Consumer complaint received 2025-04-15 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: NJ

Complaint narrative:
* * CFPB Complaint Citibank Dispute Mishandling XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX | Shop Your Way XXXX | {$4100.00} Charge * * To : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing a formal complaint against Citibank for violating 15 U.S. Code 1666 through a pattern of obstruction and misleading statements during the handling of a fraud-related dispute. The charge in question was a {$4100.00} partial payment to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  that involved fraud by material omission. This amount represents only a portion of the total purchase price ; I am not seeking a full refund while retaining the trailer but rather contesting the charge due to the sellers fraud, which Citibank failed to investigate. 

Before discussing the legal basis of the dispute, it is important to note that on the day of pickup, as soon as the concealed structural damage was discovered, I offered to leave the trailer at the site and requested that the seller cancel the transaction and credit the payment so I could purchase a different unit. The sellers on-site representative ( yard manager ) stated I would be charged an unspecified storage fee if I left the trailerpossibly {$30.00} to {$100.00} per day depending on internal decisions. With no guarantee of credit or fair terms, and under threat of unknown storage charges, I had no choice but to take the trailer under protest. 

We relied on the sellers online listing photos and description when purchasing the trailer, as inspecting equipment in person is often not feasible in a nationwide online auction format. 

Nature of the Dispute : This is a fraud dispute based on material omission. The seller concealed structural damage to the trailer, which rendered the item nonconforming under * * XXXX XXXX * *. This concealment constitutes fraudulent practice under * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX *. I submitted : - Photos of concealed damage ( Exhibit B ) - Rejection letter issued at pickup ( Exhibit C ) - Email exchanges with the seller ( Exhibit D ) - Cited statutes : * * XXXX XXXX * *, * * UCC XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( b ) * *, * * UCC XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ( a ) * *, anXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX * * Citibank denied the claim without acknowledging this evidence or citing any legal basis. 

# # # Pattern of Obstruction and MisrepresentatioXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I made repeated calls to Citibank : - * * XXXX * * and * * XXXX * * gave fictitious system upgrade excuses and redirected me. 
- * * XXXX * * cited the same excuse and redirected my supervisor request to a menu. 
- A false office closed message was received during business hours. 
- * * XXXX * * transferred me to * * XXXX * * ( XXXX ), who made several misleading claims : - Its not fraud if you gave your card number. 
- Credit cards work like debit cards. 
- Were just the middlemannothing we can do. 
- I explained that all documentation had already been submitted. XXXX repeatedly stated, XXXX just the middleman, ' and when I asked her about the documents already submitted, she read back the merchant 's reply and implied Citibank XXXX it without reviewing my evidence. At no point did she acknowledge that any of my submitted documentationphotos, rejection letter, or legal citationshad been evaluated. 

These actions reflect a clear violation of * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) * * ( failure to investigate ) and * * XXXX ( a ) * * ( failure to provide a fair dispute process ). 

# # # Why the Trailer Was Not Returned : Return of the trailer was both * * impractical and legally unnecessary * *. The seller was notified and offered the opportunity to accept a return but refused to acknowledge or compensate for the trailers concealed structural damage. No agreement was made regarding payment or responsibility for consequential damages. Under * * XXXX XXXX * *, I had the right to revoke acceptance due to substantial impairment, and * * UCC XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( b ) * * entitles me to consequential damages resulting from this breach. XXXX denial based solely on non-return disregards both the fraud committed and my legal rights under the law.

# # # Violations : - Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation ( * * 15 U.S. Code 1666 ( b ) * * ) - Blocking of submission and appeal ( * * 15 U.S. Code 1666 ( a ) * * ) - Misrepresentation of credit card fraud protections - Disregard for * * UCC 2-608 * * and * * 2-715 ( 2 ) ( b ) * * - Ignoring fraud indicators in violation of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Requested Relief : I request that CFPB : - Order Citibank to reopen and independently review the dispute - Require acknowledgment and review of all submitted evidence - Investigate Citibanks * * systemic obstruction and misrepresentation * * in dispute resolution practices -Require Citibank XXXX reverse the {$4100.00} charge due to failure to investigate a legally supported fraud claim under XXXX XXXX Code XXXX # # # Exhibits : - Exhibit A : Original dispute letter - Exhibit B : Rejection letter ( provided at the gate to the yard XXXX under protest, documenting immediate refusal to accept the trailer due to concealed damage ) - Exhibit C : Email correspondence with seller - Exhibit D : Appeal letter to Citibank XXXX Exhibit XXXX : Screenshots of system blockage and call record - Exhibit F : Photos of concealed damage - XXXX : My post-pickup photos showing concealed damage, visibly different from the sellers listing. Images are watermarked and labeled for evidentiary use. 
- Exhibit G : Sellers listing photos - XXXX : XXXX XXXX auction photos showing trailer with no visible damage, and no disclosure of defects in the listing description. These photos were used as the basis for purchase and are now contrasted with the concealed damage shown in Exhibit F.

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