Consumer complaint received 2026-02-23 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX. Complainant Identification and Household Financial Structure This dispute involves XXXX XXXX, the primary cardholder for the Citi Double Cash account ending in XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, the authorized user. To maintain rigorous financial oversight, the household operates under a " Household Purchasing Protocol '' where XXXX XXXX serves as the administrative lead for most online purchases. In this capacity, she is responsible for the execution of purchases, shipment tracking, and the management of all merchant and financial institution correspondence. XXXX XXXX provides the primary credit facility and receives official bank-side notifications, which are then triaged by XXXX XXXX for compliance with the household budget and logistics. XXXX. Chronological Account of Concurrent Transactions In XX/XX/year>, the household sought to purchase two patio heaters. Due to a highly similar user interface and identical pricing between two separate vendors, two transactions occurred. The complexity of these transactions was exacerbated by the fact that the complainants were already actively managing a dispute investigation for the first PENDING transaction ( XXXX XXXX ) as of XX/XX/year>, creating a heightened risk for bank-side clerical errors. Comparison of Initial Transactions : Transaction Date Merchant Name Order Number Amount Product XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX # XXXX {$350.00} 2 Pamapic Patio Heaters XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX # XXXX {$350.00} 2 Pamapic Patio Heaters As evidenced by source correspondence, the identical price point ( {$350.00} ) and identical merchant layouts provided XXXX XXXX evidence for potential transaction confusionconfusion that Citi 's internal systems ultimately failed to navigate. 3. Timeline of Merchant-Side Issues ( XXXX XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX ) The XXXX orders followed divergent paths, which we tracked meticulously. XXXX XXXX ( Order # XXXX ) Timeline : XX/XX/year> : Order # XXXX placed for 2 Pamapic Patio Heaters. XX/XX/year> : Merchant notifies us the item is out of stock and the order is canceled ; we filed a dispute for the pending charge with Citi. XX/XX/year> : Citi sends confirmation that an investigation has been initiated for the {$350.00} XXXX XXXX pending transaction. XX/XX/year> : Merchant confirms a refund will be processed within XXXX business days. XX/XX/year> : Citi sends a " Custom Alert '' confirming the XXXX XXXX transaction was canceled and would not post. XXXX XXXX ( Order # XXXX ) Timeline : XX/XX/year> : Order # XXXX placed for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/year> : Merchant adds a note stating the order is " on the way. '' XXXX. Primary Evidence of Bank-Side Error : Citi " Custom Alert '' ( XX/XX/year> ) The " smoking XXXX '' in this dispute is a formal, written notification received from XXXX on XX/XX/year>, at XXXX AM CT. This communication provided an unequivocal directive to us that the XXXX XXXX transaction had been canceled, " The {$350.00} pending transaction has been canceled and won't post to your Citi XXXX XXXX account ... Merchant/Description : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Crucially, the footer of this email contains Citis own internal audit trail, a unique digital fingerprint of the bank 's communication : XXXX XXXX XXXX. This notification constituted a definitive bank-side instruction upon which we were entitled to rely. 5. Detrimental Reliance and Replacement Purchase Under the doctrine of " Detrimental Reliance, '' we acted in good faith based on the banks official statement that the XXXX XXXX order was void. To mitigate the loss of the canceled items and fulfill the household need, XXXX XXXX immediately secured replacements from a different vendor. Within precisely XXXX minutes of receiving the Bank 's official cancellation notice ( XXXX AM ) to XXXX, XXXX mitigated their perceived loss by purchasing replacements. XXXX XXXX placed XXXX order # XXXX on XX/XX/year>, at XXXX PM for 2 East Oak Patio Heaters totaling {$220.00}. 6. Bad Faith Refusal to Review Evidence ( XX/XX/year> ) Upon discovering that the XXXX XXXX charge had posted in direct contradiction to the bank 's written notice, XXXX XXXX contacted Citi support via chat. This interaction with agent " XXXX '' represents a systemic failure of Citis internal communication logs and a bad faith refusal to acknowledge physical evidence. Refusal to Verify : XXXX XXXX explicitly stated, " I checked and see that no such communication was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. '' Contradiction of Physical Evidence : The agent insisted only the XXXX XXXX cancellation existed. Even after providing the exact internal audit code ( XXXX... ) and verified the sender as XXXX, the agent refused to investigate the specific internal tracking number which could have resolved the issue then and there. Barrier to Resolution : The agent stated, " We do not have the option to accept incoming email, '' effectively blocking me from providing the " XXXX XXXX '' evidence that would have resolved the clerical error immediately. Mischaracterization of Dispute : While the agent attempted to pivot the issue toward the merchant, I clearly stated, " my dispute is not with the merchant '' and corrected the agent 's confusion regarding the charges. I argued the financial injury was caused by Citi 's instruction that the charge was canceled, which triggered the second purchase. 7. Dispute Denial and Final Financial Injury Following the bank 's failure to acknowledge its clerical error, we attempted to return the duplicate items to the merchant. On XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX refused the return, stating they only accept returns for incorrect items and the order " does not meet the conditions for a return. '' On XX/XX/year>, I, XXXX, provided a Response to Citi 's Request for Additional Information for Dispute ID XXXX, with multiple attachments explaining the issue. On XX/XX/year>, Citi formally denied the dispute ( Case ID : XXXX ). In their denial letter, Citi claimed the facts did not support a billing error and instructed us to " contact the merchant directly. '' This represents a failure to address the core issue : the consumer 's loss was not caused by a merchant error, but by detrimental reliance on an erroneous bank notification.

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