Consumer complaint received 2026-07-15 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: WA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, a XXXX XXXX XXXX charge of USD XXXX posted to my Citibank credit card ending in XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, I contacted Citibanks dispute department to file a dispute for USD XXXX, which represented the Internet/WiFi portion of that transaction. From day one, I made it clear by phone that I was filing a partial dispute for only USD XXXX out of the total USD XXXX charge. During that XX/XX/XXXX call, the frontline dispute agent mistakenly placed the entire USD XXXX into dispute and opened XXXX XXXX for the full amount. The supervisor acknowledged this mistake and instructed me to send a written email notice to XXXX so that the internal investigation team could correct the disputed amount down to USD XXXX. I followed these instructions on the same day by sending the first email, which clearly identified the transaction, stated that only USD XXXX was in dispute, and provided factual details and legal bases. On XX/XX/year>, Citibank sent me a determination letter stating that no billing error occurred, reversing the provisional credit and closing the dispute. The letter restated the transaction as USD XXXX, did not address the fact that my notice was for USD XXXX only, and did not provide a meaningful explanation of the reasons for its decision as required by Regulation Z ( 12 CFR Part 1026 ), which obligates a creditor to explain why it believes no billing error occurred. After receiving the XX/XX/XXXX letter, I sent additional written communications and made several followup calls. On XX/XX/year>, I sent a second email to XXXX, questioning the XX/XX/XXXX determination and asking specific questions about how my XX/XX/XXXX notice had been handled and why the investigation appeared to have been conducted on the full USD XXXX instead of the intended USD XXXX partial dispute. On XX/XX/year>, I sent further written communications citing Regulation Z, including 1026.13 ( b ) and 1026.13 ( f ), and explaining why the XX/XX/XXXX letter did not meet the requirements for a proper billing error explanation. In phone calls around this time, multiple agents and supervisors from the dispute team acknowledged internal processing errors but gave contradictory information about the status of my case. Some said the dispute was closed and could not be reopened ; others said it had been reopened, but could not clearly explain when or by whom. At that time, agents stated that the dispute case had been reopened, but I later learned that Citibanks own internal policy does not allow agents to open or reopen disputes without explicit customer approval, meaning this action directly violated Citibanks policy. Citibanks dispute team also admitted that Citibank is still waiting for the merchants bank to respond. This, combined with the XX/XX/XXXX closure letter and other facts, show that Citibank closed the dispute without completing a proper investigation. Around XX/XX/year>, I received a letter from Citibank stating that, without a valid credit slip from the merchant, Citibank was unable to intervene on my behalf with XXXX XXXX XXXX or its bank. The letter said that if I could not provide such a credit slip, I would need to seek other means to obtain credit, and reminded me that if I did not make at least the minimum payment, my account could be reported as past due. In effect, this letter placed the burden entirely on me to obtain a refund credit slip from XXXX XXXX XXXX before Citibank would pursue further dispute intervention, even though I had already provided a detailed email notice and supporting documentation under Regulation Z. Around this same period, supervisors in the dispute department confirmed that the frontline dispute team had submitted multiple internal requests to the internal investigation team to correct the disputed amount from USD XXXX down to USD XXXX, but that all of those requests had been denied or simply not acted upon. As a result, the disputed amount remained incorrectly set at USD XXXX in internal systems, despite my clear written notice and repeated requests. As the case continued into XXXX, I sent a third major email on XX/XX/year>, consolidating all prior facts, timelines, and legal citations into a single document. That email again confirmed that my dispute was limited to USD XXXX, pointed out that Citibanks letters and system records still treated the case as a USD XXXX dispute, and requested a Regulation Zcompliant written response within XXXX days. Supervisors later admitted that both the dispute team and the internal investigation team have system access to all three emails ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ), but that there is no mechanism to confirm whether individual investigators have actually opened and read them. Throughout this period, Citibank continued to send oneway, nonreplyable system messages and template letters that described my case as a USD XXXX dispute. For example, on XX/XX/year>, I received an automated email saying Thanks for providing additional information regarding your {$400.00} dispute, listing the disputed amount as USD XXXX under the same case number XXXX. There is still no written confirmation from the internal investigation team or the executive office that they have corrected the disputed amount to USD XXXX or meaningfully reviewed my email written materials. In addition, my billing statements have shown minimum payments that appear to be based on the disputed transaction while the dispute was pending, which raises concerns under Regulation Zs billing error rules, including 1026.13 ( d ), which limits the imposition of fees or finance charges based solely because a disputed amount is withheld. Citibank has repeatedly refused to respond substantively by email, relying instead on templated letters and system messages that do not address my specific questions or evidence. In summary, I believe Citibank mishandled my billing error dispute by : - Treating a partial USD XXXX dispute as a full USD XXXX dispute. - Failing to correct the disputed amount despite clear email written notice and multiple internal disputeteam requests to the internal investigation team. - Sending determination letters and system emails that do not comply with Regulation Zs requirements for a reasonable investigation and written explanation ( including 12 CFR 1026.13 ( b ), 1026.13 ( d ), and 1026.13 ( f ) ). - Opening and/or reopening disputes without my consent, contrary to Citibanks own internal policies. - Failing to provide twoway email communication or any evidence that my emails have been reviewed by the internal investigation team. - Continuing to demand payment based on amounts that should have been treated as disputed. Additional details and supporting evidence are included in the attached files, including : 1. Detailed timeline of all events. 2. Screenshots of the three emails I sent to Citibank. 3. Screenshots of Citibanks letters and system messages related to this dispute.

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