Consumer complaint received 2025-06-24 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:
On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a set of appliancesincluding a XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX using my Citi credit card ( ending in XXXX ). The full charge of {$19000.00} was posted to my account under XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

The cooktop was delivered on XX/XX/year>, and during installation, a subcontracted gas technician sent by the merchant dropped a metal object on the unit, leaving a visible scratch on the stainless steel face. I contacted the merchant the same day to report the damage. 

Despite multiple follow-ups, the merchant refused to take responsibility, stating only that the product was delivered as agreed. No offer of repair, replacement, or refund was made. I then filed a formal dispute with Citi. 

Citi initially issued a conditional credit, but later reversed it after receiving what they described as a merchant response. I asked Citi on multiple occasions to provide a copy of that response or at least describe the supporting documentation provided by the merchant. I received no documentationonly the blanket statement that services were rendered as described. 

That phrase is meaningless in this context. The dispute was not about whether the product was delivered, but about the condition of the product at delivery, which was damaged by the merchants own installer. The merchant never contested the damage, never responded to my documentation, and offered no inspection or follow-up. Yet Citi treated this vague denial as sufficient grounds to close the dispute in the merchants favor. 

Whats even more troubling is that when I submitted surveillance video clips and photos of the damage, Citi refused to accept them, stating that their system could not process the file types ( XXXX and XXXX ). I asked how to submit acceptable evidence, and no alternative was provided. Citi made a decision without reviewing the central visual evidence, then provided no explanation as to what documentation they relied on from the merchant to justify their decision. 

This is not only unreasonableit undermines the very foundation of the dispute process. I have : A detailed timeline of events. 

A purchase confirmation email showing the cooktops price and brand. 

Video and photo evidence showing the technician and the moment he bent to retrieve a dropped tool. 

A statement from a technician confirming the units front panel can not be repaired and would require full replacement. 

Meanwhile, the only documentation Citi appears to have relied on is a one-line claim by the merchant that the services were rendered. Thats not evidence. Thats a generic statement used to deny responsibility. 

I am asking the CFPB to review how Citi handled this dispute, specifically : Why they closed the case without reviewing the cardholders evidence ; What specific documentation was submitted by the merchant and used to support the denial ; And why Citi is allowed to resolve disputes in favor of merchants without transparency, while refusing to accept or even view clear documentation from their own customer. 

This is not how fair resolution should work. I have fulfilled every requirement and acted in good faith. I am asking that the dispute be reopened, the decision reversed, or Citi be held accountable for failing to apply its purchase protection policies appropriately.

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 non-monetary relief