Consumer complaint received 2025-07-09 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 : Citi Cardmember Services Subject : Formal Notice of Mishandled Dispute and Intent to Escalate Account Ending in XXXX CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Good afternoon, This is a formal objection to Citis handling of the {$4000.00} disputed charge concerning a XXXX XXXX  purchased from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX on XX/XX/year>, using my Citi credit card ending in XXXX. 

Citis response that it can not force the merchant to issue a refund is not the issue. I did not request that Citi compel a refund. I requested that Citi fulfill its obligation to evaluate the dispute based on the evidence. Instead, Citi accepted a conclusory statement from the merchant, rejected all photographic and video documentation from my side due to internal system limitations, and failed to investigate the facts that clearly establish product damage caused by the merchants subcontractor.

XXXX Timeline of Events XX/XX/year> : I charged {$19000.00} to my Citi card for a set of appliances, including a {$4000.00} XXXX XXXX. 

XX/XX/year> : The cooktop was delivered. The merchants in-house installers completed a basic install. The gas connection was left pending. 

XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXXXXXX subcontracted gas technician arrived to complete the XXXX  conversion. During that visit, he dropped a metal object on the front of the cooktop, leaving a visible and permanent scratch on the stainless steel face.

I contacted the merchant immediately, and followed up multiple times. They refused to acknowledge or address the damage. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Citi mishandled this case in several ways : You rejected critical video and photographic evidence of the damage, citing system limitations.

You offered no clear method for alternative submission.

You accepted the merchants generic one-line statement without validating its timeline or completeness.

You failed to recognize that the damage occurred during the subcontractors visit, not during the original install.

You accepted pre-damage photos as final proof, then closed the case without a full review.

You failed to meet the basic investigatory standards required under Regulation Z of the Fair Credit Billing Act. 

XXXX. Merchants False Claims and Misrepresentations The merchant provided several false and misleading statements, which Citi adopted without question : Customer blamed our installers. False. The damage was caused by the merchants subcontracted gas technician, not their in-house team.

Photos show no damage. Of course not. The damage occurred after those photos were taken. Citi failed to ask when they were taken or verify their relevance.

Customer initiated a chargeback hoping it would fly. This is a baseless accusation. I submitted a chargeback after exhausting all options with the merchant. Their own subcontractor caused the damage. The merchant refused to address it.

We did not cause the damage. That statement is legally meaningless. The subcontractor who caused the damage was sent by the merchant. The merchant is responsible for the actions of its agents and subcontractors. 

XXXX. XXXX One-Sided Evidence Review Citi disclosed limited merchant documentation consisting of an invoice, a quote, an installation report, and undated pre-damage photos. None of these materials addressed the second technician visit. None rebutted my claims. None disprove the damage that is plainly visible in the photos and video I attempted to submit. Citi refused to accept or review the visual evidence that shows the subcontractor retrieving the object he dropped.

Citi closed this dispute with XXXX transparency and without conducting a good faith review. 

XXXX Credit Reporting I have been notified that this unresolved charge may be reported to the credit bureaus. Reporting a disputed charge that is actively under investigation by the CFPB is entirely inappropriate.

If Citi proceeds with credit reporting : I will file disputes with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. 

I will submit an amended complaint to the CFPB for premature and improper credit reporting. 

I will explore all remedies available under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other consumer protection statutes. 

XXXX. Demands I am demanding the following immediate actions : Reopen this dispute and provide a method to submit photo and video evidence. 

Evaluate the full timeline, including the XX/XX/year> subcontractor visit. 

Explain why Citi accepted incomplete merchant statements while refusing to review material evidence.

Confirm in writing that no credit reporting will occur until the dispute is fully and properly resolved.

This is not a good-faith review, nor is it in compliance with federal protections afforded to consumers. Citis conduct has fallen below reasonable standards of fair dispute resolution. I expect immediate corrective action.

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