Consumer complaint received 2025-10-20 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: NC

Complaint narrative:
This issues stems from a purchase of necklace from a company name XXXX. The merchandise was defective and as you will see in the notes, the merchant admits that item was defective. The item was sent back to merchant ; merchant said they would consider a refund prior to me sending item back after they inspected it. They received item but the company refuse 100 % refund. The merchant has had item since XX/XX/XXXX and the merchant paid the expense for the return of the item. A dispute was filed with Citi regarding this item. Citi prematurely closed the dispute, they had requested additional information on XX/XX/year> however, this information was for only XXXX of the XXXX disputes filed for this item. The request was uploaded in the Citi account portal without any notification to me that a message was waiting to be reviewed. The letter also did not provide a deadline to provide the information. I saw the information once I reviewed my account on XX/XX/year> because at the time, I had a XXXX balance so there was no need for me to check my accounts. Upon review, I saw that they were in the process of closing the dispute in the favor of the vendor. I have made numerous attempts to have this request reopen but CITI refuses despite the evidence that has been provided to them which consists of evidence of return, email admission from the vendor, etc. Below is a timeline of most of the events : Timeline of Events XXXX Dispute XXXX  ( Merchant ) XX/XX/year> : Original necklace delivered. Immediately noticed it flipped over when worn. XXXX advised purchasing a XXXX extension ( {$460.00} ). 

XX/XX/year> : Extended XXXX version delivered ; flipping problem persisted. 

XX/XX/year> : Necklace broke after being worn only XXXX times. 

XX/XX/year> : Item returned to XXXX for inspection using their XXXX label. 

XX/XX/year> : Refund request submitted to XXXX. 

XX/XX/year> : XXXX confirmed receipt of the returned item. 

XX/XX/year> : XXXX admitted resizing weakened the chain ( after the resizing XXXX of the links loosened, which caused it to break ). 

The response on XX/XX/year> by the vendor confirms that this issue constitutes a clear defective-merchandise claim under card-network rules and the Fair Credit Billing Act. The product was defective from the outset and failed due to the merchants own resizing recommendation. The sellers written admission confirms that the failure was due to workmanship, not wear or misuse. 

XX/XX/year> ( post-inspection ) : XXXX refused a full refund and instead offered a remake or refund minus XXXX percent. 

This is what led to me filling dispute with Citi. As an aside, Citi has been provided with the written documentation ( email between myself and vendor and XXXX  return slip which was paid for by the vendor. The vendor also iniated the return ) Citibank ( Dispute Handling ) When dispute opened : I was told not to send proof of return XXXX would contact XXXX. I later learned no contact was ever made. 

XX/XX/year> : Citi allegedly requested additional documentation, but I was never notified. 

XX/XX/year> : Discovered online that my credit had been reversed ; immediately emailed all documentation to XXXX. 

XX/XX/year> : Called and was told Citi had no record of receiving my email. Resent all materials that same day. 

XX/XX/year> : Resent documentation again from XXXX email addresses, copying XXXX. Representatives still claimed they did not receive anything and refused to escalate or open an IT ticket. 

XX/XX/year> : XXXX was rude and dismissive, stating the case could not be reopened unless I mailed hard copies, despite proof my emails were delivered. 

XX/XX/year> : Citi staff said they could not upload my documentation because the email subject line listed both dispute numbersan unreasonable barrier since both relate to the same necklace and evidence. 

XX/XX/year> : Sent XXXX separate emails with each dispute number in the subject line as requested. 

XX/XX/year> : Spoke with a representative who said a request to reopen the dispute had been submitted ; however, the case remained closed. 

XX/XX/year> : Called againCiti stated they still had not received my documents and had not reopened the case. The supervisor became argumentative, made numerous contradicting statements, including that : They could not discuss the case because it had been escalated ; I had not submitted support, even though multiple emails were sent ; The related {$460.00} case was not reopened even though my account showed otherwise ; They sent a letter requesting more info, but could not locate both disputes simultaneously. 
The supervisor refused to let me explain, was unprofessional, and hung up on me while I was attempting to clarify these inconsistencies.

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