Consumer complaint received 2020-08-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Citicard was grossly negligent and failed to protect my account against fraud, and then was negligent in properly investigating and ruling on 1 of 2 identical fraudulent credit card charges from the same vendor, on the same day, for the same amount. They refunded 1 of the 2 charges,  but ruled " in favor of the merchant '' for the other. 

On my XX/XX/XXXX credit card statement for the period ending XX/XX/XXXX, there are XXXX identical charges with the transaction date and posting date of XX/XX/XXXX as follows : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX TX {$60.00} XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX {$60.00} This represents a total of {$120.00} in unauthorized charges on the same day from the same vendor. 

I have never made or authorized a purchase at this company, are unfamiliar with them, and have never visited any of their locations. 

On approx. XX/XX/XXXX I received the billing statement with these charges, and contacted Citicard by phone to advise them of this fraudulent, unauthorized activity. I provided details as stated here that the vendor was completely unknown to me and I had never visited them and it was impossible for there to be a valid transaction of any amount. Citicard advised me that the charges showed the " card was present '' at the time of purchase, and I advised them that it has never left my possession at my home in XXXX, Arizona where I was avoiding travel and local purchasing during the COVID19 stay at home orders.

I made three attempts by phone to Citicard to try to report and resolve these issues, and it was a comedy of errors - the agents barely understood their jobs, and no credit was issued. Eventually on my 3rd call I was transferred to a manager who was able to record my disputes apparently effectively. 

On my XXXX statement, I noticed two credits for these disputes, however their descriptions were surprisingly different : XX/XX/XXXX CONDITIONAL CREDIT FOR DISPUTED ITEM XXXX XX/XX/XXXX CREDIT FOR DISPUTED ITEM XXXX I then received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from Citi with the headline " ACTION REQUIRED - PLEASE PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW ''. The letter advises that more information is needed ( yet asks the same questions I answer in detail already via telephone ). I completed and signed the form and checked the box indicating " This transaction wasn't made by me or anyone allowed to use this account ''. The letter advises that the completed letter by scanned and emailed or faxed to " XXXX '' by XX/XX/XXXX. I emailed the scanned document to this address on XX/XX/XXXX, and also faxed it to the provided fax number of XXXX. 

XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received an email notification from Citicard that my dispute of {$60.00} has been ruled in favor of the merchant, and a charge of {$60.00} has been charged back to my credit card account. 

I immediately called Citicard about this outrageous and invalid ruling. Their telephone system 's interactive voice response system is designed to prevent customers from reaching a live agent without great difficulty and effort. It frequently drops calls. Today I initially spoke with Citicard employee " XXXX '' and advised I required a supervisor. I was transferred to " XXXX '', a fraud department supervisor, who could not help. She transferred me to the Security Operations Department where I spoke to " XXXX ''. XXXX provided a confusing and elaborate story about internal Citi processing steps and explained that one of the disputes was considered a " regular '' dispute and the other was considered a " Fraud '' dispute, but did not know why especially since they occurred on the identical day, for identical amounts, from the identical merchant. 

XXXX advised I needed to speak to a supervisor in the " Billing Support '' team and was transferred again to " XXXX '', who then transferred me to a supervisor identifying himself as " XXXX ''. A few moments into the call there were a series of loud clicking noises, and then XXXX began to repeat " are you there '' & " can you hear me ''. I continued to speak but he either could not hear, or feigned that he could not and the call disconnected. I called back and spoke to " XXXX ''. 

I advised XXXX of the situation, and that ruling in the favor of the merchant was invalid, the charges were fraudulent, and that the investigation was mishandled. XXXX spoke to another individual who confusingly, and incorrectly disagreed that I had been charged {$60.00}, and this was only the reversal of a duplicate extra temporary credit that I am not out {$120.00}. I explained that the math is incorrect and walked him through each transaction as follows : XX/XX/XXXX Fraudulent charge of {$60.00} [ charge ] XX/XX/XXXX Fraudulent charge of {$60.00} [ charge ] XX/XX/XXXX CONDITIONAL CREDIT FOR DISPUTED ITEM XXXX [ credit ] XX/XX/XXXX CREDIT FOR DISPUTED ITEM XXXX [ credit ] XX/XX/XXXX Notice of ruling in favor of merchant XXXX [ charge ] The sum of these transactions is {$60.00}, charged against my credit card account. The math is very easy : 3 charges of {$60.00} and 2 credits of {$60.00}. Citcard has kept {$60.00} of fraudulent charges and allowed the merchant to keep the fraudulently acquired funds. 

I advised the agent that after all of the effort I have made to resolve this issue that they should have prevented from happening, I required an escalation to management and a resolution of this error today. There were unable and unwilling to do so to my satisfaction. 

Today I contacted the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Texas and advised them of the situation, speaking at length to their manager " XXXX ''. they have two locations in XXXX, TX owned by the same franchisee. The manager states that they are unaware of any dispute, have not received any notification from their merchant service provider or Citicard that these disputes even exist. They also advised that since they do not have a credit card " chip '' terminal, and can only swipe cards, they automatically lose any dispute they contest. 

Therefore, I believe Citicard did not follow procedures to investigate both disputes, notify the merchant, yet rules in favor of the merchant even though the merchant filed no response to the disputes. 

Therefore, Citicard is in fact negligent in failing to detect the fraudulent activity and protecting me, and further grossly negligent in failing to responsibly handle the dispute resolution process. Their finding in favor of the merchant is IMPROPER, INVALID, and is likely to violate Federal Law regarding credit card dispute resolution. 

I advised Citi 's agent XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX that I require permanent closure of this Citicard account, blocking all future charges including recurring charges, and the account should be permanently closed and block and will not be reopened. I paid the full balance due less the {$60.00} invalid, fraudulent charge which I dispute against CITICARD/CITIGROUP, not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for their grossly negligent and deficient handling of this otherwise simply, routine issue. 

I demand Citicard/Citigroup be forced to refund the invalid {$60.00} in charges, and be prevented from any negative consumer credit reporting. If they do report any adverse credit information to any credit bureau, they be forced to completely remove the false, negative information. Further, Citigroup should be fined for failing to follow reasonable steps to protect consumers from fraud, and to remedy these issues when timely provided detailed and accurate proof. The CFPB should investigate the likely pattern of behavior any reasonable person would infer from Citi 's handling of this simple consumer protection issue, and if not authorized by Congress to perform this investigation, refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury and/or Congress

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