Consumer complaint received 2017-08-31 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is a second follow-on complaint XXXX third complaint total ) following up on what was originally CFPB Case # XXXX ( the first follow-on complaint was submitted as CFPB Case # XXXX ). A brief recap of facts and prior complaints : 1. On or about early XXXX XXXX, my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX card was overpaid. This was done to extend charging ability in view of large upcoming purchases. 
2. Shortly thereafter, my card was frozen by Department XXXX XXXX Bank ( the card issuer, hereinafter " DSNB '' ) and became unusable. Customer service indicated this was due to an " investigation. '' No timetable was given. The investigation was started in XXXX. 
3. By XXXX, the card was still frozen and unusable for charging. As such, on or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I sent a written request via XXXX Certified Mail with Return Receipt indicating my desire to obtain a credit balance refund in accord with 12 CFR 1026.11 ( a ). 
4. Upon expiration of the time limit of seven ( 7 )  business days afforded by 12 CFR 1026.11 ( a ) ( 2 ), on or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I filed CFPB Case # XXXX requesting the refund that was overdue by federal law. 
5. XXXX replied to CFPB Case # XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, indicating that " [ XXXX ] XXXX [ XXXX ] processed your request for credit balance refund checks totaling {$150000.00}, '' the full overpayment on the account. I learned later that this was a lie. 
6. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a line item was added to my online statement for my credit card indicating a credit balance refund of {$80000.00}. My paper statement was issued on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, indicating a credit balance remaining on the account of {$78000.00}. 
7. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a line item was added to my online statement for my credit card indicating a credit balance refund of {$78000.00}. Interestingly, this entry was backdated to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, despite the fact that the statement which issued on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, did not include this entry. 
8. As a preemptive measure, I filed CFPB Case # XXXX to maintain tracking of the refund issuance, as it appeared to me that the statements filed by XXXX in response to the prior-filed CFPB case indicating a refund on XXXX XXXX were false ( as noted above in fact # 5, XXXX 's prior response indicated that a refund had been issued on XXXX XXXX, but the totality of the refund did not even show up on my account until XXXX XXXX ). As previously noted, XXXX was far outside the seven ( 7 )  business day requirement by the time it responded to the first CFPB complaint on XXXX XXXX. 
9. On or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I received a check for {$78000.00}. As both refund checks were purportedly issued on the same day, it seemed odd to me that I had not received the {$80000.00} check, which, according to the chronology of events, had actually issued first. 
10. In XXXX, I contacted customer service by calling the phone number on the back of my credit card. I requested status of the refund check that I had been promised was already sent. I was told by customer service that " additional review '' was required and also that said review had been completed on XXXX XXXX, when the check was mailed. I was also informed that typical mailing procedure is 7-10 business days -- which was to expire on XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX responded to CFPB Case # XXXX indicating the same message that I was told by customer service ( review completed XXXX XXXX ). 
11. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, having still received no refund check, I called the phone number on the back of my card and was told by customer service that " additional review '' was required and that I would have to wait ANOTHER two weeks before anything would happen. 
12. As of today, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I have not received the check that I have now been promised I would receive at least twice, and my credit card is still frozen from usage. 

It is worth specifically noting that this account has been " under review '' since XXXX. As such, it is asinine and insulting for XXXX to assert that any additional review will uncover any information that XXXX has not already had many multitudes of opportunities to review. Additionally, XXXX has lied in its response to me through this forum ( CFPB ) at least twice, indicating once that the refund was processed on XXXX XXXX and then again that it was processed on XXXX XXXX. Both of these statements have proved to be false, as we are now fast-approaching XXXX, and I am still due {$80000.00} from XXXX. Finally, it is worth noting that XXXX has blatantly ignored its obligations under federal law to refund the amounts within seven ( 7 ) business days of receipt. The Certified Mail Return Receipt indicates that XXXX received the written request for credit balance refund on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX 's consistent assertions that amounts are " under review '' is a blatant violation of the law. The Code of Federal Regulations provides no exception to its requirement of seven ( 7 ) business day refund. As such, the explanations regarding the amounts being " under review '' do not absolve DSNB of its legal obligations. And, again, it is worth reiterating here -- XXXX has already had 4+ months of " review '' on this account! 

At this point, it does n't appear that XXXX intends to comply with federal law or to be truthful to the consumer via this forum. XXXX is in serious risk of legal damages, and it has done virtually nothing to mitigate its responsibility by responding to me, the consumer, in a timely manner. It has repeatedly lied to me in official correspondence and in its representations via oral communication. Requests for follow-up have been ignored entirely. My only recourse to obtain status has been to file CFPB complaints.

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