Consumer complaint received 2025-11-29 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:
My name is XXXX XXXX, and I am reporting what appears to be serious procedural irregularities in XXXX handling of my credit-card dispute ( XXXX ) XXXX These issues go beyond a routine complaint and raise systemic concerns related to Regulation Z, the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( UDAAP ). 
Based on Citis actions, I am concerned that Citis dispute-resolution process may not be functioning in compliance with federal law.

1. Citi issued an unauthorized partial refund and altered dispute records.

The original dispute was for {$4600.00}. Citi later issued an unsolicited partial refund of {$4500.00} : -- without my authorization -- without notice -- without providing the merchants evidence -- and without any written explanation Citis own app continued to show the dispute as resolved in my favor for the full {$4600.00}. 

More concerning : Citi submitted XXXX different versions of my dispute letter XXXX to me ( showing {$4600.00} ) and a different version to the CFPB ( showing {$4500.00} ). 
I never authorized this change. 
This raises concerns about record accuracy, integrity, and transparency, all required under 12 CFR 1026.13 ( d ) ( f ). 
I have preserved both versions. 


2. Citi admitted it closed the dispute without ever contacting me to request evidence. 

On calls dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Citi acknowledged : -- They closed my dispute without any outreach -- I was never asked to submit documentation -- This was a procedural error on Citis part -- The case was reopened only because Citi recognized their mistake This failure directly caused the delays Citi later used to deny further review. 
It suggests the required good-faith investigation under Regulation Z and the FCBA did not occur.

3. Citi still can not provide the merchants evidence or any rationale for the partial refund. 

Despite repeated requests ( including on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), Citi still has not provided : -- the merchants response -- the evidence Citi relied upon -- or any explanation for the partial refund Under Regulation Z and the FCBA, issuers must provide consumers with the materials relied upon when resolving disputes. 
Not receiving these materials raises concerns about whether Citi conducted any investigation at all. 


4. Additional procedural problems indicating possible systemic issues. 

Citi required a credit slip from the merchant as the only acceptable evidence when the case was reopened. A credit slip proves only that the merchant already agreed to refund not evidence for a billing error investigation. 

This suggests Citi required me to obtain the merchants admission of wrongdoing before Citi would investigate, which is inconsistent with Regulation Z. 

Citis conflicting documentation, unauthorized adjustments, and inability to produce evidence indicate possible UDAAP concerns ( unfair or deceptive practices ). 

These issues imply broader weaknesses in Citis dispute-handling controls, not an isolated error. 


-- -- Why I am requesting supervisory review I previously filed a CFPB complaint, but that case only addressed a delay. 
The issues here unauthorized refund, altered documentation, failure to follow Regulation Z, and lack of merchant evidence are new and materially different. 

A CFPB representative warned me that Citi may ignore a supplemental complaint due to it involving the same charge.

Therefore, I am requesting that CFPB : 1. Review this as a supervisory concern, not a simple consumer complaint.

2. Evaluate whether Citis dispute-resolution practices comply with Regulation Z, FCBA, and UDAAP. 
XXXX. Require Citi to provide all evidence, documentation, and rationale used in this determination. 

In addition to requesting supervisory review, I am also asking for Citi to be required to properly investigate this dispute in accordance with Regulation Z and to issue the full dispute credit if they can not produce evidence supporting the merchants charge. Given the significant procedural errors, delays, and conflicting records, I also request that CFPB recommend Citi consider a goodwill adjustment or full reimbursement to make me whole for the financial and procedural harm caused by their handling of this dispute. 

I have provide the conflicting letters, email chains, and timeline documents. I can provide call recordings upon request. 

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