BillyBaloney

Really? Really? After I'm told that the card has been activated and is ready for use? Really? Citi is the only one who does this to me. The only one. Every other card company after they tell you that the card has been activated and is READY FOR USE you can actually go and use it. And I don't want to use another card if I'm trying to meet my minimum spend.

jsk1973

Yes, really. Having to make one extra phone call after being extended unsecured credit is the epitome of a First World problem. (And this is doubly true for the churners, who are making out like bandits and have absolutely nothing to complain about.)

BillyBaloney

Good day.

PaulMSN

What was the purchase amount?

mia

In general I agree that the large banks are good about handling disputes if we use the convenient shortcuts, but what concerns me here is this part:

If Citi reversed the temporary credit, backdated the debit, and did not provide a separate notice, they clearly are not following the Fair Credit Billing Act process which requires notification. However, I do not understand how they can do this on the paper/PDF statements.

Banks make it easy to dispute charges without following the FCBA process in part because they don't want to be bound by those rules. Unless the amount is trivial I think it is best to followup the online or telephone dispute with a letter, but I am not suggesting that all is lost if you don't.

the_fox

I think this nails it in the head. Did the OP get a new account number after he disputed? If not, then this matter probably never reached the fraud department to begin with.

mia

A dispute is the correct way to report any unauthorized charge on a personal card account. Whether the unauthorized charge is due to a mistake or to fraud is for the issuer to determine.

jsk1973

I disagree. If you know you didn't make a charge, you should make sure to report it as fraudulent immediately. Otherwise, some scammer could keep using your credit card number.

mia

Agreed, that's what I did, because they were unauthorized transactions.

jsk1973

OK. Perhaps I misunderstood your #22.

Happy

Once a fraudulent charge happened, I want the bank close the existing card and issue a new one. Surprisingly this request has met resistance from both Citi and Chase.

Once my husband's Citi AU card was compromised - 30 days after his single use at eye doctor's office, there were a slew of fraudulent charges in restaurants and supermarkets down in Mexico on a weekend. Citi called on Monday about those charges. Even after I told Citi those were fraudulent charges, the rep still did not want to close the card... I had to insist.

Then on my Freedom card, there was a charge showing up from a gymnastic school in California. I called Chase, the rep said it most likely a mis-coded card number when a customer phoned in to make a payment, and he did not want to close the card. I was like ?! Eventually I tracked down the owner of the gymnastic school (she owns 2 of such outfit) and informed her about the transaction. Eventually Chase informed me it was not a fraudulent charge but the bank was successful to bill back the merchant, so case closed. No new card ever issued. While in this case it might be an honest mistake but it is scary that even though name and billing address are completely different, just a transposed card number could still let transaction go thru. (I know expiration date does not really matter as long as it falls into the valid period of the card.) I hope banks require cvc be used on all telephone / online transactions.

jsk1973

I can't believe that, in 2016, non-swipe charges can go through without at least requiring the security code, if not the billing zip code and/or billing phone number (i.e., numerical info. that can be punched in if the cardholder is present but the card is scratched or card reader isn't working).

For online purchases, there's no excuse whatsoever not to require detailed cardholder info.

blaz

They don't. Amazon never asks for the CVC. And neither does Time Warner Cable. Yes, it is pathetic.

cbn42

Update:

Thanks for all the feedback. The problem seems to have been that Citi classified the issue as a dispute with the merchant rather than as fraud. On the online dispute form, I selected "I'm being charged for a transaction that I don't recognize and didn't authorize", which sounds like a fraud report to me, but apparently all online reports are treated as disputes with merchants.

I played the telephone game for a while and then got frustrated going around in circles. I must have made at least 5 phone calls, spoken to CSRs and "supervisors", and sent several e-mails. Finally, I lost my temper and raised my voice a bit (which is out of character for me) and told the representative that it is illegal to charge me for fraudulent transactions and if they didn't get it resolved, I would file a complaint with the OCC. This seemed to get their attention and I was transferred to another "supervisor" who actually seemed to have some authority. He grilled me about the purchase (I guess he thought I was lying) but then said that it would be fixed. A few days later, I received another credit for the charge. So far it hasn't been reversed, so I'm hoping it's permanent this time.

Rather disappointed in Citi. With other issuers, it's never taken more than one phone call or online report.

eclare

This is really disappointing to hear. I'm a new Citi customer. All of my older cards are with USAA and Discover, both of which have been awesome. USAA calls me within minutes of any suspicious purchase and I've never had to fight to get a transaction refunded or a new card.