Consumer complaint received 2025-08-03 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : XX/XX/year> - I purchased a new unused XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via phone with salesman at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( the Merchant ) in XXXX, SC. This was done via call, but sight unseen as far as seeing the trailer. 
Total charge on Citi Card : {$3100.00} ( trailer {$2900.00} + {$180.00} shipping ) XX/XX/year> - The trailer was delivered via XXXX XXXX shipping company. Upon first inspection, the trailer did not appear to be structurally damaged, but had some deep scrapes and multiple lighter scrapes were visible on the trailer and photographed by us and the delivery driver. Pics show the delivery driver taking photos and the torn shrinkwrap. Although the trailer was scraped rather badly as the photos show, these did not appear to be structural in nature ; therefore, accepted the delivery of the trailer. We rationalized that some scrapes were reasonable during a cross-country transport as the pallet and straps were intact and trailer did not appear to have shifted on the pallet. 

We hooked up the empty trailer ( with no motorcycle ) and drove slowly around the block to test out the trailer. We didnt make it to the end of the street and the hub grease cap fell off the wheel from the excessive bouncing of the trailer. The wheel wobbled side to side on the axle. This was driving at a very low speed around the neighborhood block. Driving around the block a second time, the same hub grease cap fell off two more times. We knew then something was wrong either damaged and/or defective with the trailer in some way we couldnt see in the initial visual inspection. 

XX/XX/year> XXXX that trailer might be defective and possibly dangerous XXXX XXXX trip, we left a voicemail for XXXX at XXXX to get some answers to our concerns, but we never received a return call. 

XX/XX/year> - With still no call back from XXXX and concerned about trailers safety, we brought the trailer to a local trailer repair shop in XXXX, Texas Truck and Trailer, for an inspection as we plan on going across country ( TX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Montana - XXXX miles roundtrip ). We wanted assurance that all was in working order and address any possible issues with the trailer before our trip. 

XX/XX/year> - We called XXXX again to discuss the faulty hub grease cap issue and our concerns. The front desk told us to leave a message with the service department with a detailed message with our concerns. A different female gave a courtesy call saying we will receive an email shortly. I asked her if there was anyone who could answer our questions about the wheel bearings or faulty grease cap hub issue. She sharply said no and all concerns/questions would only be addressed in writing. 

Instead of calling to discuss or attempting to resolve the issue, Merchant responded very hostile when I told them we took the trailer in for an inspection with a XXXX local trailer company in town ( Texas Truck and Trailer ) that We do not authorize XXXX parties to work on our trailers without prior consent, hub grease caps pop off from time to time, and given that you dont feel comfortable with the trailer, we are providing a prepaid return bill of lading. They shut down any conversation via email, would not answer our calls, bounced around their front desk to service dept, sales, and customer service only to be hung up on. We were left with no options to find a workable solution with XXXX as far as getting the trailer serviced only saying their trailer was perfect when shipped. It is reasonable to assume that unforeseen things can happen in transport, especially at this scale, so to be shut down and no one take a post-sales call was alarming. We called the Texas XXXX to stop any work so not to void any possible warranty and that we would be returning the trailer. 

At this point, I began reading on XXXX the multiple complaints of XXXX and XXXX. Reading through the complaints, consumers noted it was this companys MO to intimidate, threaten, claim damage, charge exorbitant return shipping fees and restocking fees, etc, so I called Citi for help and guidance. I explained to the Citi fraud/dispute rep my concerns as I laid out above that this was seemingly unscrupulous company and we had been possibly scammed or at the very least sold a defective trailer. He said not to worry that Citi will take of this for us, and I was given an conditional credit on the full amount and was told to fax my written statement, pics, etc. 

XX/XX/year> - We picked up the trailer at XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and charged {$40.00} for the inspection. The techs were very nice and walked us through at length what they could conclude on the trailer and what it means when hub grease caps come off. Only a visual inspection was done since the wheels lug nuts are proprietary and we were not given the proper tools to remove the wheel from Merchant and because Merchant threatened that no 3rd parties were authorized to repair their trailers. The repair shop told us that hub grease caps falling off is NOT common nor safe, and if it is falling off/failing, it is sign of a bigger issue in either the axle, wheel bearing, something possibly bent in the wheel base or else already failing. They suggested it was not safe to drive for long periods of time because if the hub grease cap falls off/fails, the wheel could heat up and be dangerous on the road for us and other drivers due to wheel parts flying off at high speeds. 

For Merchant to state that no 3rd parties are not allowed to service their trailers, then claim it is all in perfect condition when that 3rd party can only do a visual inspection, is absurd. Its a complete runaround of absurdity. 

Saturday, XX/XX/XXXX, as Citi rep instructed, I faxed my first original letter with the case number, documentation, and pictures to Citi regarding my dispute. I never received a response as to the receipt of the fax. Citi fax XXXX. I was not given an email address until the second call follow up with Citi. 

Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, we spent over {$90.00} on shipping materials at XXXX XXXX, wrapped the trailer onsite at XXXX shipping ( since not authorized to be picked up ), and shipped the trailer back noting on the Straight Bill of Lading Return to Shipper due to concealed manufacturers defect. 

XX/XX/XXXX- I received a hostile email from Merchant that they called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and they did not make repairs on trailer ; therefore, as they suspected, nothing was wrong with the trailer. I did not respond to their nonsense as I was told by Merchant they weren't authorized to make repairs. It was with Citi who is working on my behalf. 

Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX that they will refund a portion of the total {$3100.00}, only refunding {$2000.00}. As previously noted, this was returned due to unforeseen/concealed manufacturers defect as no possible way to remove the wheel to repair. This was not returned because we changed our mind, but because it was defective, inoperable and unserviceable. 

XXXX charged : 15 % restocking fee of {$440.00} Return shipping fee {$540.00} Damage {$100.00} ( with Description of damage : Tread whiskers have been worn down. Therefore trailer has been used. ) To charge damage for tire tread whiskers when the XXXX pound trailer had to be driven to the shipping company is ridiculous. XXXX noted on the prepaid BOL Dock XXXX XXXX Only so they can charge customer as a used trailer. Its a XXXX. You cant have it picked up by shipper, but XXXX XXXX it to the dock only for return shipping, so moving the trailer at all is deemed used and damaged. Obviously, no other damage to the trailer but to tire tread whiskers ; otherwise, they would have noted and charged for it in partial refund. No motorcycle or anything else was ever loaded onto the trailer because it shook so much. 

XX/XX/XXXX I received an email from Citi that case was resolved since XXXX gave a partial refund of {$2000.00}. I called Citi and she said I could open the case again for the remaining nonrefunded amount of {$1000.00}, which I did. 

XX/XX/XXXX I called Citi for an update. I asked the Citi rep if he had record of my fax from XX/XX/XXXX. She said it didnt seem so and gave me an email address. I sent all of documentation and pics again so they have record of my side of the dispute. 

XX/XX/XXXX I received an email from Citi that they only could accept Word or PDF files, so I put all of my information in that format and sent over for the third time to Citi. 

XX/XX/XXXX I received an email from Citi that they case was closed again citing in favor of Merchant as they stated damage was done to the trailer and not sent back in the same condition. I told her I had pics of proof that damage was in original shipping and have delivery guy in photos. Also noted that Merchant only stated {$100.00} in damage for worn tire threads ( XX/XX/XXXX above and in attached docs ). If there was actual damage or trailer was used, they would have charged more. Citi asked for more pictures of condition of how trailer was received and how it was shipped back out. I sent full sets of pics which is provided below. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX than XXXX hours later, Citi once again refused to protect me as a consumer on my purchase. I should be fully protected on a purchase of a product that is unusable, damaged, defective, and no proper tools for it to be serviced, and not allowed to be serviced. Citi rep once again told me that the merchant claims damage and refuses to refund my money. I reiterated the {$100.00} tire thread damage claimed by merchant because the trailer had to be driven to XXXX XXXX to return the trailer. So the merchant states Dock XXXX XXXX Only, so moving the trailer at all voids any rights to return it? 

Reading on Merchants website, it states a one year warranty on their website for the trailer and warrants that its products will be free of build defects for a period totaling 90 days, one year, and five years, so one should reasonably assume that purchasing a new trailer would operate in a workmanlike manner, not falling apart on first ride around the block. I was willing to have it serviced and pay for it on my own, but saying no XXXX parties are authorized to work on the trailer, is absurd. Not giving me the proprietary lug nut tool to have it serviced is absurd. If I break down or have a flat tire on the side of the road, what then? I tried to work with the Merchant, but they refused to take any calls to work through a solution. As shown on XXXX  complaints, this is how they operate their business. 

For Citi to not support their customers when they are part of a circular sham is unconscionable. I bought the trailer in good faith and was sold a lemon. Being that it had a one year warranty, I shouldve been protected and offered to 1 ) either replace it or 2 ) given the proper tools to repair the trailer at my own expense. Neither was offered by Merchant. I shouldnt be out {$1000.00} for being sold a defective trailer. Citi promises Purchase Protection, but will not honor it. Citi is listening to a merchant who has played this game many times and will keep doing so. I have been a loyal 14 year customer and pay my bills on time and in full every month. I am not a person to shirk my responsibilities. I fully believe Cit does not want to support me because of the high amount, not because I am a fault. This is why the Merchant preemptively sends out the XXXX knowing credit card companies will side with them and not customers or keep fighting until the consumer is exhausted and gives up trying. They can keep making money reselling the same lemon trailer to unsuspecting customers. 
After further research into Merchant at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SC XXXX, I have discovered that this is in fact not a trailer store, but a warehouse under XXXX XXXX, XXXX owned by XXXX XXXX. There are XXXX active businesses being run out of this warehouse including a funeral supply store, plus one permanently dissolved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owned by XXXX XXXX as well. Horrible reviews on all of these businesses with customers having similar complaints of subpar defective products, horrible customer service, exorbitant return/restocking fees and not accepting phone calls from customers post-sale. It appears to run businesses under LLCs and frequently change names. 

I am providing all the pictures, documents, invoices, emails for your deeper review to support my claim. 

Thank you in advance.

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