Date Received: 2023-09-22
Issue: Closing your account
Subissue: Company closed your account
Consumer Complaint: The creditor as fiduciary reached good faith and fair dealings with agreements crafted by a corporation 's unlawful practice of law with the intent of unlawfully converting the subrogee 's chose-in-action and wilfully and knowingly deprived equitable interest, rights and ownership of the chose-in-acton when requested. The creditor/subrogor and collection agent turned a blind eye to the previous notices of subrogation and equitable interest with the most recent being XXXX. In the process Adverse action was taken by the creditor for attempting to assert my rights, the account was closed when rights to interest and redemption were communicated. One who seeks equity must do equity. Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy. Equity follows the law. Principal and Agent are vicariously liable for the other. In this era when credit has become one of the instrumentalities of business to which men pay homage, intangible property rights must be considered when conversion is discussed. Stocks, bonds, evidences of debt, debentures, insurance policies, contracts and other choses-in-action play a prominent role in present-day credit economy. Conversion has been defined as a " wrongful interference over personal property, inconsistent with or in denial of the dominion of the person entitled to possession thereof. It is " any dealing with the property of another which excludes the owner 's dominion. '' The gist of conversion is the unauthorized assumption of the powers of the true owner. '' A " chose in action '' is a personal right not reduced to possession. For example, shares of stock, and debts represented by negotiable instruments and savings bankbooks are all choses in action. They are personal property rights, not reducible to immediate tangible possession, not capable of physical delivery ; but recoverable only in an action at equity or law. Trover action will lie for the wrongful conversion of ... bonds, or other securities for the payment of money. This is true with regard to both negotiable and non-negotiable bonds. Even where bonds have been stolen, and a forged indorsement used to obtain new bonds from the corporation, the owner was allowed to recover the bonds from an innocent third party into whose hands the bonds had come. A bond being evidenced by a tangible writing, the courts have no trouble in finding the necessary dominion to allow an action for conversion. '' The underlying debt is immediately converted on the wrongful taking of a negotiable bond, and may be generally assumed to be converted in the case of a non-negotiable bond. Trover is a legal action that a property owner can take to recover the value of personal property that was wrongfully taken. The plaintiff must show that they had title or possession of the property at the time the action was filed. The plaintiff can sue the person who first converted the goods, or anyone else to whom the goods were delivered. Trover is different from other remedies for wrongful taking because the plaintiff only recovers the value of the property, not the property itself. The plaintiff can sue the person who first converted the goods, or anyone else to whom the goods were delivered. Today, the tort of conversion has subsumed both trover and detinue, and a plaintiff can request legal relief ( money damages ) or equitable relief ( return of property ). See, e.g. Burgess v. Small, 117 A.2d 344 ( Me. XXXX ) It has been well settled beyond controversy under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed; when Congress borrowed We The Peoples private credit, it created a sovereign redemption and subrogation right in We The People and a breach of trust by the subrogors and mortgagees when they clog the We The Peoples right to redeem their collateral borrowed and the securities created on account by indorsement and interfere in commerce. It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property and financial assets. NOTICE. I am aware, pursuant to Title 15 U.S.C. 78c, Section 10 the term security means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities ( including any interest therein or based on the value thereof ), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a security ; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing ; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or bankers acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited. The promise to pay or promissory note with a maturity longer than nine ( 9 ) months created in this transaction is a security ; NOTICE. DEBT INSTRUMENT. In general Except as provided in subparagraph ( B ), the term debt instrument means a bond, debenture, note, or certificate or other evidence of indebtedness. Title 26 USC 1275 ( a ) ( 1 ) NOTICE. BOND. The term bond includes any obligation. Title 26 USC 150 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; NOTICE. BENEFIT. This word is used in the same sense as gain ( q. v. ) and profits. ( q. v. ) 20 Toull. N. 199 ; NOTICE. BENEFICIARY. This term is frequently used as synonymous with the technical phrase cestui que trust. ( q. v. ) ; NOTICE. BENEFICIAL INTEREST. That right which a person has in a contract made with another, as if A makes a contract with B that he will pay C a certain sum of money, B has the legal interest in the contract, and C the beneficial interest. Hamm. on Part 6, 7, 25 2 Bulust. 70 ; NOTICE. I am aware, pursuant to 17 CFR 240. 13d-3. ( b ) Any person who, directly or indirectly, creates or uses a trust, proxy, power of attorney, pooling arrangement or any other contract, arrangement, or device with the purpose of effect of divesting such person of beneficial ownership of a security or preventing the vesting of such beneficial ownership as part of a plan or scheme to evade the reporting requirements of section 13 ( d ) or ( g ) of the Act shall be deemed for purposes of such sections to be the beneficial owner of such security ; essentially the right to subrogation to the securities has been deprived ; NOTICE. I am aware, pursuant to 17 CFR 240.8c-1 Hypothecation of customers ' securities ( a ) General provisions. No member of a national securities exchange, and no broker or dealer who transacts a business in securities through the medium of any such member shall, directly or indirectly, hypothecate or arrange for or permit the continued hypothecation of any securities carried for the account of any customer under certain circumstances ; NOTICE. I am aware, pursuant to Title 18 U.S. Code 1348 Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice ( 1 ) to defraud any person in connection with any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78l ) or that is required to file reports under section 15 ( d ) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78o ( d ) ) ; or ( 2 ) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any money or property in connection with the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78l ) or that is required to file reports under section 15 ( d ) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78o ( d ) ) ; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both ; NOTICE. 18 U.S. Code 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments ; NOTICE. Use of the Beneficiarys Private Credit for the extension of credit or choses-in-action by indorsement, creating securities as an accommodating party establishes an implied TRUST IN INVITUM raised by operation of law without the consent of the trustee. Such a Trust Arises where Goods have been stolen or Converted to the Use of the TAKER and sold, with respect to the PROCEEDS, whether such proceeds are in the form of money or other property purchased therewith, and equity will in such cases enforce a Trust In Invitum in the original taker or in his assignee with NOTICE. Likewise, where a TRUSTEE or OTHER FIDUCIARY has Misapplied Trust Funds a like Trust will be RAISED. Where a trust fund has been perverted, the cestui que trust can follow it at law as far as it can be traced. - United States v. State Bank, 96 U.S. 30 ( 1877 ) NOTICE. When it comes to accounts Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code has always applied to the sale of accounts. Revised Article 9 continues this rule in North Carolina 25-9-109 ( a ) ( 3 ). Former Article 9 defined accounts to include payment obligations arising out of only the sale of goods or the provision of services. Under the former law, this left many kinds of payment rights within the definition of general intangible. The sale of these types of payment rights often serves as a financing transaction, but former Article 9 did not apply to these transactions. Revised Article 9 broadens the definition of accounts to include : Payment obligations arising out of the sale, lease or license of all kinds of tangible and intangible personal property ( for example, account will include license fees payable for the use of software ), and Credit card receivables. The sale of a payment intangible often functions as a financing transaction. Revised Article 9 brings certainty to these transactions by bringing the sale of a payment intangible into the scope of Article 9. However, to permit financial institutions that sell loan participations to avoid having a UCC-1 financing statement filed against them as debtors, Article 9 provides for the automatic perfection of a security interest created upon the sale of a payment intangible ( but not a security interest in a payment intangible given to secure an obligation ). G.S. 25-9-309 ( 3 ). NOTICE. EQUITY CONCERNS ITSELF WITH SUBSTANCE AND NOT FORM. Equitable Subrogation is forward-looking rooted in the equity maxim... equity regards done what ought to be done. Equitable subrogation is not founded upon contract, but is the creation of equity, and is enforced solely for accomplishing the end of substantial justice. It is the mode by which equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who, in justice and good conscience, ought to pay. Equity delights in equality. Equity knows no time. Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. I delcare under a penalty of perjury the statement is accurate and true to the best of my personal knowledge. XXXX XXXX, XXXX 28 U.S. Code 1746
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NC
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-22
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: A fraudulent charge of {$210.00} was made on my account on XX/XX/23. I reported this as an " unrecognized charge '' immediately when it was posted. As I think most people would think, I thought reporting an " unrecognized charge '' would be considered reporting fraudulent activity. After a week or so I was curious as to why they had not canceled my card and issued a new one, so I logged into my account, and see that CITI misclassified this as a purchase dispute with the vendor, rather than a fraud dispute. I immediately canceled the dispute to resubmit as a fraud dispute, but the system did not allow me to resubmit a dispute, so I immediately called to have them fix the issue -- this was XX/XX/23. I was assured the issue would be fixed and that I did not have to make payment for the fraudulent charge. After two weeks of not seeing anything on my account to indicate the issue was fixed, I called again on XX/XX/23... they did not see anything to indicate the issue was in the process of being resolved based on my previous call and again assured me the issue would be fixed and that I did not have to make payment. I had a repeat of this exact same call on XX/XX/23, again on XX/XX/23, again on XX/XX/23, and on XX/XX/23. The due date for my payment for the statement including this charge was XX/XX/23 -- since then, I have been receiving calls almost daily stating that my account is past due. This issue has still not been resolved, and I'm just told the same thing every time I call : " I don't see that this has been reported as fraud, we'll get the case opened, you do not need to make payment while this is being investigated. '' CITI seems to not have any desire to resolve the issue.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: PA
Zip: 18020
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: The bottom line is I am being charged {$6300.00} for money I never received from a flex loan from my Citi Thank You Preferred card. Here are the facts : In XXXX I applied for a flex loan of {$6300.00}. When I received an email stating that it was approved, I saw online that the money had not been deposited into my account, but that I was being charged for it on my credit card. I called customer service and spoke with a supervisor in Kentucky, who said the money had been deposited into my account. When I insisted that it had not, she asked for my checking account number and verified that I was indeed correct. She then told me she would launch an investigation into the issue, but she said she could not remove the charge at that time. After several more phone calls over the next few weeks, with everyone agreeing I did not receive the money, I told Citi to please cancel my loan application. I no longer wanted the money ; I just wanted the charge removed. To my delight the loan and the charge were both cancelled the next day. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. When I checked my account online on XX/XX/XXXX, I saw that the credit of {$6300.00} that had been issued to my account was reversed, and I was again being charged for money I never received. I Citi again and spoke with XXXX who told me to check with my branch, but after conferring with a colleague, told me the investigation is ongoing, and that it is Citi 's practice to reverse a credit if it is not resolved within a certain amount of time. Since then, I sent a letter to my broker, who said he sent it on to the right people, phoned Citi several times, and spoke to XXXX ( supervisor ) in XXXX. She promised to get back to me but never did. Yesterday, XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Citi stating that they can not cancel the flex plan because it was already processed. I phoned Citi and spoke to XXXX, who was lovely and promised to get my information to the right people and ask them to get back to me. I am also being charged interest on this non-existent loan, and the charge has been reported to the three credit reporting agencies. I did register a dispute with the three agencies on XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 119XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems
Subissue: Other problem
Consumer Complaint: Earlier on tis year my bank account was hacked and XXXX was taken out, during that time my bank account was frozen. I notified CitiCards of the issue and they advised that it was ok. Eventully I got the funds back and my account was brought up to date a short time later. Citi Cards has closed my account. I object.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NJ
Zip: 076XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: I opened early this month XX/XX/2023 an Inquire against CITIBANK VISA. XXXX Today I got its response Still stating they can't assist/ help me with this dispute against the merchant for {$1000.00} The reason as they stated is because " The merchant has denied additional request for credit, stating that services were rendered, and support evidence was provided ''. So What's about the information I provided you after That I had to go a XXXX merchant to correct the errors done by the First Agent? I had to spend money and Time for the same repair. Because it doesn't make Sense having XXXX disputes against the same merchant and you were able to resolve the XXXX Dispute and not this main one. In another part of the letter it says. I NEED TO CONTACT THE MERCHANT DIRECTLY OR BY OTHER MEANS TO OBTAIN CREDIT. Basically " you are throwing me under the bus '' I stated this because I didn't pay with Cash or Check to the merchant so I can deal directly with them, I paid with a CREDIT CARD you provided me and because of it You supposed to deal directly with them in order to get your money back, By all means even consider legal action against them. Under the FAIR CREDIT PROTECTION ACT that's my consumer right I'm invoking at this time I would like to have the CFPB Ombudsman to make CITIBANK VISA To pursue this Dispute even to take legal action against the Merchant bank. Because other ways it would an Indirect way for CITIBANK VISA saying to the consumers as myself " We can't resolve your problem you deal with them, and you need to pay us regardless, Thats your problem not us ''.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 91311
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, there were 2 charges of {$230.00} from XXXX charged to my Citibank credit card. I immediately called Citibank to report the fraud. They applied credits immediately while it was being investigated they then charged my card back 1 1/XXXX months later. XX/XX/XXXX. I called and they said that I purchased the items and they would not credit my card. I called to speak 8 times with no progress. I found out the XXXX XXXX XXXX and it was delivered to a different address. So they didnt even investigate.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: PA
Zip: 191XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, we had a service charged by XXXX XXXX XXXX which was unsatisfactorily completed for two reasons : 1 ) The company stated they did complete the service but they did not allow me to check it at the moment : the service was to fix a swingset that was unsteady and swaying ; they said I needed to wait 24 hours to check to see if the swaying was corrected ; after 24 hours when I checked, the swaying had not been resolved at all. Additionally, they were supposed to fix the grout in the bathroom which they did but it cracked again within 2-3 days. 2 ) They charged an extra {$100.00} dollars for tax and supplies, and we asked for a detailed receipt of the supplies charges, and the company refused to provide this detailed list. We attempted to resolve this dispute multiple times with the XXXX company on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute with my credit company. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CC company closed the dispute, stating that they requested more information from me which was not supplied and therefore the dispute would be closed. Looking back at my emails, they did send an email on XX/XX/XXXX with the subject " Your dispute has been received '' but did not clearly indicate they needed more information. I called the CC company on XX/XX/XXXX and re-opened the dispute. They told me to submit a 4 page document with information that they needed. I submitted this information that same evening on XX/XX/XXXX via email to XXXX. I did not receive any confirmation of receipt. On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I followed up via email asking for an update. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another letter that stated that the billing dispute required more information. I clicked on the letter required, and it was the same information I had already submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called them and they reassured me that they did not require more information as I submitted it on XX/XX/XXXX. She assure me that they had all of the information they needed. I asked for a confirmation letter but the customer service agent said she was not able to provide a letter. She stated that they would send a confirmatory email within " 24 or 48 hours, or 1 week at the most '' ( I have this conversation recorded ). As of this moment, I have not yet received a confirmatory letter stating they do not require more information, and I am concerned they will again close the case indicating that they have not received the required information. Of note, they also have not removed the charge from my account as promised. The {$650.00} charge remains on my account. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another letter from Citibank admitting that th representative on XX/XX/XXXX gave me incorrect information that further information was not needed, and that they did not follow up with me following this incorrect information, and despite their representative providing false information, they are still closing the dispute because they did not receive the form that the representative said I did not need to complete.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NJ
Zip: 07430
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Closing an account
Subissue: Funds not received from closed account
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I opened a Citibank checking and savings account online because of their higher interest rate on their XXXX XXXX account. After successful test deposits of {$25.00} each in my checking and savings account on XX/XX/XXXX I figured everything was safe to make a larger deposit. On XX/XX/XXXX I linked my XXXX bank account to Citi and transferred {$1300.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX I used their mobile app and deposited a check from my XXXX bank account for {$630.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX I tried to access my account online and my login credentials would not work and did not have access. I called customer service and the lady said I had a security alert and transferred me to the fraud department. She asked me if I deposited the check for {$630.00} and also asked what this check was for. I replied that it was to put in my savings account to take advantage of the better interest rates Citibank has. She also asked if I had been to Georgia recently, or California. I have lived in North Carolina for the past 10 years and haven't even left the state for at least 5 years. I repeatedly asked why my account was closed and that I needed the money I deposited back. All she could tell me was that my account was compromised and it would take 30-60 days to do their investigation before I would receive my money. She also said I would be receiving a formal letter in the mail regarding my account closing. As of today I have not received anything in the mail from Citi. After this I found the number to the Executive Response Unit for Citibank and called them on XX/XX/XXXX and explained my situation to the receptionist. The receptionist assigned my case to a lady named XXXX and she told me that she would have 15 days to investigate. So, on XX/XX/XXXX I called the XXXX to get an update and left a message to call me back. I received a call back from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and she told me her investigation was complete and that I would have to wait for the fraud department to do their investigation which would be completed by XX/XX/XXXX. She wasn't able to give me any information as to why my account was closed other than the fraud department had to do their investigation. She asked if I was able to login to my Citi account online which I can't as a result of my account being shut down. She also said that I should have received a letter in the mail regarding my account closing and I have yet to receive anything in the mail from Citi. There is no good reason they are giving me as to why my account was closed. These are legitimate bank accounts in my name that I made these deposits from. I've had bank accounts for the last 20 years and have never had anything like this happen. I have an XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I even checked my name on the XXXX XXXX and everything is clean. I'm not a criminal. It has been 41 days now and I have not received my deposit back yet. I worked very hard to save this money up and they are claiming my deposits are fraudulent. I need this money back to pay bills now. It is very unfair and bad business practice the way my account was closed with no ability to access the account, and then holding my deposit claiming fraud.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NC
Zip: 27265
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: This is my second complaint against Citi regarding the same problem because they refuse to comply with their regulatory FCRA duty to remove the credit reporting error occurring on XX/XX/2023. I am the victim of identity theft and on XX/XX/2023 someone in XXXX XXXX, IL attempted to apply for a credit card with my personal information with Citi and XXXXXXXX XXXX These inquiries immediately notified me through my credit monitoring and I disputed with the respective companies the same day. XXXXXXXX XXXX immediately removed the inquiry from my credit report and confirmed the application was denied because it was routing from XXXX XXXX. I have attached my original CFPB complaint and pitiful Citi 's response refusing to correct my credit reporting. I'm angry on XXXX points : 1. Citi 's reply denies I was an identity theft victim because all of the information on the credit card application matched my personal information. The usage of my correct personal information is the sole nexus of attempted identity theft fraud. I have never disputed whether my personal information was correct in the application, but rather that I did not submit the application. 2. Citi claims my FCRA dispute was denied because my personal information matched, however, this is false. On XX/XX/2023 Citi called to inform me my original dispute investigation was completed. On that same call they asked for my mailing address to send the results. Citi did not have my mailing address to confirm my personal information was even correct at the time they originally completed their " investigation. '' 3. Citi refuses to confirm the mobile IP location of the attempted application because it would confirm the applicant was not me. On the same day of the Citi application, XX/XX/2023, there was another attempted credit card application with XXXX XXXX XXXX was able to immediately deny the application and removed their credit reporting due to identity theft because of ( a ) their regulatory compliant FCRA Red Flag programs knew to deny the application, and ( b ) the mobile application was coming from XXXX XXXX, IL. 4. Citi has a duty per FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) to remove incorrect credit reporting information when the information is the result of identity theft. They failed. 5. Citi has a duty per FCRA 1681s to conduct a reasonable investigation into a credit reporting agency dispute. They failed, and then lied by claiming their investigative conclusion was based on information they did not yet have ( mailing address ; see # 2 ). 6. Citi has a duty per FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) to remove reporting conducted through identity theft when a victim provides an identity theft report. I completed all necessary information and even put a credit security freeze with all three of the credit reporting agencies because someone has my information. 7. Citi has a duty per the FCRA Amendment Red Flags Rule to have an effective program to identify, detect, and appropriately respond to identity theft attempts. Citi did deny the credit card application, of which I was grateful, but refuses to acknowledge the fraud or appropriately respond with an inquiry removal. These failed Red Flag program practices can lead to systemic non-compliance and Citi 's ability to prevent fraudulent activity in the future. 8. Citi failed to respond to my UDAAP claim. Citi denied discrimination in their response, but I did not claim discrimination. UDAAP is a much more comprehensive set of practices resulting in harm and Citi 's refusal to conduct a reasonable investigation, acknowledge identity theft used my personal information, and perform their regulatory duty to remove the fraudulent inquiry on my credit is causing me harm. Citi needs to act responsibly and compliantly by removing the inquiry on my credit report. I will continue disputing with the CFPB and the FTC until this is resolved.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: KY
Zip: 41017
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-09-20
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Subissue: Transaction was not authorized
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX charged {$1000.00} on my Citibank debit card. XX/XX/23 XXXX charged {$2000.00} on my Citibank debit card ( {$1000.00} of this was credited back the next day ). Citibank owes me {$2000.00}. I was a victim of identity fraud. I have spent the last 9 months trying to get my money back from Citibank. They keep opening and closing cases. They won't speak with me directly. I've followed all the requirements and hoops that Citibank has had me jump through. I have filed a report with XXXX Police Dept as well. Most recently, Citibank has told me it's too late to get my money back. I have been fighting this as soon as I found out about it. The Citibank fraud dept is set up so that you can never talk to the person making the decision and then they mail you a letter to say your case is closed. It says you can request documents for why they made this decision, but I never received them after I requested them.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 10009
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-09-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A