Consumer complaint received 2025-11-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: KY

Complaint narrative:
All prior corrrespondence with CITI on this matter is herein incorporated by reference. In about XXXX, we tendered a payment instrument and Citibank received, accepted and processed a security/tender on our credit card account. Citibank accepted and processed it, then confirmed the account was satisfied/zeroed. We confirmed their acceptance and agreed that Citi had received full satisfaction and accord and we agreed with the account balance of XXXX. About XXXX  days later, Citibank reinstated the full prior balance without returning the security/consideration. We disputed immediately. Citibank added other charges after the account was XXXX. These were not authorized by us and were and are expressly disputed. 

While the dispute remained open, we made recurring {$7.00} tenders with express notice that they were conditional/non-assent deposits pending correction and reconciliation. Citibank accepted and processed these payments monthly for approximately XXXX years ( XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; total processed over {$180.00} ) and still shows future payments scheduled, yet now appears to be attempting collection again and/or referring the matter to counsel. Citibank has blocked online access to the closed account, preventing us from obtaining historical statements. 

Requested resolution : Provide complete copies of all periodic statements and the full transaction ledger, especially for the period when the account was shown as XXXX/no-debt ( approximately XXXX XXXX ) and the later reinstatement. 

Provide documentation of the XXXX security/tender, how it was applied, and why it was not returned. 

Provide the exact ledger entry and lawful basis for any reversal that reinstated a previously satisfied/XXXX  balance. 

Cease collection activity unless and until * * full validation * * and accounting are provided. 

We dispute in full any alleged balance in full. 

* * By full validation we mean the complete validation information required by FDCPA 1692g and Regulation F, XXXX XXXX XXXX, including identification of the current and original creditor, the account/reference number, and an itemized accounting from a lawful itemization date showing principal, interest, fees, payments, credits, and the current amount claimed. Full validation also requires proof of standing/chain of title and sufficient statements/ledger pages to show how the amount was calculated. In this dispute, full validation must additionally include the XXXX tender/security posting, the XXXX/no-debt statement period, the reversal/reinstatement entry, and a full accounting of all {$7.00} tenders. 

We are asking Citi to correct their own account history and any downstream reporting so the record matches what actually happened. In practice that includes : Correct internal account ledger Show the XXXX tender/security as accepted/posted the way it was processed. 

Restore the XXXX/no-debt status that Citi previously posted. 

Remove or reverse any improper reinstatement entry unless Citi can justify it with admissible accounting. 

Correct the amount claimed Recalculate the balance including all credits and the {$7.00} tenders. 

Provide a revised itemization that matches the corrected ledger. 

Correct/stop XXXXXXXXXXXX  collection status If Citi referred/sold/assigned the account XXXX Citi must notify the collector/debt buyer that : the debt is disputed, and/or the balance is corrected to {$0.00} ( if thats what their ledger shows after reconciliation ). 

If ownership/standing is unclear, they must fix that too. 

Correct credit reporting ( if any ) Update any reporting to the credit bureaus so it doesnt show an incorrect active balance, delinquency, or charge-off inconsistent with the corrected ledger. 

If they cant substantiate, they must delete/withdraw the tradeline or disputed portion. 

CFPB cares especially about incorrect balances, unresolved billing errors, and inaccurate furnishing/collection based on faulty records. 

By correction of the record we mean full reconciliation and correction of XXXX internal ledger and any downstream reporting so that the account history reflects the accepted XXXX tender/security, the period Citi posted the account as satisfied/XXXX, and the proper treatment of all {$7.00} tenders. Citibank must identify and correct the reinstatement/reversal entry that re-added the balance without return of consideration, issue a corrected itemization, and update or instruct any collector/assignee and any credit bureaus to reflect the corrected XXXX XXXXXXXX status. 

Why this matters even if Citi say validated A collector can say validated while still relying on a wrong ledger. 
Your stance is : Validation is not meaningful unless the record itself is corrected to reconcile the tender, zeroing, reversal, and XXXX years of {$7.00} postings. 

Any correspondence must include the word " XXXX '' following any name so as not to infringe on the recorded XXXX or XXXX. 


We request CFPB treat this as a regulatory compliance matter and consider enforcement for unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) and any FDCPA/Reg XXXX  violations arising from attempting to collect a disputed, previously satisfied balance without full accounting We are an elderly, XXXX miliary veteran household. This status makes us a protected, financially vulnerable consumer population. We request heightened regulatory scrutiny of XXXX and any XXXX conduct, including any harassment, misrepresentation, or pressure to pay a disputed debt Given our age and XXXX, any attempt to collect a non-existent or unvalidated debt raises concerns of elder/disabled financial exploitation under Kentucky policy 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