Consumer complaint received 2025-10-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding Citibank , N.A . concerning my XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card account ending in XXXX. 

The balance at the time of charge-off was {$1800.00}. Citibank first assigned the account to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), which offered XXXX written settlement options : XXXX ) Settle for {$920.00} with XXXX payment due by XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX ) Settle for {$1000.00} with XXXX payments of {$330.00} each ( expiring XX/XX/XXXX ) ; XXXX ) Settle for {$1100.00} with XXXX payments of {$180.00} each ( expiring XX/XX/XXXX ). 

XXXX required a phone call to confirm enrollment, and no written or accessible alternative was offered. I have a hearing-related XXXX and have repeatedly requested that all communication be conducted in writing only as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). I have been navigating a prolonged financial hardship, yet I have successfully resolved multiple delinquent accounts where creditors standard process was in written format or my written-communication accommodation was honored. In every instance where communication was accessible, I have reached a mutually agreeable settlement agreement or payment arrangement. Citibank and its collection vendors refusal to provide equivalent written communication options effectively denied me equal opportunity to participate in the settlement process, in violation of the ADAs accessibility requirements. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I made a payment of {$180.00}, matching the first installment of the six-payment settlement option. I have a screenshot confirming that payment. The next day, XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank reinstated the full balance of {$1800.00} and refused to honor the settlement. I can only assume since I had not confirmed my enrollment by XXXX requirement I could not meet due to my XXXX. 

Citibank next placed the account with XXXX XXXX XXXX. When I attempted to review available settlement options through ARSs online portal, I learned that I was required either to call ARS or input full banking information before being allowed to view any offers. This design effectively prevents consumers from evaluating settlement terms without surrendering private data or using inaccessible channels. I consider that process predatory and non-compliant with basic accessibility standards. 

XXXX later provided only about XXXX year of billing statements in response to my debt validation request and then returned the account to Citibank, as stated in its XX/XX/XXXX closure notice. That same day, Citibank sent me a packet of billing statements and acknowledged my XX/XX/XXXX payment, but those statements began only in XX/XX/XXXX, even though XXXX letter listed the account-opening date as XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a written follow-up letter to Citibank requesting XXXX missing XXXX statements and confirmation of the official charge-off and account-closure dates. This letter constitutes a continuing dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ). Instead of addressing my open dispute, Citibank reassigned the account again to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which sent a new collection notice dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

This pattern represents continued collection activity during an unresolved dispute and potential inaccurate credit furnishing while documentation remains incomplete. I have acted in good faith to resolve this matter. Citibank and its vendors have failed to honor a valid settlement, ignored accessibility requirements, and continued collection efforts during an active dispute. I am requesting CFPB assistance to secure compliance and a fair resolution.

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