Consumer complaint received 2025-08-31 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: HI

Complaint narrative:
XXXX attempted to collect an alleged Citibank debt from me after I timely disputed it. Their response consisted only of past Citibank account statements, without any of the legally required validation. They also addressed letters to XXXX XXXX XXXX instead of my full legal name XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, which indicates a failure to properly identify the correct debtor and creates the risk of misidentification. This misidentification undermines the validity of their claim and raises the risk of erroneous credit reporting or legal action against the wrong individual, a misleading practice under FDCPA 1692e.

Timeline of Events XX/XX/year> : Received XXXX initial collection letter regarding an alleged Citibank debt. 

XX/XX/year> : Sent a timely written dispute and validation request by Certified Mail. Specifically requested proof of their Hawaii collection license. 

XX/XX/year> : Sent a second, detailed Notice of Dispute by Certified Mail. Reiterated requests, including proof of Hawaii license, and noted incorrect name usage. 

XX/XX/year> : XXXX responded with a cover letter stating, This is an attempt to collect a debt, and enclosed XXXX pages of past Citibank account statements and generic terms. They did not provide any of the requested validation, including proof of Hawaii licensure. 

Specific Requests Made in My Disputes In both of my written disputes I requested : The original signed agreement bearing my signature. 

The complete chain of title or assignment showing XXXX transfer to XXXX.

The forward flow agreement or bill of sale. 

Proof of XXXX current XXXX collection agency license and bond. 

Correction of the consumer name to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

None of these items were provided. Their failure to provide proof of licensure upon explicit written request is a direct violation of Hawaii law. 

Applicable Standards and Violations FDCPA 1692g ( b ) : XXXX continued collection activity ( their XX/XX/XXXX letter ) after my dispute, without providing the validation required. They are legally barred from further collection on this account. 

FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) and ( 10 ) : Using the incorrect legal name is misleading as to the character and status of the debt. Attempting to collect without providing proof of assignment and legal authority upon request is deceptive.

FDCPA 1692f : It is an unfair practice to pursue collection without providing validation.

HRS 443B-18 ( 6 ) : A collection agency must provide its license number to a debtor upon written request. XXXX violated this requirement by ignoring my two written requests. 

HRS 480-2 ( UDAP ) : XXXX consumer protection law prohibits deceptive and unfair practices. UCBs refusal to validate and their misidentification may constitute separate violations, each subject to penalties of up to {$10000.00}. 

Consumer Harm UCBs continued collection efforts despite my timely disputes have caused undue stress, reputational risk through potential credit reporting, and obstruction of my ability to resolve other financial matters. Their refusal to provide proof of licensure is especially egregious, given XXXX strict licensing requirements. I am also preparing to file a parallel complaint with the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Office of Consumer Protection regarding these same issues.

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 non-monetary relief