Consumer complaint received 2026-05-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Fees or interest — Charged too much interest
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint against Citibank , N.A . / Citi XXXX XXXX regarding unfair and misleading payment allocation practices involving deferred-interest promotional balances on my My Best Buy Credit Card account. My account contained two separate deferred-interest promotional balances : 1. An 18-month deferred-interest promotional balance scheduled to expire on XX/XX/XXXX ; and 2. A 24-month deferred-interest promotional balance scheduled to expire on XX/XX/XXXX. The statement closing XX/XX/XXXX showed : * {$190.00} remaining on the XX/XX/XXXX expiring promotional balance ; * {$300.00} remaining on the XX/XX/XXXX promotional balance. Before the XX/XX/XXXX expiration date, I made sufficient payments specifically intended to satisfy the expiring promotional balance and avoid retroactive deferred-interest charges. The XX/XX/XXXX statement reflects : * XX/XX/XXXX XXXX payment of {$99.00} ; * XX/XX/XXXX online payment of {$160.00}. Total payments made before expiration : {$260.00}. This amount exceeded the remaining {$190.00} balance associated with the XX/XX/XXXX expiring promotional balance. Despite this, Citi allocated only {$29.00} toward the expiring promotional balance and instead applied approximately {$230.00} toward the separate promotional balance expiring in XX/XX/XXXX. As a direct result, Citi charged {$260.00} in retroactive deferred interest on XX/XX/XXXX. The core issue is that Citis online payment system does not provide consumers with a clear, transparent, or meaningful way to direct payments toward a specific promotional balance. The system simply allows consumers to make a payment without adequately warning that payments may be allocated in a way that triggers retroactive deferred-interest charges. This payment-allocation structure is misleading and creates substantial consumer harm because consumers reasonably expect that payments made before a promotional expiration date will first satisfy the balance closest to expiration. Instead, Citis system allocated my payments in a manner that caused avoidable deferred-interest charges despite timely payments being made. I believe these practices are unfair and potentially deceptive because : * consumers can not reasonably control or verify how payments will be allocated among promotional balances ; * the payment interface lacks sufficient transparency regarding allocation consequences; * consumers are exposed to large retroactive interest charges despite making timely payments ; * Citi financially benefits from the resulting deferred-interest charges. Under Regulation Z and 12 C.F.R. 1026.53, deferred-interest promotional balances nearing expiration receive special payment-allocation protections intended to prevent consumers from being trapped by retroactive interest charges. I contacted Citi customer service and spent approximately two hours attempting to resolve this issue. I escalated the matter through multiple representatives, supervisors, and a manager identified as XXXX. Citi representatives stated they could not reverse the charges because more than 60 days had passed and because their system allegedly could not process the correction. The issue was not caused by a missed payment or delinquency. I made sufficient timely payments before the promotional expiration date. The harm resulted from Citis payment-allocation conduct and system design. I have supporting documentation including statements, payment records, and recorded customer service calls.

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