Consumer complaint received 2019-03-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
I request that Citi and XXXX XXXX change their practices for responding to customer complaints. I request assistance with getting a permanent refund of charges to my Mastercard ( Citi ) credit card  account by XXXX XXXX store # XXXX in XXXX, Texas. 

I took my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to diagnose an engine warning light and for an oil change. They told me their analysis showed the engine light indicated that the car needed replacement of the oxygen sensor. They replaced the sensor and changed the oil. They charged {$100.00} for a XXXX Oxygen SensoXXXX and {$100.00} for labor to " Remove & Replace Oxygen Sensor. '' They also charged a {$23.00} shop fee and tax. 

The next day, the engine light came on again, indicating that the repair they made had not fixed the problem as promised. I called the XXXX XXXX shop and was informed that the diagnostician wasn't in but they would call me when he returned the next day to tell me what they planned to do about it. They never called. I made a complaint to XXXX XXXX ' corporate customer service line on XX/XX/XXXX, and again was promised that someone -- - '' XXXX. XXXX '' from " corporate '' -- -would call me back to discuss it. They, too, never called. 

In the interim, I found a competent, independent repair shop that successfully repaired the problem. They showed me proof that the XXXX oxygen sensor is NOT approved for use in my car. XXXX XXXX therefore should have known in advance that the part would not solve the problem, but installed it anyway. The unsuitability of the part was confirmed beyond question when warning light continued to come on. Compounding the injury, XXXX XXXX charged me {$100.00} for a part their website then offered for retail sale at {$65.00} -- -a clear case of false advertising. Again, this information was available to XXXX XXXX in advance. When I twice contacted XXXX XXXX about the problem, they failed to explain their actions, failed offer to do the repair correctly, and failed to refund my money. Instead, they silently stonewalled resolution. 

I was shocked and appalled by the way XXXX XXXX treated a senior customer. The shop that fixed my car was not surprised, however, and said they frequently hear complaints about XXXX XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a complaint with Citi 's customer service. I told them I had documentation of ( a ) the part 's unsuitability and ( b ) the advertised price for the part. I explained that the documentation makes clear -- even to someone with no technical knowledge -- that my complaint has obvious merit. Customer service said they would put the charge on hold while they investigated but refused my documentation, saying they would request it if needed. [ Note : I tried to upload documentation to the Consumer Finance webpage but when I did, it rejected the entire complaint. ] On XX/XX/XXXX, Citi acknowledged by email that it had finally received a response from the company and was reviewing it. This suggested that XXXX XXXX was disputing my claim ; otherwise a refund would have been authorized immediately. I called customer service to again offer my documentation. Customer service again refused my documents and said they do not want to see them until Citi 's  review is completed. This makes no sense to me unless Citi considers facts irrelevant to reaching a decision. I therefore have slim hope that a fair decision is forthcoming.

Six weeks after receiving my complaint, Citi still has not requested my documentation nor has it completed its review. Meanwhile, I am left wondering if the XXXX XXXX charge will re-emerge, creating financial uncertainty, and I fear doing business with either company in the future.

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