Consumer complaint received 2025-01-08 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Communication tactics — Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> To Whom It May Concern Subject : Formal Complaint and Legal Grievance Regarding Consumer Compliance Practices Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally dispute the practices of Citibank and XXXX XXXX XXXX which I believe are infringing on my legal rights and are in conflict with established laws, policies, and consumer protections. This letter also serves as a formal complaint to be submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). 

Overview of Incident XXXX XXXX ago I settled a transaction, I contacted CitibankXXXX XXXXXXXX to arrange the payment of a debt via credit card as a form of a bill of exchange. During the conversation, I informed the representative that I was recording the exchange for consumer compliance and business purposes. I was then told that Citibank does not consent to being recorded. Despite informing them that I reside in XXXX, a one-party consent state, and that I have the right to record transactions for evidence and compliance purposes, the representative reiterated that recording is against their in-house policy. 

I respectfully expressed my position that this policy is not only improper but also appears to violate state laws, established commercial practices under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), and my rights as a consumer conducting business. 

Legal Issues Raised 1. State Law on One-Party Consent XXXX is a one-party consent state, which means that under XXXX. Rev. Stat. 542.402 ( 2 ), only one party to a conversation needs to consent to recording for it to be lawful. As I was a participant in the call, I had the legal right to record the exchange without requiring XXXXHome Depots consent . Their refusal to allow me to record conflicts with XXXX law, thereby infringing upon my rights as a resident of the state. 

2. Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) Provisions Under UCC Article 3, which governs negotiable instruments and commercial transactions, there is an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing in all dealings. Specifically : UCC 3-104 : Defines negotiable instruments and sets standards for their use in commercial transactions. Transparency and recordkeeping are critical components of ensuring fair practices. 
UCC 1-201 ( b ) ( 20 ) : Establishes a standard of good faith, defined as honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. By denying the recording of a lawful transaction, Citibank and XXXX XXXX are obstructing the ability to maintain a transparent record, which undermines the principles of good faith and fair dealing. 

Furthermore, refusing to allow a consumer to maintain a record of their transaction creates an imbalance of power, violating the principles of fairness under UCC 2-302, which prohibits unconscionable practices in commercial agreements. 

3. Consumer Protection and Fair Business Practices The refusal to allow recording raises concerns under broader consumer protection principles. The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and CFPB require financial institutions to maintain fair and transparent practices. Internal policies that deny consumers the ability to create their own records of transactions appear to contradict these principles and create an environment of mistrust. 

recording by a participant in the conversation, rendering their internal policy invalid in this context. 

I have a legal right to document the exchange for compliance and verification purposes. This does not breach any legitimate privacy concerns, This also shows Unfair Advantage : If CitibankXXXX  XXXX records conversations for their own purposes but prohibits me from doing the same, this creates an unequal dynamic in the transaction, which is both unethical and potentially unlawful. 
In conjunction Intimidation Is Unacceptable : Attempting to use internal policies to intimidate consumers into compliance not only violates ethical standards but also raises serious legal and reputational concerns. 


My Position Regardless of their internal policy or perspective, the following points remain clear : 1. State and Federal Law Supremacy : Internal policies can not override lawful actions permitted by state and federal law. As a XXXX resident, I was within my legal rights to record the transaction. 
2. Good Faith Obligation : Under the UCC, businesses must operate in good faith and ensure fair dealings. Denying lawful recording practices undermines these principles and creates an environment of mistrust. 
3. Unfair Advantage : If CitibankXXXX XXXX records conversations for their own purposes but prohibits me from doing the same, this creates an unequal dynamic in the transaction, which is both unethical and potentially unlawful. 
4. Transparency and Accountability : Recording transactions promotes accountability on both sides. Their refusal to allow this transparency inhibits my ability to protect my rights and verify the terms of the agreement. 

Conclusion The practices described above are improper and create unnecessary barriers to the fair and transparent resolution of financial obligations. I urge Citibank and XXXX XXXX to address these concerns promptly and to ensure their practices respect consumer rights and comply with all applicable laws. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly at XXXX if further information is required. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

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