Consumer complaint received 2026-05-07 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
You'll need a scrubbed version since they prohibit personal identifiers in the narrative. Here 's a clean paste, with name and account numbers stripped : On XX/XX/year>, Citibank returned a {$1700.00} ACH debit from my Citibank XXXX XXXX account that had presented against sufficient funds, while honoring a separate, larger ACH debit that posted hours later and actually overdrew the account. Citibank labeled the return as an insufficient funds event. It was not. It was a discretionary selection by Citibank to return the smaller, covered item rather than the larger, overdrawing one. The return is the type of high to low transaction handling that has been the subject of substantial consumer protection litigation and regulatory action against other large institutions. During my attempts to resolve the issue with Citibank by chat on XX/XX/year>, the escalation representative misrepresented the post-transaction balance, deflected with generic ACH definitions, and ultimately provided timestamps that confirmed the XXXX debit presented almost seven hours before the larger debit that overdrew the account. Citibank has nonetheless declined to reverse the return. FACTS As of XX/XX/year>, the available balance in the XXXX XXXX account was {$5600.00}. Citibank 's escalation representative confirmed this balance during the XX/XX/XXXX chat. Two ACH debits presented against the account on XX/XX/year> : a XXXX Bank personal loan payment of {$1700.00}, presented at XXXX XXXX, and a XXXX XXXX XXXX ACH debit of {$4000.00}, presented at XXXX XXXX. Both presentment timestamps were provided in writing by Citibank 's escalation representative. The XXXX item, standing alone, presented against an available balance of {$5600.00}. After the XXXX debit, the available balance was {$3900.00}. That figure also appears on Citibank 's own statement of account. The XXXX XXXX XXXX debit then presented almost seven hours later, against the post-XXXX balance of {$3900.00}, and exceeded it by {$150.00}. In other words, the XXXX item had coverage when it presented. The XXXX item did not. On XX/XX/year>, Citibank returned the XXXX debit, posting it as " Returned Insufficient Funds, ACH Txn '' for {$1700.00}. Citibank honored the larger XXXX XXXX XXXX debit that overdrew the account. Citibank selected the smaller item that had coverage when it presented and returned it, while paying the larger item that did not have coverage when it presented. At XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>, I transferred {$160.00} from my linked Citibank Checking account into the Savings Plus account, eliminating the negative balance the XXXX debit had created. The XXXX item itself had not required any additional funds, having presented against sufficient funds the prior day. The transfer is noted only to confirm that any negative balance on the account was brief and was self-cured by me from another Citibank account . THE CHAT WITH CITIBANK On XX/XX/year>, I contacted Citibank by chat. The chat first routed me through an automated assistant offering options that did not describe my issue. After the system did not produce a live agent, I had to type a direct demand before it would route me to a person. The first representative provided a generic explanation of how overdrafts work, then confirmed he could see in the account details that there had been sufficient funds for the XXXX item, but offered no resolution. When I requested escalation, he initially proposed only to forward my comments as feedback. When I insisted, he transferred the chat. The escalation representative made the following statements, all preserved in the chat transcript. First, he represented that the post-XXXX balance was negative {$150.00}, citing " our computerized records. '' That figure is the end of day balance after both XX/XX/XXXX debits had posted, not the balance after the XXXX item alone. The actual post-XXXX balance was {$3900.00}, as reflected on Citibank 's own statement and as the representative himself later confirmed in a transaction summary. Second, when I identified the error and asked why Citibank had selected the smaller, covered item for return rather than the larger overdrawing item, he responded with a paragraph defining ACH transactions and the statement that " Citi does not control the time of debiting the transaction. '' That statement does not address the discretionary return decision, which is made by Citibank, not by the ACH network. Third, he provided a transaction summary listing the XXXX XXXX XXXX debit as " Debit 1 '' and the XXXX debit as " Debit 2. '' Fourth, he then provided the presentment timestamps, which showed the XXXX debit presenting at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX debit presenting at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. His own message therefore contradicts itself : he labeled the XXXX item as the second debit while simultaneously timestamping it as having presented almost seven hours before the item he labeled the first debit. Fifth, he offered to issue a " Transactions details letter confirming the time of ACH debits. '' I requested that letter. Sixth, after I noted that his own timestamps proved the XXXX item had presented first and had coverage, he attempted to walk back the timestamps, asserted that order of debit is " totally dependent on the ACH network, '' and re-cited the end of day available balance of negative {$150.00} as the operative figure. At no point did Citibank substantively address the central question : why Citibank chose to return the smaller item that had coverage at presentment and pay the larger item that did not. CONCERNS Citibank 's conduct raises concerns under the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in three respects. First, mischaracterization of the return, since the bank labeled a discretionary return as an insufficient funds return when the item had presented against more than three times the available funds it required. Second, discretionary selection of the smaller covered item over the larger overdrawing item, which is the inverse of consumer protective transaction handling and tracks the high to low patterns that have produced substantial litigation and regulatory action against other large institutions. Third, misrepresentation of the operative balance figure during the complaint process, repeated even after I had identified the error and even after the bank 's own timestamps proved my position. DOWNSTREAM HARM The returned payment is a personal loan installment. The lender furnishes loan payment status to the major consumer credit bureaus. A 30 day late, which can be triggered by Citibank 's return, would result in adverse credit reporting and increased interest exposure beyond the late fee itself. The harm is concrete, foreseeable, and entirely a function of Citibank 's discretionary return decision.

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