Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 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:
WHAT HAPPENED_____ I am submitting this complaint to address Citibanks failure to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation of a billing-error dispute, in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z. This complaint is intentionally focused on Citibanks investigative process failures and is separate from my prior CFPB complaints, although it relates to the same underlying transaction.

________ TIMELINE SUMMARY The disputed charge of {$4600.00} was processed on XX/XX/year> by the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the wrong currency and for an incorrect amount. On XX/XX/year>, I opened a billing-error dispute with Citibank. On XX/XX/year>, I paid the full rent amount using a different credit card and have a receipt showing that rent was fully paid ; non-payment of rent has never been an issue. On XX/XX/year>, Citibank closed the dispute without ever requesting evidence from me or reviewing my documentation. On XX/XX/year>, Citibank reopened the dispute after acknowledging procedural error in the original handling. After reopening, Citibank relied almost entirely on a merchant letter dated after reopening and accepted a partial refund without requesting additional evidence from me, without comparing my evidence against the merchants assertions, and without conducting a meaningful investigation. Citibank subsequently treated the dispute as too old and dismissed it, despite having reopened the case due to its own procedural failure.

_________ FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION Citibank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required by Regulation Z. During the original dispute, Citibank never requested documentation or supporting evidence from me. When I later provided evidence, Citibank did not meaningfully evaluate it or explain how it was weighed against the merchants claims.

The merchants response asserted that they were not liable for fees and that rent was still owed. My evidence directly contradicts this assertion. I provided documentation showing that rent was paid in full on a separate credit card and that the disputed charge concerned fees that were never disclosed or authorized. Citibank did not address this contradiction and did not require the merchant to substantiate its claims.

________ DEFERENCE TO UNSUPPORTED MERCHANT ASSERTIONS The merchant claimed that fees applied to credit card payments. I have no evidence disputing such disclosure because no such disclosure exists. If a fair investigation had been conducted, Citibank would have required the merchant to provide proof that fees were disclosed and agreed to. Citibank did not request or obtain such proof.

Instead, Citibank accepted the merchants narrative at face value and treated the merchants refusal to refund as decisive, without explaining why unsupported merchant assertions were credited over my documentary evidence.

________ INCONSISTENT HANDLING AFTER REOPENING Citibank reopened the dispute after acknowledging that the original handling was procedurally defective. The procedural defect was not minor or technical : Citibank closed the original dispute without ever requesting evidence from me or conducting any investigation at all. As a result, no reasonable investigation occurred during the original dispute. After reopening the case, Citibank again failed to conduct a proper investigation and instead relied on a merchant letter without meaningfully evaluating or weighing evidence. Despite reopening the dispute due to its own failure to investigate, Citibank later treated the dispute as too old and dismissed it. This handling is internally inconsistent and undermines the credibility of Citibanks review process. Reopening a dispute, especially due to a failure to investigate, necessarily requires that a compliant investigation then occur. Citibanks actions show that no proper investigation occurred at any stage of this dispute, either before or after reopening, which is inconsistent with Regulation Zs requirement for a reasonable investigation.

_________ CONSUMER HARM AND INTERFERENCE WITH MEDIATION Citibanks failure to investigate deprived me of my statutory right to a fair review and materially harmed my ability to resolve the matter with the merchant. 

I had direct communications with XXXX and asked whether a chargeback or reversal could be processed. The merchant indicated they would look into it and did not disclose any fees associated with credit card processing. I am submitting XXXX communications showing these discussions. 

Had Citibank conducted a proper investigation, it would have evaluated this context rather than defaulting to the merchants unsupported position. Citibanks actions interfered with my ability to mediate the dispute fairly.

________ ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I am submitting supporting documents, including proof of full rent payment on a separate credit card, communications with XXXX regarding charge reversal, and my original dispute submissions that already contradict the merchants response.

These materials demonstrate that Citibank had sufficient information to conduct a proper investigation but failed to do so.

________ CLOSING CLARIFICATION REGARDING EVIDENCE REVIEW For clarity, I submitted my supporting documentation on XX/XX/year> and again on XX/XX/year>, both well before Citibank relied on the merchants written response. Citibank therefore had my evidence in its possession prior to accepting the merchants assertions and prior to dismissing the dispute. The issue is not that evidence was unavailable or submitted late, but that Citibank did not meaningfully review or evaluate the evidence I provided. This confirms that the outcome was reached without a reasonable investigation and that my documentation was effectively disregarded despite being timely submitted.

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