Consumer complaint received 2026-03-24 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: SC

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I was charged {$2700.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by Citi ( Case ID XXXX ) for XXXX pieces of furniture I picked up the same day. Upon delivery, I discovered the merchandise had cracked legs, a structural manufacturing defect that was not disclosed at the time of sale and renders the furniture unsafe for normal use. I immediately attempted to contact the merchant to report the defects and seek a remedy. I placed XXXX documented phone calls to XXXX XXXX XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Every call went unanswered. I subsequently learned that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the parent company of XXXX XXXX XXXX, had filed for XXXX XXXX XXXX protection on XX/XX/XXXX ( Case No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX All XXXX XXXX XXXX retail locations have permanently closed. The company 's own published FAQ confirms that stores are permanently closing and that refunds are not being offered. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a chargeback dispute with Citi under reason code " Goods / services not as expected. '' Citi initially issued a conditional credit of {$2700.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, Citi reversed the conditional credit and denied my dispute, stating only that " documentation or facts provided do not support the billing error dispute claim '' and directing me to " contact the merchant directly. '' This denial is improper for the following reasons : 1. Citi 's instruction to contact the merchant is not a viable remedy. The merchant has permanently closed all locations and is in active federal bankruptcy proceedings. There is no customer service, no open store, and no functioning contact channel. I documented XXXX unanswered calls proving this. 2. XXXXXXXX XXXX own dispute rules do not require a cardholder to return defective merchandise when return is physically impossible. Citi 's denial appears to apply a return-and-refund standard that can not be met through no fault of the cardholder. 3. My dispute documentation included the original receipt showing a XXXX limited warranty on each item, a XXXX contact attempt log, photographs of the defective merchandise, the merchant 's own closure notice, and the active bankruptcy case documentation. Citi 's denial letter contains no specific findings addressing any of this evidence and appears to reflect a form denial rather than substantive review. 4. The receipt expli citly states a 1-year limited warranty on each of the XXXX purchased items. That warranty was a material representation made at point of sale. The merchant 's insolvency has rendered the warranty unenforceable, leaving me with defective goods, an unenforceable warranty, and no avenue for remedy. I am requesting that the CFPB investigate Citibank 's handling of this dispute and direct Citibank to conduct a substantive review of the documentation I provided and to honor the chargeback of {$2700.00} for defective merchandise received from an insolvent merchant

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