Consumer complaint received 2025-10-29 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting this formal complaint against Citibank, N.A ( Citi card ) for its mishandling of a billing dispute I filed for charges from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on my Citi credit card account, as well as a duplicate reversal of a credited charge. Citi failed to follow procedures required under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z, resulting in unfair treatment, financial harm, and emotional distress. 

Background : Under my XXXX membership agreement, I was guaranteed 14 complimentary XXXX Nights in deluxe accommodations ( including ocean view or oceanfront ), a key benefit that influenced my decision to purchase. In XX/XX/XXXX, when I attempted to redeem these benefitsdespite confirmed availability of the contracted room typesXXXX refused to honor the agreement and limited me to XXXX XXXX rooms. This contradicted the terms presented during the sales process and documented in my agreement. Consequently, I was forced to pay {$3400.00} out of pocket for accommodations that should have been included. 

XXXX had 90 days to resolve the issue but failed to do so, constituting a material breach of contract, prompting me to file a dispute with Citi. 

Initial Dispute : On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a dispute with Citi requesting a refund for my XXXX deposit and monthly payments due to breach of contract. The disputed charges included an initial {$4400.00} payment through XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, followed by monthly payments from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX of {$820.00} through XXXX XXXX, totaling {$9400.00}. Citi representatives informed me that separate disputes were unnecessary and that I would be contacted by an investigator before submitting documentation. However, I was never contacted. On XX/XX/XXXX, Citi closed my dispute without reviewing any documentation or allowing me to submit supporting evidence. 

Reopening and Denial : On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested that the case be reopened and submitted all supporting evidence, including my contract, correspondence, and receipts. On XX/XX/XXXX, Citi denied my claim, stating I was responsible because the merchant is not willing to issue credit. This shows that Citi relied solely on the merchants refusal rather than conducting an independent investigation, as required under the FCBA. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I called to request that my dispute be reopened and reinvestigated in compliance with the FCBA. I received no acknowledgement or follow-up for several weeks. 

Escalation and Supervisor Misconduct : On XX/XX/XXXX, I escalated my billing dispute to a supervisor. Although I was unable to obtain the supervisors name, her conduct was unprofessionalshe was rude, dismissive, and ultimately terminated the call without resolution. During the conversation, she informed me that my dispute would remain closed and that I was not allowed to reopen it. I also requested a copy of Citibanks dispute-handling procedures and an explanation of how my investigation had been conducted ; both requests were denied. 

After the call, I immediately contacted Citibank again. Another representative agreed to reopen the dispute and instructed me to email the Dispute Department, which I promptly did. Shortly thereafter, I received a letter from Citis Dispute Department dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating : We may be able to assist you if you provide documentation showing that this merchant agreed to credit your account. If you are unable to provide this, you would need to seek other means to obtain credit. In response, I clarified that the merchants agreement to issue a credit was not the determining factor in this case. The issue arose from the merchants misrepresentation of goods and repeated failure to honor the contractual terms of my membership agreement. The obligation for a refund is clearly established in the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) contract, which I had already provided in prior correspondence and resubmitted again to ensure proper review. After nearly four months of consistent communication with Citibankthrough both telephone and emailadvocating for a fair and accurate review of my case, the dispute was ultimately resolved in my favor, and a permanent credit was issued on XX/XX/XXXX. 

While I appreciate that the primary dispute was eventually resolved in my favor, the manner in which Citibank handled the processincluding repeated denials without adequate review, refusal to provide procedural documentation, and the supervisors unprofessional behaviordemonstrates serious procedural deficiencies and potential violations of my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z. 
Although the main dispute has been closed, Citibank has still not properly addressed the related monthly payments that were part of my original claim, leaving significant aspects of the matter unresolved. Furthermore, following this resolution, new issues emerged regarding Citibanks handling of subsequent account activity, including a duplicate reversal of the same charge and an erroneous audit, which further compounded the harm caused by the banks mishandling of my case. 

Duplicate Reversal and Accounting Errors : On XX/XX/XXXX, prior to the resolution of my billing dispute, I discovered that Citibank had posted a duplicate reversal of the same {$4400.00} transaction. Citibank initially reversed the charge on XX/XX/XXXX, and then erroneously applied a second reversal on XX/XX/XXXX, effectively re-billing the same amount. This duplicate reversal inflated my account balance to over {$14000.00}, increased my debt-to-credit ratio, and negatively impacted my credit score.

Upon identifying the error, I contacted Citibank to request correction. During these communications, I encountered repeated mishandling and inconsistent explanations from multiple representatives. Supervisor XXXX was dismissive and unprofessional, initially denying any error without reviewing the account postings. Only after I insisted that he examine my statements and the notes from prior supervisors did he acknowledge the mistake. This caused unnecessary stress, financial uncertainty, and significant time lost attempting to correct errors created by Citibank. 

Citibank subsequently initiated an internal audit to address the duplicate charge ; however, the audit was conducted improperly. It failed to include the XX/XX/XXXX account statementthe very document that clearly showed the duplicate transaction. The omission of this critical evidence rendered the audit incomplete and misleading. Furthermore, Citibanks audit disregarded that my original dispute had already been resolved in my favor, with a permanent credit issued on XX/XX/XXXX. 
By failing to review the complete account record and ignoring the documentation I provided, Citibank effectively reopened a matter that had already been lawfully settled under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ).

Despite my repeated efforts to supply detailed evidence demonstrating the audits inaccuracy, Citibank issued the following letter : We have reviewed the information concerning this dispute. Unfortunately, we are unable to resolve this dispute in your favor since we have not received a valid credit slip. Please contact the merchant to pursue this matter further. We now consider this investigation complete. 

This letter was issued in response to Citibanks own duplicate posting errornot a merchant-related dispute. Upon receipt, I immediately contacted Citibank and requested to speak with a supervisor. I was connected with Supervisor XXXX, who was similarly dismissive. She incorrectly asserted that the duplicate charge originated from the merchant and instructed me to contact the merchant directly because I have done business with them in the past. 

I repeatedly clarified that this was an internal Citibank posting error, not a merchant transaction, and that my original dispute had already been resolved in my favor. I also explained that if a merchant had indeed processed a second reversal, such action would have been unauthorized and therefore fraudulent. Despite this, Supervisor XXXX refused to review my documentation, escalate the issue, or correct the error. When I continued to request that the matter be addressed properly, she abruptly terminated the call without resolution or further instruction. 

XXXX conduct was unprofessional and constituted a direct violation of my rights under the FCBA and Regulation Z, which require creditors to investigate billing disputes promptly, fairly, and in good faith. Her refusal to review account records, misrepresentation of the errors source, and premature termination of the call demonstrate noncompliance with required dispute-handling procedures and highlight Citibanks systemic mishandling of this matter. 

Despite my repeated requests and submission of supporting evidence, Citibank has failed to correct the duplicate reversal, acknowledge the flawed audit, or restore the accurate balance to my account. As of this filing, the duplicate reversal remains unresolved. Citibanks actionsand repeated failure to actconstitute ongoing mishandling of my account and continued violations of my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z.

Impact and Violations : 1. Premature denial without opportunity to submit supporting evidence 2. Improper reliance on merchant cooperation rather than an independent investigation 3. Supervisor misconductrefusal to escalate, unprofessional behavior, abrupt termination of calls 4. Duplicate reversal/accounting errors causing inflated balances and credit score harm 5. Financial and reputational damage due to Citis mishandling, misinformation, and delays Legal Basis : Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ), creditors are required to : -Conduct a reasonable, independent investigation of all billing disputes. 
-Provide consumers a fair opportunity to present evidence. 
-Refrain from holding consumers liable when a merchant has breached a contract or misrepresented goods or services. 

Citibank failed to comply with these obligations by ignoring documentation, relying improperly on the merchants position, mishandling account adjustments, and subjecting me to unprofessional and inconsistent communication.

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