Consumer complaint received 2019-07-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Citibank NA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX RE : XXXX Citibank Client Care : In regard to Citibanks letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ) responding to my request to verify and validate the alleged outstanding balance on a checking plus account and provide the origination documents related to same, I hereby notify Citibank that I seek to challenge the research results which were furnished by Citibank with respect to this investigation and I refuse to accept same for the following reasons : 1. During the investigation period Citibank willingly violated the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1974, which is federal law designed to protect consumers from unfair credit billing practices. Specifically the credit issuer ( Citibank ) has 30 days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint. They then have two billing cycles to complete their investigation ; during that time the issuer is not allowed to try to collect the payment, or charge interest on it, { emphasis added } however during the investigation period on XX/XX/XXXX Citibank unlawfully charged my ( allegedly valid ) checking plus account {$24.00} interest fees, this attempt is unlawful on its face according to the Fair Credit Billing Act for the reasons stated above and should be retracted and remedied accordingly. Again on XX/XX/XXXX I was charged another {$23.00} of interest during the investigation period. All of my attempts to clear this up in branch were met with helplessness and confusion by the Citibank bankers in the branch location I reached out to. 

2. Furthermore under the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1974 If the credit issuer finds that the disputed payment was invalid, it must correct the error and refund any fees or interest charged as a result. If it finds there was no error, it must explain its findings and, upon request, provide documentation to back them up. Consumers can challenge the results of the investigation within 10 days, at which point the issuer must add a note to the charge. { emphasis added } Moreover under the evidence offered by Citibank the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) which is federal law enacted in 1968 to help protect consumers in their dealings with lenders and creditors has also been violated. The TILA was implemented by the Federal Reserve Board through a series of regulations. Some of the most important aspects of the act concern the information that must be disclosed to a borrower prior to extending credit, such as the annual percentage rate ( APR ), the term of the loan and the total costs to the borrower. This information must be conspicuous on documents presented to the borrower before signing. { emphasis added } I will note that during my initial request to verify and validate the debt, I specifically requested that Citibank provide the origination documents supporting the legitimate and lawful opening of the checking plus account in dispute, under investigation and currently being challenged by the consumer in this case the complainant, to wit ; the documents which were produced by Citibank ( see attached ) show that an account was opened on XX/XX/XXXX however curiously the documents provided by Citibank that bear my signature fail to make any statement or disclosure that a credit product was being extended, incredibly the initial spaces on alleged reverse sides of both of the account opening statements are blank and not sworn or subscribed to by the consumer in this instance, clearly representing that the consumer was not provided with adequate disclosure required under TILA this is a violation of the provisions under the truth in lending act. Instead Citibank alleges that the account was opened via phone however this was false as I was present for the checking account opening on XX/XX/XXXX however I was never provided the required disclosures to open a valid credit product on that date. 

Therefore the alleged checking plus account was opened under false pretenses without consumer/complainants explicit authorization and therefore should be rendered a nullity to remedy and balance the inequities Citibank has caused in this situation with respect to violation of myriad of consumer rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act and the Truth in Lending Act. *A false representation can occur when the wrongdoer ( Citibank in this situation ) says or does nothing. This is the case when someone knowingly conceals information that the victim should be made aware of, in this case the failure of the banker to obtain consumers initial on the reverse disclosure of the account opening card constitutes the false representation supporting false pretenses about the material fact that a credit line was being authorized. A material fact for example alerting the consumer that a credit facility would be would be authorized is important to the victim in the decision-making process and in this case the consumer was deprived of that very protection, not to mention APR and total costs to borrower were patently omitted within the scant evidence provided purporting to show account origination documentation executed by said consuemr. 
3. Section 5 ( a ) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) ( 15 USC 45 ) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. This prohibition applies to all persons engaged in commerce, including banks. The Federal Reserve Board has affirmed its authority under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to take appropriate action when unfair or deceptive acts or practices ( UDAP ) are discovered. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Congress drafted this provision broadly in order to provide sufficient flexibility in the law to address changes in the market and unfair or deceptive practices that may emerge. 
4. An act or practice may be found to be unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. I have suffered injury as result of Citibanks deception related to its checking plus product and this injury has not been outweighed by countervailing benefits, quite to the contrary Citibank checking plus product forced the complainant to accept a scheme that subjects consumers to unfair and deceptive practices resulting in near usury rates of interest without prior notification and disclosure to a reasonably prudent person 5. A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is likely to affect a consumers conduct or decision regarding a product or service. The omission of my initials on the back of the evidence furnished by Citibank is Res ipsa loquitur as the omission speaks for itself. 
6. An act or practice may be found to be unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by the if it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is likely to affect a consumers conduct or decision regarding a product or service. How much in total dollar value did Citibank bill the complainant in interest charges over the life of the course of the checking plus relationship? 
7. The standards for unfairness and deception are independent of each other. While a specific act or practice may be both unfair and deceptive, an act or practice is prohibited by the FTC Act if it is either unfair or deceptive. It is clear to a reasonably prudent person that Citibank has engaged in deception with respect to the checking plus line of credit in this particular situation. 
8. Assessing whether an act or practice is deceptive A three-part test is used to determine whether a representation, omission, or practice is deceptive. First, the representation, omission, or practice must mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer. Here the Citibank provides self incriminating direct evidence confirming the consumer has been mislead by way of material omission. Second, the consumers interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice must be reasonable under the circumstances, the reasonable nature of the consumers concerns is undisputed by the facts offered as defenses by citibank. Lastly, the misleading representation, omission, or practice must be material. Each of these elements is discussed below in greater detail. 
9. There must be a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer. The lack of disclosure & initials of consumer on the back of the signature card confirm this omission was material and mislead the consumer in this instance. 
10. An act or practice may be found to be deceptive if there is a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer. Deception is not limited to situations in which a consumer has already been misled. Instead, an act or practice may be found to be deceptive if it is likely to mislead consumers. A representation may be in the form of express or implied claims or promises and may be written or oral. Omission of information may be deceptive if disclosure of the omitted information is necessary to prevent a consumer from being misled. Citibank engaged in a text book case of deceptive omission in the instant case 11. The act or practice must be considered from the perspective of the reasonable consumer. It is at present uncontested that subject consumer represent a reasonable consumer. 
12. If a representation conveys two or more meanings to reasonable consumers and one meaning is misleading, the representation may be deceptive. Moreover, a consumers interpretation or reaction may indicate that an act or practice is deceptive under the circumstances, even if the consumers interpretation is not shared by a majority of the consumers in the relevant class, so long as a significant minority of such consumers is misled. Here a failure of the banker to provide and allow for complete disclosure of the checking plus product satisfies this element deception. 
13. In evaluating whether a representation, omission or practice is deceptive, the Agencies will look at the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing to determine how a reasonable consumer would respond. Written disclosures may be insufficient to correct a misleading statement or representation, particularly where the consumer is directed away from qualifying limitations in the text or is counseled that reading the disclosures is unnecessary. Likewise, oral disclosures or fine print may be insufficient to cure a misleading headline or prominent written representation. In this matter a banker thought it not necessary to disclose the required elements of a credit facility unknowingly furnished unto the complainant. 
14. The representation, omission, or practice must be material. 
15. A representation, omission, or practice is material if it is likely to affect a consumers decision regarding a product or service. In general, information about costs, benefits, or restrictions on the use or availability of a product or service is material. When express claims are made with respect to a financial product or service, the claims will be presumed to be material. Similarly, the materiality of an implied claim will be presumed when it is demonstrated that the institution intended that the consumer draw certain conclusions based upon the claim. Citibank purposefully and knowingly omitted important details on costs, benefits, or restrictions on the use or availability of the checking plus product.

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