Consumer complaint received 2025-12-29 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this feedback to formally state that Citibanks response does not resolve my complaint, does not rebut my identity theft claim, and does not meet the standard of a reasonable investigation. I am also clearly stating that this submission is a new case and a rebuttal, not a duplicate complaint. My previous case number XXXX was closed, and I am exercising my right to respond to the companys explanation because the matter remains unresolved. 

This Is Not a Duplicate Case This submission is not a duplicate of any prior complaint. It is a rebuttal to Citibanks most recent response, which was issued after my prior case was closed. The CFPB process allows consumers to respond when a companys explanation is insufficient, inaccurate, or fails to address the core dispute. Blocking rebuttals by labeling them as duplicate deprives consumers of due process and prevents meaningful resolution. 

I Filed an FTC Identity Theft Report I have filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, declaring under penalty of law that I did not open, authorize, or use the XXXX Depot/Citibank account referenced in the companys response. I do not own this account. Once an FTC Identity Theft Report is submitted, continued reporting requires clear, original proof of authorization, not assumptions or internal billing records. 

Citibanks Response Does Not Prove Account Ownership Citibank states that its investigation determined the account is valid based on three assertions : That the information reviewed did not support fraud That I allegedly had knowledge of the debt That a payment was allegedly remitted from a valid account None of these assertions proves that I opened or authorized the account. 

Knowledge of a Debt Does Not Equal Authorization Knowledge of a debtespecially after it appears on a credit report or collection noticedoes not prove ownership. Identity theft victims often become aware of fraudulent accounts only after adverse reporting occurs. Awareness does not create liability and does not establish that I applied for or consented to the account.

Alleged Payment Does Not Establish Ownership Citibank asserts that a payment was made from a valid account. Even if true, this does not prove authorization. Payments can be made under duress, confusion, mitigation efforts, or by third parties. A payment does not replace the need for proof of origination, such as a signed application, verified identity documentation, or authenticated account-opening records. 

Billing Statements Are Not Proof of Authorization The documents attached by Citibank consist primarily of billing statements and internal summaries. These documents only reflect what Citibank believes occurred after the account existed. They do not show : A signed application A contract bearing my consent Identity verification used at origination Device, IP, or KYC data tying me to the account opening Proof I received or benefited from the credit Without these elements, Citibank has not met its burden to show the account is mine.

Failure to Properly Address Identity Theft Citibank acknowledges my fraud claim but dismisses it without providing the documentation necessary to overcome an FTC Identity Theft Report. This is not a reasonable investigation. When identity theft is asserted, the focus must be on how the account was opened, not on whether charges later appeared accurate in their system.

Continued Reporting Causes Ongoing Harm Despite my identity theft report and disputes, Citibank continues to : Report the account as valid Maintain adverse credit information Threaten continued negative reporting if payments are not made This causes ongoing financial and reputational harm and places the burden of fraud on the victim rather than the party best positioned to prevent it. 

Procedural Harm From Closed Case and Blocked Rebuttal My prior CFPB case was closed, yet the underlying dispute was not resolved. When I attempt to respond, the system repeatedly flags my submissions as duplicates. This creates a procedural dead end where : The company issues a final explanation The consumer is denied the opportunity to rebut Inaccurate reporting continues unchallenged This is fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with the CFPBs consumer-protection mission. 

What a Proper Resolution Requires A fair and lawful resolution requires the following actions : Permanent deletion of the Home Depot/Citibank account from all credit reports Blocking of the tradeline due to identity theft Written confirmation of zero liability Cessation of all reporting and collection activity Prevention of reinsertion unless original proof of authorization is produced Acknowledgment that this submission is a rebuttal, not a duplicate Correction of my credit profile to reflect accurate information Anything less leaves the dispute unresolved and continues to penalize an identity theft victim.

Conclusion I did not open, authorize, or use this account. I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report. Citibank has not produced original proof of authorization and has relied instead on assumptions, internal records, and billing statements that do not establish ownership. My prior CFPB case ( XXXX ) was closed without resolving the dispute, and this submission is a valid rebuttalnot a duplicate. 

I respectfully request that this feedback be considered and that the matter be resolved through permanent deletion and blocking of the fraudulent account, with written confirmation that I bear no responsibility.

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