Consumer complaint received 2026-01-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Delay in processing application
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding the handling of my Macys credit card application, administered by Citibank, which involved an approval letter that did not result in an account or card being issued, inconsistent and contradictory explanations regarding credit review, ineffective and unprofessional supervisory handling, and misleading correspondence that implies the existence of an account that does not exist. 

In XX/XX/year>, while shopping on the Macys website, I received a message indicating I was likely approved or prequalified and could save approximately XXXX % by applying for a Macys credit card. I submitted an online application. I initially received a response stating that my application required additional review and was not immediately approved. 

A few days later, I received a letter dated XX/XX/year>, reference number XXXX, stating : Welcome. You have been approved for a Macys credit card account. Your card will arrive in the next several days. The letter further stated that while I was approved for the Macys store card, I was not approved for the Macys American Express card. Based on this written approval, I reasonably believed my Macys store card account had been fully reviewed and opened. 

After waiting several weeks without receiving a card or any account information, I contacted customer service using the number listed on the approval letter. Over multiple calls, I was repeatedly transferred between departments, including replacement card departments, and representatives were unable to locate any active account associated with my approval. I spent several hours attempting to resolve this issue. 

During XXXX call, I was transferred to a U.S.-based representative who advised that the issue would need to be escalated to a supervisor and that I would receive a return call. No return call occurred. 

Because I continued to receive no resolution, I went to a Macys store in person in approximately XX/XX/year>. A store associate contacted Macys credit card customer service by phone on my behalf, and I remained present during the call. We spent approximately XXXX minutes being transferred between agents. Ultimately, a final agent stated that she was processing something on her end and advised that a letter would be generated and mailed to my home address. No explanation was provided regarding what action was being taken. 

On XX/XX/year>, I received a letter stating : Thank you for your recent interest in prequalification. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you an offer for the Macys American Express card at this time. I understand that Macys evaluates applicants for both the Macys store card and the Macys American Express card as part of a single application process. However, the wording of this letter is misleading, as it addresses only the XXXX XXXX product and is written in a manner that implies I already have a Macys store card account. At no point was I notified that my previously approved Macys store card was rescinded, invalidated, or closed. 

Subsequently, I contacted a different customer service number and was advised by a representative that Macys had experienced a large issue involving approval letters being sent based on soft credit pulls and that the approvals were incorrect. I advised that this explanation did not apply to my situation, as I was not approved at the time of any soft-pull prequalification. My application was placed into further review, and I received a formal approval letter days later. 

When I sought clarification, I was transferred to a supervisor who identified herself as XXXX. During this conversation, she initially acknowledged the issue involving approvals tied to soft credit pulls and stated that error letters were sent on XX/XX/year>. As the discussion continued and I questioned how approval letters could be generated from soft credit pulls without immediate notification to affected consumers, she reversed her statement and asserted that she had meant hard credit pulls, not soft pulls, and that letters were created in error. This inconsistency was never explained. 

The XXXX insisted that my approval letter was accidental and should not have been sent, despite being unable to explain why my applicationreviewed after an initial holdfell into that category. I also advised that I never received an error letter explicitly stating that my approval was issued in error. Instead, I received correspondence denying approval and using language that implies an existing account, which is inaccurate. 

Throughout this interaction, the XXXX tone was dismissive and unprofessional. She refused to provide a last name or operator/identification number and stated that everybody knows XXXX, preventing meaningful escalation. The phone numbers involved in these interactions included XXXX and XXXX.

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