Consumer complaint received 2026-01-18 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
Dear Citibank Legal Department and Billing Disputes Compliance Team, XXXX  / AAdvantage Platinum Select Via Mail, Email, and CFPB Portal From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  CC : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Account : XXXX / AAdvantage Platinum Select Account ending : XXXX CFPB Case # : XXXX Citi Reference # : XXXX Disputed Charge : {$4000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX ________________________________________ SECOND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND INVESTIGATION This letter constitutes my second formal request that Citibank reopen and investigate the {$4000.00} charge imposed by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX , notwithstanding the passage of time since the transaction first appeared on my statement. 
Citis XX/XX/XXXX response relied solely on a generalized 60-day dispute window and did not address the substance of the dispute, which involves an illegal, void transaction arising from a police-authorized tow where required legal protocol was not followed. 
________________________________________ I. THIS WAS NOT A ROUTINE BILLING DISPUTE IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL TRANSACTION The charge at issue was not a voluntary consumer purchase. It was extracted under economic duress while my vehicle was wrongfully withheld following a police-order tow. 
Under California law, police-authorized tows are subject to strict statutory requirements. If those requirements are not met, no towing or storage charges are lawfully collectible. 
This dispute therefore concerns an unlawful transaction, not a mere disagreement over price or services. 
________________________________________ XXXX. FAILURE TO FOLLOW REQUIRED POLICE-ORDER TOW PROTOCOL XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to follow mandatory protocol governing police-order tows, including : Failure to provide required evidentiary hold notices Failure to provide a written evidentiary release authorizing continued possession of the vehicle Failure to document any lawful basis for continued storage Failure to provide required post-storage and release notices These documents are required by law for a police-order tow. Without them, continued possession of the vehicle and the resulting charges were unlawful. 
To date, no evidentiary hold or release documentation has been produced by the towing company or the police agency, despite formal requests. 
________________________________________ XXXX. SYSTEMATIC OVERBILLING ABOVE CITY-APPROVED RATES ( FRAUD ) In addition, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX charged amounts exceeding the maximum tow and storage rates approved by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Specifically, the company added {$5.00} above the City-approved maximum on mandatory line items. Charging above an approved municipal rate is illegal per se, regardless of amount. 
A charge that includes amounts not authorized by law is void and should not be treated as a valid transaction for dispute-timing purposes. 
________________________________________ XXXX. THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT DOES NOT APPLY TO ILLEGAL OR VOID TRANSACTIONS The Fair Credit Billing Act does not require a creditor to ignore or refuse to investigate a charge that is : Illegal Void as against public policy Obtained through coercion or duress Based on facts concealed from the cardholder Here, the illegality of the charge could not reasonably have been discovered within 60 days, as the required notices and records were not provided and the merchant misrepresented the charges as lawful and mandatory. 
I am therefore requesting that Citi exercise its discretion to investigate this charge on the merits, even though more than 60 days approximately 580 days have elapsed since the underlying tow event. Previously Citi accepted a dispute and reversed a charge with XXXX that was over 60 days when filed with Citi Advantage. So the precedent that is being made in not uniform to the dispute process of Citi in which I have been exposed to. 
________________________________________ V. PRIOR INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF CITI POLICY Citi has previously accepted and resolved a dispute I filed with XXXX well beyond the 60-day window, confirming that Citi does XXXX in practice, exercise discretion when circumstances warrant. 
Citi has not explained why discretion is appropriate in one case but categorically denied in another involving allegedly unlawful conduct. 
________________________________________ VI. FORMAL REQUEST Accordingly, I respectfully request that Citi : XXXX. Reopen the dispute and conduct a substantive investigation XXXX Review whether the XXXX XXXX charge included amounts not authorized by law XXXX. Consider the absence of required police-order tow documentation XXXX. Issue a credit for {$4000.00}, or XXXX. Provide a written statement confirming that Citi declines to investigate an allegedly illegal transaction, for CFPB review ________________________________________ RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Nothing in this letter waives any rights or remedies. I expressly reserve the right to pursue relief against the merchant and any responsible parties and to supplement the CFPB record. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

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