Consumer complaint received 2024-09-22 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: AL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I had my business vehicle towed to a tire shop regarding it not cranking ( I called beforehand and informed the manager that the battery was not the issue due to several checks and tests I performed on it ). The tire shop stated the battery was the issue anyway and charged me {$350.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, the same issue, the vehicle will not crank. I called the tire shop back and spoke to the same manager and he told me to bring it back. Took the vehicle back and on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, the manager at the tire shop called and now says it's the alternator. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, the manager at the tire shop stated the vehicle was fixed and ready for pickup. He charges me {$710.00}. I asked him if he was sure the alternator was the issue because he previously told me it was the battery and he charged me for it. XXXX assured me that the problem was fixed now. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Vehicle will not crank again. I called XXXX at the tire shop again, he now states he doesn't know what the issue is and to take it someplace else. I asked him for a reversal of my {$710.00} charge and he hung the phone up. I called another shop and explained everything in detail about the issue I was having. The new shop ( XXXX XXXX ) asked me to tow it to them. They discovered the original issue was the Neutral Safety Switch and charged me {$470.00} to replace it. I have not had any issues with the vehicle since it left XXXX XXXX ( as of today, XX/XX/XXXX ). I filed a CC dispute with Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. Citi sent me a letter on XX/XX/XXXX asking for more information. I sent in the requested information including the receipt from XXXX XXXX which detailed the work performed by the tire shop was ineffective and inaccurate diagnosis. Citi sent me a notice on XX/XX/XXXX stating their investigation was concluded because I didn't provide enough supporting evidence. I called Citi on XX/XX/XXXX and asked the dispute agent what more evidence was needed. She stated she did not know, she sees all the evidence I submitted and stated she was requesting a higher-up agent take another look at the claim and that she was re-opening the case. I didn't hear anything back from Citi for over 30 days so on XX/XX/XXXX I called Citi back to request a status update on my dispute claim. The agent stated the higher-up agents haven't responded yet via her internal notes and she would send another request to them. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another letter from Citi stating that an investigation had been done and Citi is unable to assist me because " I received the services for which I contracted. '' I called the Citi dispute line again on XX/XX/XXXX and asked to start a formal appeal. The agent stated I could not file an appeal because Citi had exhausted all options, the merchant was refusing to refund the charge, and that I should take the tire shop to small claims court. I contacted XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and to my surprise, they stated Citi has not once called and asked them about the repairs they made to my vehicle. How could Citi conduct an investigation if they never called all parties involved? Citi denied my claim stating I received the contracted services but I didn't, I contracted for my vehicle to be repaired and it was not, they took a working component and replaced it after they diagnosed the primary concern incorrectly, twice, then refused to remedy the situation and asked me to go elsewhere which is what I did. The tire shop breached the " contract ''. The dispute team never called me during the " investigation '' to get a verbal statement from me either. No investigation was done, it appears they just asked the tire shop to refund the charge ( if they even did that ) and were denied. This is unacceptable. Credit card companies are supposed to provide a sense of security when making purchases and are supposed to advocate for the consumer which Citi has failed to do.

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 monetary relief