Consumer complaint received 2026-05-01 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Dear CFPB, I am writing to update my existing complaint ( # XXXX ) against Citibank , N.A . Since my initial filing, Citibank has now denied my dispute twice including on formal appeal and continues to misapply federal law under Regulation E. I respectfully request that the CFPB escalate its review of this matter. BACKGROUND SUMMARY I paid TXN Gourmet Catering {$23000.00} via XXXX XXXX ( Citi checking account ending in XXXX ) in three installments between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX for catering services at my son 's engagement party on XX/XX/XXXX. The merchant failed to appear and provide any services. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed via email that they had issued a full refund of {$23000.00}. That refund never arrived. After the merchant became completely unreachable on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Citibank to dispute the transactions on XX/XX/XXXX. CITIBANK 'S FIRST DENIAL XX/XX/XXXX Citibank 's Executive Response Unit denied my dispute, claiming I failed to report the transactions in a timely manner. Additionally, their letter only acknowledged two of the three disputed transactions, leaving the {$7800.00} claim ( XXXX ) unaddressed a clear procedural error on Citibank 's part. CITIBANK 'S SECOND DENIAL ( APPEAL ) XX/XX/XXXX Following my formal rebuttal letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, which cited Regulation E and demanded a proper reinvestigation, Citibank issued a second denial on XX/XX/XXXX. They again cited timeliness, stating the disputes were " reported outside of the required timeframe. '' This denial ignores the legal basis I provided and fails to engage with the substance of my appeal. WHY CITIBANK 'S POSITION VIOLATES REGULATION E Citibank 's timeliness argument is legally incorrect for the following reasons : The 60-day Regulation E clock runs from the date the error appears on the periodic statement. However, for services not yet rendered at the time of payment, the consumer can not reasonably discover the problem until the service date passes. The service date was XX/XX/XXXX. There was no dispute to file prior to that date, as the services had not yet failed to be delivered. On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant issued a written promise of a full refund. I reasonably relied on this promise and waited for the refund to post, as any prudent consumer would. When the merchant went silent after XX/XX/XXXX, I immediately contacted Citibank on XX/XX/XXXX within 60 days of discovering that the promised refund would not be issued. This is clearly within the Regulation XXXX window measured from the date of reasonable discovery. I have attached the following supporting documents to this update : Citibank denial letter dated XX/XX/XXXX Citibank appeal denial letter dated XX/XX/XXXX My formal rebuttal letter dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX email confirming {$23000.00} refund ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Full email chain showing repeated follow-ups before contacting Citibank I XXXX the CFPB 's XXXX to this matter and trust that this update will prompt the appropriate escalation. Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX CFPB Case # XXXX

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