Consumer complaint received 2024-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
You can incorporate the timing details and mention of the replacement card into the existing narrative like this : On Friday, XX/XX/2024, I received notice that my account was closed due to " one or more occurrences of late or returned payments in the last six months. '' However, after speaking with a representative XXXX XXXX, Reference # XXXX ), I was told there were no late payments but three returned payments : on XXXX and XXXX for {$600.00} each, and on XXXX for {$6900.00}. 

The returned payments were caused by a misleading " Apply '' button located next to the " Other Amount '' input field on the payment page. The button, now removed, led to confusion about its purpose, causing the unintended submission of payments. When I realized the error, I was told the initial payments could not be canceled, putting me in a dire financial position. This also triggered the additional returned payments. The screenshots attached show the " Apply '' button before its removal and the updated interface. 

When the returned payments occurred, I contacted customer service and was assured they would be forgiven, with no penalties applied. Relying on this assurance, I continued to use the card and increased my balance, assuming the card would remain available through the holiday season. Now, nearly four months after the returned payments, I find myself facing an unforeseen account closure just days after receiving and activating a replacement card that I can no longer use due to this abrupt action.

This " Apply '' button appears to have been intentionally designed to confuse users, leading to accidental payments. Its placement near the input field, lack of clear communication, and absence of confirmation steps encouraged accidental clicks. Once payments were submitted, they couldnt be canceled, trapping users financially. The companys representatives provided misleading assurances about the impact of the returned payments, further exacerbating harm. 

This deceptive design likely benefited the company through fees from returned payments, late charges, and increased interest on balances. It also justified account closures, allowing the company to recover debt and void user rewards. Changes to the website obscured the misleading design and hindered dispute resolution. These actions suggest a deliberate strategy to exploit users for financial gain. I urge the CFPB to investigate this practice, provide restitution, and ensure similar actions are prevented in the future. 

In addition, when I was transferred to an Adverse Action Department representative ( XXXX ) regarding the closure of my account, I was told that the Adverse Action Department does not record or provide reference numbers for call occurrences. This practice, if true, appears to benefit the company by limiting accountability, as customers can not easily prove what was said during a call or verify assurances provided by representatives. It also hinders dispute resolution, making it more challenging for customers to follow up or contest adverse decisions without a record of the interaction. Furthermore, the lack of reference numbers reduces the companys exposure to legal or regulatory scrutiny, as there is less documented evidence available for review in case of complaints or investigations. This opacity also obscures the companys internal practices, making it difficult to confirm whether policies are being followed consistently. Additionally, the absence of reference numbers may discourage customers from pursuing complaints, as it creates frustration and a perception that their concerns will not be addressed effectively. By minimizing the documentation of such interactions, the company reduces its likelihood of having to offer restitution or reverse adverse decisions, further benefiting from this lack of transparency.

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