Consumer complaint received 2025-12-29 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Fees or interest — Problem with fees
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
Complaint Narrative I am filing a complaint regarding unfair and misleading interest charges caused by Citibanks payment allocation practices on a credit card account with multiple promotional balance transfers, compounded by inconsistent and contradictory customer service communications.

I had two balance transfers on the same Citibank credit card account : - One balance transfer with a 0 % promotional APR, scheduled to expire on XXXX - A second balance transfer with a 0.99 % promotional APR, which remained active after that date When the 0 % promotional APR expired on XXXX, the APR on that balance increased to approximately 24 %. I made an online payment on XXXX with the clear intent to pay off the balance that had just exited the 0 % promotional period in order to avoid ongoing high-interest charges.

Citibanks online payment system did not allow me to choose which balance my payment would be applied to. Instead, Citibank applied my payment to the lower-APR 0.99 % promotional balance, while leaving the higher-APR balance unpaid. As a result, interest continued to accrue at approximately 24 % on the balance I was actively attempting to eliminate.

This payment allocation defeated my clear and reasonable intent and caused avoidable interest. The payment screen did not clearly disclose that payments could be diverted to a lower-APR promotional balance, nor did it explain how a consumer could prevent post-promotional interest when multiple promotional balances exist.

Customer Service Assurances and Contradictory Written Responses After discovering the issue, I contacted Citibank customer service on three separate occasions. During each call, I was told that the issue would be corrected, that the interest would be adjusted, and that these assurances were documented in the account notes so that any representative could review them.

I specifically asked for confirmation in writing and was repeatedly told that written confirmation was unnecessary because the resolution was documented internally in Citibanks system notes.

Despite these assurances, I later received written letters from Citibank stating the opposite, denying that any correction could be made. These letters directly contradicted the verbal assurances I relied upon. Copies of these letters are attached to this complaint. I am also attaching call log screenshots showing the dates and frequency of my calls to Citibank customer service.

Due to Citibanks failure to resolve this issue and the continued accrual of interest, I ultimately closed the account. After closure, I no longer have online access to view the detailed interest calculations or statements. I have requested copies of my statements from Citibank for the relevant billing periods and will be provided upon receipt.

Contradictory and Misleading Payment Allocation Explanation Please note that even Citibanks written responses contains internally contradictory language regarding how payments are applied.

The letter states that : Each month 's minimum payment due is applied to principal balances in APR order from lowest to highest.

The letter then states : Payment amounts greater than the minimum due are applied to balances with higher APRs before balances with lower rates.

My payment exceeded the minimum due. At the time of payment, one balance carried an APR of approximately 24 %, while the other carried a 0.99 % promotional APR. Under Citibanks own written explanation, my payment should have been applied to the higher-APR balance first.

Instead, Citibank applied my payment to the lower-APR balance and continued charging high interest, then relied on this same explanation to state it was unable to apply [ my ] payment as requested. This contradiction made it impossible for me to reasonably understand how to avoid post-promotional interest.

Why This Is Unfair and Deceptive - Citibanks payment allocation practices were not clearly disclosed, particularly in a multi-promotion scenario.

- The online payment system did not allow consumers to direct payments to the highest-interest balance - I relied on repeated verbal assurances that the issue would be corrected - Citibanks written responses directly contradicted those assurances- Citibanks own written explanation of payment allocation is internally inconsistent - I incurred avoidable interest despite acting promptly and in good faith Taken together, this constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice, especially when combined with inconsistent customer service representations and a lack of transparent disclosure.

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