- Distinguishing between "package arrived" vs. "consumer accepted goods"\n\n3. Unjust Enrichment of Merchant:\nBy ruling in favor of the merchant, Citibank has enabled XXXX XXXX XXXX:\n- Keep their original merchandise (which was returned to them)\n- Keep my XXXX payment\n- Complete a transaction I explicitly refused\n\n Evidence Citibank Ignored or Failed to Request:\n\nI have documentation that Citibank either ignored or failed to properly consider:\n\n1. XXXX  tracking information showing the package was refused and returned to sender\n2. My cancellation request to XXXX XXXX sent before I ever accepted merchandise\n3. Timeline documentation showing the merchant\'s failure to ship timely, my cancellation, and their unauthorized shipment\n4. Proof I never signed for or accepted the package\n\nCitibank\'s investigation appears to have simply accepted the merchant\'s word that something was "delivered" without investigating what "delivered" actually meant in this context or whether I accepted the goods.\n\nDue to Citibank\'s improper handling of this dispute:\n- I am being charged XXXX for merchandise I do not have and never wanted\n- I am forced to pay for a transaction I explicitly canceled and refused\n- My consumer rights under federal law have been violated\n- I have lost confidence in Citibank\'s ability to protect me as a cardholder\n\nI have been a responsible Citibank customer for XXXX years who pays bills on time. I filed this dispute in good faith with clear evidence that I never received the merchandise. Citibank\'s investigation process has failed me completely.\n\nCurrent Status:\n- Citibank has closed the dispute in favor of the merchant\n- I am being charged XXXX for merchandise I refused and never possessed\n- The merchant has both their product AND my money\n- Citibank refuses to reconsider despite clear evidence\n\nI have sent a formal written dispute letter to Citibank via certified mail requesting they reopen this investigation, but I am filing this CFPB complaint because Citibank\'s handling of this dispute violates my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act and basic principles of fair business practices.  \n\nI request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:\n\n1. Require Citibank to immediately reverse the XXXX charge and credit my account\n2. Order Citibank to reopen the investigation with proper consideration of the fact that I refused delivery and never accepted the merchandise\n3. Require Citibank to obtain proof from the merchant that I actually signed for, accepted, and took possession of the merchandise (which cannot be provided because I refused it)\n4. Investigate Citibank\'s dispute resolution procedures to determine if they are systematically failing to distinguish between "package delivered to address" and "consumer accepted merchandise"\n5. Ensure this dispute does not negatively impact my credit or account standing\n6. Require Citibank to implement better investigation standards that recognize the legal difference between a package arriving at an address and a consumer accepting goods'

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