Consumer complaint received 2025-10-25 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: MI

Complaint narrative:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU COMPLAINT Complaint Type : Credit card dispute process / Chargeback reversal Financial Institution : Citibank Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Merchant : XXXX  Amount in Dispute : {$3700.00} COMPLAINT SUMMARY Citibank reversed my chargeback claim with a generic form letter that does not address any of the substantial evidence I provided documenting fraud and material misrepresentation. The bank 's decision relies solely on the merchant 's assertion that " the services or merchandise were provided '' without explaining how this addresses my documented claim of fraudulent concealment of defects in a nearly {$5000.00} XXXX rental property. 

CITIBANK 'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A FAIR INVESTIGATION I filed a chargeback dispute on XX/XX/year> for a {$3700.00} XXXX reservation where the host deliberately concealed a known HVAC defect. Before booking this nearly {$5000.00} XXXX  property, I specifically asked the host about air conditioning functionality given Tennessee 's extreme summer heat ( XXXX degrees and above ) and the needs of my family including vulnerable members. The host provided false assurances while knowingly concealing that the system could not operate below XXXX degrees without malfunctioning. For a premium-priced XXXX rental, functional climate control is a basic expectation, not an amenity. 

Evidence I submitted to Citibank included pre-booking correspondence proving I specifically asked about AC functionality, host communications showing false assurances about the AC system 's capabilities, a XXXX unauthorized legal waiver the host sent post-booking attempting to disclaim responsibility for known defects, and XXXX support transcripts demonstrating their refusal to address the fraud. Under XXXX 's XXXX XXXX XXXX, hosts are required to disclose all material limitations and defects in their listings before booking. The host 's failure to disclose the AC limitation in the listing, combined with providing false assurances when directly asked, constitutes a clear violation of these terms and fraudulent misrepresentation to secure payment. 

Citibank 's response stated : " The documentation or facts provided do not support the billing error dispute claim. If you'd like to pursue this matter further, please contact the merchant directly. '' This response fails to identify which documents were reviewed, explain what evidence was deemed insufficient or why, address how the merchant refuted my specific claims of fraudulent concealment, distinguish between " services provided '' and " services as represented, '' or provide any basis for the decision beyond a generic statement. 

The bank appears to have accepted the merchant 's assertion that " the services or merchandise were provided '' without any analysis of whether those services matched what was promised and paid for. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, I am entitled to dispute charges for services not provided as agreed and for misrepresentation. When paying nearly {$5000.00} for a luxury rental property, I am entitled to receive what was explicitly promised. A deliberately concealed defect that prevented the property from meeting basic comfort standards is not the service I purchased, regardless of whether I physically occupied the space. 

PATTERN OF INADEQUATE REVIEW This appears to be a systemic issue with Citibank 's chargeback process. The decision contains no case-specific information and reads as a template response. Given the detailed evidence of fraud I provided, a fair investigation would require reviewing the pre-booking communications showing I specifically asked about the AC, explaining how the host 's false assurances about a material feature don't constitute misrepresentation, addressing why the host 's post-complaint listing update proving prior knowledge doesn't demonstrate fraud, and analyzing whether deliberate concealment of defects in a premium-priced rental qualifies for chargeback protection. None of this analysis appears to have occurred. 

REQUESTED RESOLUTION I am requesting a full refund of {$3700.00} based on fraudulent misrepresentation under the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am also requesting a detailed written explanation from Citibank providing confirmation of which evidence was reviewed, specific explanation of what facts or documentation were insufficient, the merchant 's specific response to my fraud claims and how it refutes my evidence, the legal or policy basis for determining this doesn't qualify for chargeback protection, and information about the formal appeal process and timeline. Finally, I request a review of Citibank 's chargeback procedures to ensure consumers receive substantive investigation rather than form-letter denials. 

CONCLUSION I am not seeking to dispute subjective service quality. I documented that the host lied when directly asked about a material feature before booking a nearly {$5000.00} luxury property, then sent an unauthorized waiver to discourage complaints, then denied the problem existed. 

Citibank has an obligation under the Fair Credit Billing Act to conduct a meaningful investigation. A generic response that ignores specific evidence of fraud does not meet this standard. When a customer pays premium prices for luxury accommodations and receives something materially different due to deliberate concealment, chargeback protections should apply. I am requesting that Citibank either provide a detailed explanation of their decision or reverse the {$3700.00} charge based on the documented misrepresentation.

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 monetary relief