Consumer complaint received 2025-12-02 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Dispute of Wayfair patiocover purchases and Citibanks failure to properly investigate or resolve, despite clear evidence of nondelivery and repeated attempts to cooperate. 

Account holder : XXXX XXXX Account number : XXXX Dispute ID : XXXX / XXXX Merchant : Wayfair.com Purchase date : XX/XX/year> Dispute communications : XXXX XXXX Current status : Cardholder found liable, despite evidence and repeated submissions ; requester denied ability to provide unreasonable proof. 

XXXX ) Summary of the factual timeline XX/XX/year> : Purchased XXXX patio covers from XXXX. 

XX/XX/year> : Received email confirming delivery of XXXX of the XXXX shipments. Photo evidence showed delivery to a residence that was not mine. 

Background context : In my neighborhood, multiple residences share the same street number ; misdeliveries are common. This was relevant to why the delivery could go to the wrong house. 

Shortly after XX/XX/XXXX : Contacted Wayfair via chat to report the misdelivery and request cancellation of the other pending delivery. Wayfair required a police report alleging theft to issue a refund, despite photo evidence showing wrongaddress delivery. 

XX/XX/year> : Second delivery was made, again to a different residence, not mine. Raised to Wayfair ; they again insisted on a police report as the only avenue for refund. 

Subsequent action : Unable to falsify a police report; refused to perjure. Turned to Citibank to dispute the charges. 

XX/XX/year> : Received notice that the dispute was closed and found in my responsibility. Called Citibank immediately ; representative assured me it could be reopened and asked me not to worry or make a payment, saying additional information would be requested if needed. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX : Near payment date, called again on XX/XX/year> ; representative stated the investigation was pending and I should submit documentation. I submitted the requested documentation to the provided email address. 

XX/XX/year> : Called again to confirm receipt of documents. Told the case had been closed because I failed to submit information by XX/XX/year>, a deadline I had not been clearly informed about despite my prior inquiries. Representative promised to reopen and confirmed receipt of XXXX of XXXX files, advising that .jpg was invalid and to resubmit as .pdf. 

Resubmission : Converted the remaining images from .jpg to .pdf and sent again as instructed. 

XX/XX/year> : Received notice that I was still responsible for the charges because I failed to provide proof of cancellation, a reason that conflicted with my actual claim of nondelivery. 

XX/XX/year>, call : Spoke to a representative, then supervisor XXXX ( ID XXXX ). Told I needed a police report, mirroring Wayfairs unreasonable demand, despite photographic proof of misdelivery. Supervisors justification shifted from lack of police report to lack of proof of cancellation ; then he stated Citibank would do nothing further. 

Supervisors acknowledgment : He confirmed on the recorded line that I was being directed to file a false police report. He referred to his employee ID for record retrieval. 

XXXX ) Why Citibanks handling appears improper under federal law a ) Nature of the dispute : goods not delivered as agreed, wrong delivery location Under CFPBs official interpretation of the billing error resolution rule, disputes about goods or services not delivered as agreed include, among others, delivery to the wrong location. 

This is exactly the nature of the dispute : shipments landed at addresses that were not mine, verified by photo evidence, and resulted in nonreceipt of the purchased goods. Therefore the applicable federal rule explicitly covers this scenario. 

b ) Obligations of the creditor to investigate and respond The Fair Credit Billing Act requires a creditor, upon receiving a written notice of a billing error from the consumer, to acknowledge the notice within XXXX  days and either correct the account or provide a written explanation after investigation within XXXX billing cycles or XXXX  days, before taking collection actions. 
Legal Information Institute Moreover, when the alleged billing error involves goods not delivered as agreed, the creditor may not assume the amount is correct unless it determines the goods were actually delivered. 
Legal Information Institute In short, if a dispute involves nondelivery or wrong delivery, the creditor must investigate and can not simply rely on the merchants demand for a police report or other unreasonable proof, especially when the consumer provides evidence of wrong delivery. 

c ) Prohibition on adverse collection action prior to proper resolution The statute restricts a creditor from closing or restricting an account solely because the consumer failed to pay a disputed amount before providing the required explanation. This protects consumers during the dispute process. 
Legal Information Institute In this case, I kept the balance at XXXX and relied on Citibanks assurances and guidance ; yet the dispute was closed and I was declared responsible despite ambiguity about whether documents were timely received, contradictory instructions, and documented evidence of misdelivery. 

d ) Evidence of conflicting or unclear communications from Citibank Representatives gave inconsistent instructions : XXXX said no need to worry or submit documentation because the case could be reopened ; another advised to send information ; yet later a representative claimed deadline was missed, and a supervisor insisted on proof that was not legally required or logically connected to the disputes nature. 

This pattern indicates a failure to provide a clear, consistent investigation process and to properly evaluate evidence of wrong delivery. 

XXXX ) Goodfaith efforts by the consumer I repeatedly contacted the creditor, followed directions, resubmitted documents in the required format, and refrained from making payments while the dispute was pending based on Citibanks guidance. 

I refused to provide a police report for a claim that would be false, which was requested by the merchant and later by the creditor. The request to use perjured documentation is unreasonable, unethical, and not required by the applicable federal rules covering wrong delivery disputes. 

XXXX ) Requested relief Given the above facts and applicable federal law : Reverse the charge and remove any liability and associated finance or late charges from my account for the Wayfair patio cover purchases, because the dispute involves goods not delivered as agreed, which the creditor must investigate and can not assume correct without determining actual delivery. 

Correct any reporting or account status that reflects me as responsible for the disputed amount. 

Require Citibank to comply with its obligations to properly investigate disputes that involve delivery to the wrong location or nondelivery, and to avoid shifting unreasonable requirements onto the consumer after accepting a dispute. 

Investigate possible violations of the FCBA and Regulation Z when creditor communications are unclear, contradictory, or improperly place the burden on the consumer for evidence not required by federal rules. 

Attachments and evidence Photo evidence of deliveries to wrong addresses. 

Chat transcript with Wayfair showing refusal to accept correct evidence, and insistence on police report. 

Email records of submissions to Citibank, including file format conversions. 

Notices from Citibank regarding dispute outcomes on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/year>. 

Closing remark I acted in good faith to resolve a clear case of nondelivery to my address, provided evidence, followed Citibanks instructions, and was repeatedly told the case would be reopened or that evidence should be provided, yet the resolution denied my dispute. The federal statutes and CFPB rules were not properly applied to a dispute that explicitly falls within their coverage. I respectfully request CFPB review and relief based on the above facts and law. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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