Jump to content

The CITIBANK Home Depot Scam


Citiscam
 Share

Recommended Posts

@kittycatLooks like you solved the problem of attorney fees.  Great info!  It does appear in CA CITI is out of luck on getting attorney fees.  @BackFromTheDebt Thanks for this.   I will research the exact violation for filing suit.  Looking through this, I may have found another violation.  The first attorneys for Citi sent a collection letter to an attorney who is not affiliated to my case, thinking he was my attorney.  A third party.  This may have been another boo boo for them.  The attorney contacted me and asked me why he is getting letters about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kittycatI'd imagine the attorney knew that he couldn't get attorney fees.  That would almost fall under

e) The false representation that the consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, finance charges, or other charges if, in fact, such fees or charges may not legally be added to the existing obligation;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Citiscam said:

@kittycatI'd imagine the attorney knew that he couldn't get attorney fees.  That would almost fall under

e) The false representation that the consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, finance charges, or other charges if, in fact, such fees or charges may not legally be added to the existing obligation;

Is that a portion of the FDCPA?  
 

If so, you have a claim against the current law firm. 
 

Consider an amended complaint.  The claim against Citi is due to vicarious liability.  The claims against the two law firms are for FDCPA violations. 
 

This could help your negotiating position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BackFromTheDebt That was taken from The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act California Civil Code §§ 1788 et seq.  e) The false representation that the consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, finance charges, or other charges if, in fact, such fees or charges may not legally be added to the existing obligation;

Citibank did put the fear of god in me by being dishonest about attorney fees.  This should be illegal.  Glad there is wording that covers it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Citiscam said:

@BackFromTheDebt That was taken from The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act California Civil Code §§ 1788 et seq.  e) The false representation that the consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, finance charges, or other charges if, in fact, such fees or charges may not legally be added to the existing obligation;

Citibank did put the fear of god in me by being dishonest about attorney fees.  This should be illegal.  Glad there is wording that covers it. 

Okay. 
 

California has some of the most consumer friendly laws in the country.  
 

I really don’t know the answer to this— does the  Rosenthal Act apply to the original creditor?  I know the Wisconsin law does, and I was under the impression that the same thing in California, but I could be wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does. It also incorporates by reference most of the requirements of the FDCPA. Even the arm industry readily recognizes as much.  From insidearm:

Quote

Any creditor who attempts to collect a consumer debt from a California consumer likely qualifies as a “debt collector” under California’s debt collection statute – the Rosenthal Act.  See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c) (“debt collector” includes anyone “who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection.”).  The Rosenthal Act not only includes its own set of requirements regulating debt collection, but also incorporates by reference most of the requirements of the FDCPA.  See Cal. Civ. Code §1788.17.  Thus, a creditor who fails to comply with the FDCPA while collecting from a California resident may be violating California law.

 

@CitiscamWhat's the current status of your arbitration case? Has an arbiter been selected or is the case still in the hands of the case manager or other forum administrator?  For example, when you filed the motion to strike, was an arbiter selected?

The particular attorney from Stroock Lawfirm that filed the response to your motion to strike (as described in your first post to this thread) argues CA state law.

Was an agreement reached (or a determination made) that CA state law would apply? This is odd because citi usually argues for SD state law in arbitration. It could be that the particular attorney that filed the response to your motion to strike is not fully up to speed about citi's usual position in arbitration.  You should not press the choice of law issue unless in response to something the opposition does.

Even if at some point some citi attorney argues instead for SD law, 1284.3(a) would still apply to any award confirmation, whether the confirmation is pursued in CA state or federal court. There is precedent (don't recall the cases off the top of my head), and jams and AAA know this, so they usually have an express rule that they will not reallocate arbitration fees to residents of CA (the attorney fee language is not express so you might need to rely on 1284.3(a) if it comes to that).

If you argue 1284.3(a) in a reply to their response to your motion to strike, their subsequent actions will indicate if they intend to stick with the CA law arguments made in their initial response to your motion to strike. Argue jams/AAA rules about reallocation in the first instance, and 1284.3(a) in the alternative.  Sometime shortly after you're sure they have received your reply with these arguments might be a good time for a settlement offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kittycatAn arbitrator has not been selected yet.  It is still in the hands of the case manager.  Yesterday was the cutoff for Citi to pay their fee.  I don't know if they paid it or not.  The case manager said they would not give any extensions on that.  Yesterday I submitted an answer to their counterclaim, a response to their objection to my motion to strike, and an amended complaint.  So at this point the opposing attorney knows I have some legitimate claims, and hopefully knows that he won't be recovering fees. I was sent the settlement code of conduct by AAA yesterday.  They mentioned the selection of arbitrator would come soon.   It's a dumb fight for Citibank over $6500.  They will pay way more than that in fees.  But my experience with Citibank has shown me that they are a poorly run company with incompetent employees.  It should have never come this far.  All they had to do was remove the false credit reporting and I would have paid.  That costs nothing to Citibank. 

I'm not sure what to offer them in settlement.  Never been through this.  Do I come out confident and ask them to pay me? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Citiscam said:

@kittycatAn arbitrator has not been selected yet.  It is still in the hands of the case manager.  Yesterday was the cutoff for Citi to pay their fee.  I don't know if they paid it or not.  The case manager said they would not give any extensions on that.  Yesterday I submitted an answer to their counterclaim, a response to their objection to my motion to strike, and an amended complaint.  So at this point the opposing attorney knows I have some legitimate claims, and hopefully knows that he won't be recovering fees. I was sent the settlement code of conduct by AAA yesterday.  They mentioned the selection of arbitrator would come soon.   It's a dumb fight for Citibank over $6500.  They will pay way more than that in fees.  But my experience with Citibank has shown me that they are a poorly run company with incompetent employees.  It should have never come this far.  All they had to do was remove the false credit reporting and I would have paid.  That costs nothing to Citibank. 

I'm not sure what to offer them in settlement.  Never been through this.  Do I come out confident and ask them to pay me? 

Citibank's goal at this point is not the money. They are interested in teaching you a lesson. First off, most original creditors do not like their arbitration clauses being used against them so they do take arbitration all the way, regardless of cost, as a way to show that if you try arbitration, you will pay anyways if you owe the money. A bad case in court is a bad case in arbitration. The second thing is that you emailed everyone at Citbank, from the CEO to the janitor cleaning the local branch and based on the way you talk about Citibank in this forum, I doubt they were the nice and direct emails. Everyone at Citibank knows your name and you are not anonymous anymore, especially to the legal team. More of a reason that they want to teach you a lesson on what happens when you mess with Citibank.

You are right that it never should have gotten this far. Had you simply got the account current on payments, filed a contest on the trade line with the credit reporting agency, and once verified, filed an arbitration claim against Citibank for false representation and requesting a refund of the late fee and trade line fixing; I bet Citibank would have settled that with you because they would have had no leverage. Instead, you threw a hissy fit, stopped paying your bill, and emailed anyone ever connected to Citibank and now here we sit. You made the issue worse just as much as they did.

That said, I doubt you are going to get paid. The Rosenthal Act generally follows the FDCPA so it is one payment for all claims so the max you would get for that is whatever the max payout is for the Rosenthal Act. I have heard both $500 and $1000. Also, there could possibly some damages for the false representation although I cannot compute them. Your damages however do not come up to the $6500 that you rightfully owe Citibank. As for Citibank, because what I mentioned above, they are going scorched earth at this point. You will therefore have to come up with a reasonable settlement where you are paying something. How much is something I cannot say but I would suggest starting at 25% of the $6500 you owe and see what they have to say. I doubt you have a frivolous claim but you did give Citibank a boost of getting over that bar with your hissy fit so tread carefully to not give them anything else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

Citibank's goal at this point is not the money. They are interested in teaching you a lesson. First off, most original creditors do not like their arbitration clauses being used against them so they do take arbitration all the way, regardless of cost, as a way to show that if you try arbitration, you will pay anyways if you owe the money. A bad case in court is a bad case in arbitration. 

<snip>

 

This is not necessarily true in this case.

Citi isn't as fanatical about taking arb cases to the bitter end as Discover or AmEx, for example.  We won't know if Citi is going to pursue this until we know if they paid their JAMS fees.  Maybe they didn't.  AmEx or Discover will, almost 100% of the time.

It would be a little surprising if they dropped after an answer.  That is rare, but possible.  Dropping a case right before paying a bill isn't uncommon.

Also -- and this is important -- arbitration is often a way to get a better settlement than otherwise.  Even with AmEx and Discover.  I had arbitration cases with both, and I can't say what happened because of NDAs.  But the fact there were NDAs tells you something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

<snip>

 

This is not necessarily true in this case.

Citi isn't as fanatical about taking arb cases to the bitter end as Discover or AmEx, for example.  We won't know if Citi is going to pursue this until we know if they paid their JAMS fees.  Maybe they didn't.  AmEx or Discover will, almost 100% of the time.

It would be a little surprising if they dropped after an answer.  That is rare, but possible.  Dropping a case right before paying a bill isn't uncommon.

Also -- and this is important -- arbitration is often a way to get a better settlement than otherwise.  Even with AmEx and Discover.  I had arbitration cases with both, and I can't say what happened because of NDAs.  But the fact there were NDAs tells you something.  

The thing is, you did not send letters to the legal department and C-Level executives of AMEX or Discover. And again, based on the OPs comments on this board, I am better the letters were not a brief as they should have been. In this case, I think everyone in the legal department of Citi knows this guys name along with the board and there is an effort to teach this guy a lesson. In fact, this case is moving quite a bit faster than most defaults into the legal system. My thoughts are based on the OPs comments. In fact, I think the default happened in July or August of 2020 and it has not even been 12 months yet and we are already well into arbitration. This OP is not anonymous to those working at Citi and that is why it is better to be a number rather than a know name to a creditor.

Also, I think Citi has at least already paid the initial fees if we are at the point of claims, counterclaims, and amended complaints being filed. This is further along that you believe.

Now, might the OP get a better deal in arbitration than court, maybe. I do know however that Citi is going to want to make sure that the OP pays something, if just to show that you cannot treat Citi this way. I doubt it will be the full $6500 but it will be close to that. That you got a NDA settlement with AMEX and Discover is due to differing circumstances.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WhoCares1000 said:

The thing is, you did not send letters to the legal department and C-Level executives of AMEX or Discover. And again, based on the OPs comments on this board, I am better the letters were not a brief as they should have been. In this case, I think everyone in the legal department of Citi knows this guys name along with the board and there is an effort to teach this guy a lesson. In fact, this case is moving quite a bit faster than most defaults into the legal system. My thoughts are based on the OPs comments. In fact, I think the default happened in July or August of 2020 and it has not even been 12 months yet and we are already well into arbitration. This OP is not anonymous to those working at Citi and that is why it is better to be a number rather than a know name to a creditor.

Also, I think Citi has at least already paid the initial fees if we are at the point of claims, counterclaims, and amended complaints being filed. This is further along that you believe.

Now, might the OP get a better deal in arbitration than court, maybe. I do know however that Citi is going to want to make sure that the OP pays something, if just to show that you cannot treat Citi this way. I doubt it will be the full $6500 but it will be close to that. That you got a NDA settlement with AMEX and Discover is due to differing circumstances.

 

EVERYTHING @WhoCares1000has said in their post(s).  There is a major difference between your cases with creditors and this one case.  The OP openly and defiantly refused to pay a legitimate debt unless they got their way.  There is no question they owe the money.  Worse they laid down a clear paper trail in their letters documenting it.  You poured gas on the fire by cherry picking out individual sections of separate laws that MIGHT be bent to support the OP's theory.  You have no legal cases supporting your theory.  I agree with @WhoCares1000that CITI is out to make an example of the OP for their conduct and defiance in demanding their way while refusing to pay. 

My opinion is it is extremely foolish to believe that CITI cannot prove that the OP's demand for arbitration is frivolous and they are not entitled to attorney fees.  EVERY card agreement openly states that they can seek their attorney fees and costs related to any court or arbitration case.  I do not see them backing down on this one.  They possibly could get a better settlement but that isn't guaranteed.  None of us here know exactly how pissed off the legal team and C-Suite are about the OP's behavior.  We have seen cases here where AMEX and Discover got so irritated they refused all settlement offers and when all the way to the end including appeals at great expense.  The major problem in comparing your results is that your situation was very very different and in a much different era when record keeping spotty and violations common.  I guarantee you that CITI from the first inappropriate letter has been saving every shred of documentation for this case to teach the OP a lesson. 

The problem with cases like this is not only are they bad in court and arbitration but they can end up setting an equally bad precedent for future consumers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What @WhoCares1000 and @Clydesmom says makes a lot of sense.

The thing is, there does seem to be some conflicting information.   As in, the OP appears to think that Citi didn't pay the initial JAMS fees and that JAMS was threatening to close the case if this happens.  

In other words, there is a crucial piece of information missing -- did Citi punt this case? 

As I mentioned earlier, it would be unusual for Citi to respond to the JAMS complaint and also punt on the fees.  

But, if that happened, it happened.

 

There are two conflicting impulses.  

One is what the aforementioned posters mentioned, the idea of teaching the troublemaker a lesson.

The other impulse is to get the complainer out of one's hair.  There used to be a comic strip called "Retail", where a running joke was a customer could get the store to break its rules by calling corporate HQ.  I have sometimes gotten at least some compensation in situations in which I loudly complained.  True, the quiet complainer will sometimes get an even better deal, but emotions take over.  

I somehow got on the WebRecon mailing list.  One of their most famous services is to warn CAs and JDBs as to which customers are trouble makers, so as to completely avoid them.  

The speed at which this happened was because the OP forced Citi's hand by taking this to arbitration. 

 

In the advice I have given the OP, I have been assuming that Citi would go into arbitration.  I assumed that the OP made a complete mess of things, including the original complaint, and is possibly in big trouble. 

That is why I advised an amended complaint.  Other posters and I have pointed out possible ways that Citi and their attorneys may have violated the Rosenthal Act and the FDCPA (for the attorneys).  

The advice I have given is more than lipstick on a pig.  It is adding something real -- valid complaints -- to the original complaint to turn this from a total cluster**** into something where the OP can get away with less than the $6500.  

That will take discipline and control of the emotions on the part of the OP.  None but the OP has a say in that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Clydesmom @BackFromTheDebtThe problem is, the OP has a valid claim against Citibank still. The bank cannot tell its customers to use its automated systems such as phone banking and/or web banking as a way to save money on in person/phone customer service reps and then when the automated system is wrong, tell the same customers that they should not rely on it. That is the definition of false representation. If the OP worded his complaint correctly, rather than saying that they defaulted because Citibank refused to correct their mistake, they probably could beat the frivolous claim because the OP then would have a reasonable claim. The Rosenthal Act stuff is just extra.

The problem for the OP is that they defaulted rather than handling this the correct way which limits what the arbiter can award for damages. At this point, the credit report cannot be corrected because of the default. The only possible award is maybe the late fee for that instance and maybe some punitive damages for the false representation. The Rosenthal Act award is max, $1000. This will leave about $4500 owing if the arbiter is generous to the OP and you can be sure if Citi gets any financial award, they will not let it sit for a decade and then try to collect on it to collect the interest based on how both sides have acted at this point. Instead, they will try to make the OPs life miserable with levies and garnishments and may even do periodic financial exams to trip the OP up for a contempt of court charge.

To be honest, based on the OPs initial comments, he would have to use contrition to pull this off and I think that they are so mad at Citi that they cannot get through the emotion to do it. Add the letters sent to legal and the C-Suite and you can be sure that Citi is not in a mood to go easy on the OP. This whole thing is a cluster <BLEEEP> because the OP is acting on emotion.

Now, as for my personal opinion, I think the OP deserves this for throwing a hissy fit like a 2 year old rather than logically thinking this through like an adult. Doing so has consequences. I hope the OP can get out of this with as little pain as possible but at this point, there will be some pain. As for Citi's side, I am sure they were waiting for someone like this to come up to use as an example to anyone else who would dare try to stand up to Citi. It does not mean you cannot stand up to them, it just means that you have to do it wisely and what has happened that has lead up to the point was not wise. Had the OP presented his case last year, we might have been able to convince them to go another route. but they did not and so where we are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WhoCares1000How does the OP have a valid claim? It doesn't matter the automated system said one thing and Citi said something else. The terms and conditions of those services, which likely include disclaimers of liability for consumers use I am sure would relieve Citi of any purported wrong doing would either diminish or drastically reduce OP's "claim". I would have opted to rely on app, or talking to a live person anyway over using an automated phone system to find out my balance due. It's not their mistake at all in reality. They didn't have to offer the OP any covid protections, but did anyway. So he had a way he could have made his minimum payment and HE chose not to. That's all backed by the fact that he blatantly told his creditor, whom he owed $6500 to, take a long walk off a short pier cause I fumbled the ball on covering my rear end and now my score took a 100 point hit. I do agree with you, @WhoCares1000, he does deserve what he has coming to him. He assumed he would twist their arms and make them just walk away from what he owes them, and found out that isn't the case at all. No matter which way it goes, the OP will end up paying for sure. As pointed out, he will still be in the red, even if he wins anything on a claim or counterclaim. To me, makes it moot to even argue it. You owe the debt OP, take it on the chin, keep making payments.

 

I would whip out the T's and C's of the agreement(s) and comb through them. I'd bet a dollar to a donut you will find something along the lines of "your use of the automated system should not be relied on solely". Not in those exact words probably, but you get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, alwayswinning36 said:

@WhoCares1000How does the OP have a valid claim? It doesn't matter the automated system said one thing and Citi said something else. The terms and conditions of those services, which likely include disclaimers of liability for consumers use I am sure would relieve Citi of any purported wrong doing would either diminish or drastically reduce OP's "claim". I would have opted to rely on app, or talking to a live person anyway over using an automated phone system to find out my balance due. It's not their mistake at all in reality. They didn't have to offer the OP any covid protections, but did anyway. So he had a way he could have made his minimum payment and HE chose not to. That's all backed by the fact that he blatantly told his creditor, whom he owed $6500 to, take a long walk off a short pier cause I fumbled the ball on covering my rear end and now my score took a 100 point hit. I do agree with you, @WhoCares1000, he does deserve what he has coming to him. He assumed he would twist their arms and make them just walk away from what he owes them, and found out that isn't the case at all. No matter which way it goes, the OP will end up paying for sure. As pointed out, he will still be in the red, even if he wins anything on a claim or counterclaim. To me, makes it moot to even argue it. You owe the debt OP, take it on the chin, keep making payments.

 

I would whip out the T's and C's of the agreement(s) and comb through them. I'd bet a dollar to a donut you will find something along the lines of "your use of the automated system should not be relied on solely". Not in those exact words probably, but you get the idea.

The issue here though is that can they get away with a clause like that in a contract of adhesion. Hell, if they can get away with that, Why not put in a clause saying that our customer service representatives have no right to change the contract AND the information they give may not be correct. That would be an issue that is up to the judge or arbiter do decide if the clause is valid or not. It certainly would not be a frivolous claim however which would stop the fee transfer clause in the arbitration agreement.

I almost got into a court fight with a major medical provider in Minnesota who is to remain nameless. The issue was that they were not requesting pre authorization for the procedure before it was being done and then asking for forgiveness when the claim was denied. In the last case that this happened, they asked for forgiveness on only part of the claim so the other part continued to be denied. I continued to call them within the 90 day claim period and kept telling them that there was an issue but they ignored me. Eventually, after a call where the providers billing agent was particularly rude to me and my insurance company in a 3 way call, I filed a complaint with the MN Attorney General's office and started to gather evidence to go to court. When gathering evidence, I started searching for the provider's pre authorization department and after multiple Google searches, found their webpage. On that page, they state that the patient is responsible for getting proper pre authorization. Could have have hurt my case, certainly. However, I would have the argument that the statement was so hidden that the average person would never be able to find it. There is no direct link to the pre authorization department. You have to know what you are looking for. I believe that the website clause also violated the court decree between the medical provider and the MN Attorney General's office regarding medical billing, which is filed in the Ramsey County courts and available for public access. In my case however, I decided to call the provider again after a cooling off period and got a reasonable billing agent who realized what had happened and they messed up and they ate the charges. The website clause might have killed my case but was the website clause reasonable?

In the OPs case, is it reasonable for Citibank to advertise its automated system but tell the debtor that such as system cannot be relied on? That is what makes false representation a valid claim. The OP might get nothing (or not much from the claim at this point) but that does not mean that it is not a valid claim. The OP will still be paying out at the end of the day. The only question is how much and that will depend on the OP keeping their emotions in check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WhoCares1000and @alwayswinning36

The OP said he had signed up for Citi’s COVID hardship program.  The terms and conditions in the cardmember agreement may not have anything to do with that.  The hardship program may have its own terms

From what I remember, most banks offered a payment deferral for 2 months.  Maybe some banks offered a longer time period.  I don’t know  if a program could be extended or reinstated.

The point is, the OP needs the rules or terms for that program.  He said he “thought” he was covered under the program.  That’s not good enough.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BV80 said:

The point is, the OP needs the rules or terms for that program.  He said he “thought” he was covered under the program.  That’s not good enough.

THIS.  When it comes to deferring payments you NEVER assume everything is taken care of and even if using an online portal there is ALWAYS a screen that you can take a shot of showing your transaction.  The OP didn't just make the mistake of assuming everything was the way they wanted it when a problem arose instead if keeping the account in good standing they doubled down on the mistake and threw a toddler tantrum and involved everyone in a position of power and control. 

4 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

In the OPs case, is it reasonable for Citibank to advertise its automated system but tell the debtor that such as system cannot be relied on?

The other potential problem with the hardship program is that the OP assumed that simply filling out the page on the website meant approval.  My educated guess is that the terms of the program state approval is not guaranteed.  Which circles right back to you never assume it went he way you thought it would.  You get confirmation.

My opinion is intentionally defaulting then demanding they arbitrate when you KNOW you made mistakes and you owe the money IS frivolous.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

When gathering evidence, I started searching for the provider's pre authorization department and after multiple Google searches, found their webpage. On that page, they state that the patient is responsible for getting proper pre authorization. Could have have hurt my case, certainly. However, I would have the argument that the statement was so hidden that the average person would never be able to find it.

The argument I would have made is that due to the obscurity of the web page and the inability to find it that you were not legally bound by that requirement as it was not disclosed prior to the procedure but after denial to your detriment.  Detrimental reliance would have been a good option too.

4 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

The website clause might have killed my case but was the website clause reasonable?

The answer to that would have been that as a lay person you lacked the medical expertise to submit the required procedural and diagnostic codes to get pre-approval.  That would be something for the provider(s) to do on your behalf. 


This reminds me of when my father was alive and had sleep study.  The small local hospital was trying to balance bill him for excessive over charges.  His EOB stated he owed a $50 copay and that the contractual amount was $XXXX.  The rest was denied as it was twice the reasonable and customary and exceeded the contractually agreed upon amount.  A few phone calls to the random  phone jockey got no where.  So, one day he grabbed his check book and headed to the billing department to "pay his co-pay."  The desk jockey tried to tell him he owed them $2400 and change and he politely outlined why they were not legally entitled to that over charge.  He wrote a check for the co-pay and turned to leave.  She snarked back at him that she would mark it as a refusal to pay and forward it to their hospital attorney for litigation and destroy his credit with a judgment.  He turned around, smiled and said "Please do sue me.  I am a retired lawyer and would love nothing more to have my day in court to expose your egregious billing practices.  You can count on my filing a counter claim for fraud, deceptive business practices, balance billing, and anything else I can think of once you serve me.  You do have my correct address for process of service right?"  Needless to say the department manager heard ALL of this and came out of her office at warp speed.  Zeroed out his account and printed him a receipt that stated he owed nothing and the bill was paid in full.  He never heard from them again. 

The point is maintaining your composure and standing your ground is possible.  The instant you go full "Karen" on them you lose all leverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard this many people act like a disciplinary.  Holy Sh**.  Relax everyone.  I didn't like being screwed over by Citibank so I figured not paying their $6500 would be more effective than trying to file a complaint that would do nothing.  They did mess up.  They did falsely report me late.  They did tell me I had no payment due, whether it be an automated system or live human.  So there you have it.

Do you REALLY think Citibank gives a Sh** about me??  Do you know how many customers they deal with a day? Do you know how many people default on them every day?  Do you really think they have a dart board with my picture on it in legal department?  Everyone that is saying that they are out to get ME is delusional.  They have no idea who I am nor could they care less who I am.  A guy who defaulted on $6500.  

Thank you to the people who gave me great advice on here.  To the people who simply stated that I acted emotional and wronged Citi as a result, your opinion was noted.  We can move on to a productive solution to helping me out of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Citiscam said:

I have never heard this many people act like a disciplinary.  Holy Sh**.  Relax everyone.  I didn't like being screwed over by Citibank so I figured not paying their $6500 would be more effective than trying to file a complaint that would do nothing.  They did mess up.  They did falsely report me late.  They did tell me I had no payment due, whether it be an automated system or live human.  So there you have it.

Do you REALLY think Citibank gives a Sh** about me??  Do you know how many customers they deal with a day? Do you know how many people default on them every day?  Do you really think they have a dart board with my picture on it in legal department?  Everyone that is saying that they are out to get ME is delusional.  They have no idea who I am nor could they care less who I am.  A guy who defaulted on $6500.  

Thank you to the people who gave me great advice on here.  To the people who simply stated that I acted emotional and wronged Citi as a result, your opinion was noted.  We can move on to a productive solution to helping me out of this. 

If you think we are disciplinarians, wait until you meet the Citibank attorney and the arbiters, who are retired judges. It has been said many times here, a bad case in court is a bad case in arbitration and man, you have a bad case.

Did Citibank give you incorrect information via their automated phone system, yes. Regardless of the terms and conditions, Contrary to the opinion of some members, I don't think a company is allowed to get away with saying that our automated system makes errors after trying to get you to use said system. I am sure if I called Citibank's customer service phone number, no where did they computer tell the person using the system to not depend on the information they system gives. Instead, they advertised the system as an alternative option to speaking to a real person. The system therefore must give the correct information. Since there is argument here as to whether that is correct or not, I am sure it would be novel legal argument.

Did Citibank report the correct information to the CRAs, technically yes. You were 30 days late. As for why you were 30 days late, that you be for you to prove it was the result of false representation. That means that you would have needed to follow the correct process by challenging the trade line in your CRAs and once those came back as verified (and they would have), filed an arbitration claim based on false representation and requesting the late fee and removing the information from your CRA. You would have probably not gotten the late fees back in a settlement but I am sure Citi would have rather removed the offending tradeline than spend $1000s in arbitration where there would have been no gain for them. Especially if you had continued to pay the bill. Instead, you decided to show and defaulted on the account. What did you expect Citibank to do at that point, claim that they made a mistake and forgive the entire $6500?

Then to top that off, you send letters to everyone at Citibank, from the CEO to the janitor cleaning the branch (I exaggerate here but not by much) which makes sure your name is well knows, especially in the legal department, claiming that you don't have to pay because they messed up. You are correct that for most people, you are simply a number and they would not know you from Adam but because you sent the letters, you are well known. There are former members of these boards who have made the same mistake to disastrous results. Don't think that you are the first person to ever fly off the handle like that. So instead of being a another number in the system where Citibank is following a process, you are well known to the people who make decisions.

To top it all off, you then file for arbitration using the claim of "They messed up so I don't have to pay at all" when you realized that they did not agree that your default was in return for their mistake. They then bring in another law firm (not usually seen) to handle the arbitration and of course, the above claim could meet the definition of frivolous because it is a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would make.

So, you want a productive solution to the mess that you made? Amend your complaint with some of the suggests made in this thread. Then get together as much money as you can as quickly as you can and offer it as settlement to the claim before it gets too far. The other solution is to continue to act as if you are right and they are wrong and then file bankruptcy on all your credit lines and really drop an atom bomb on your report. There is really nothing in the middle and I doubt you are getting out of this without some pain. Hopefully you have learned a lesson in all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

THIS.  When it comes to deferring payments you NEVER assume everything is taken care of and even if using an online portal there is ALWAYS a screen that you can take a shot of showing your transaction.  The OP didn't just make the mistake of assuming everything was the way they wanted it when a problem arose instead if keeping the account in good standing they doubled down on the mistake and threw a toddler tantrum and involved everyone in a position of power and control. 

The other potential problem with the hardship program is that the OP assumed that simply filling out the page on the website meant approval.  My educated guess is that the terms of the program state approval is not guaranteed.  Which circles right back to you never assume it went he way you thought it would.  You get confirmation.

My opinion is intentionally defaulting then demanding they arbitrate when you KNOW you made mistakes and you owe the money IS frivolous.  

 

The fact that we cannot agree on false representation based on an automated system shows that it would be a good claim because it might be an issue that has not been fleshed out yet. However, the only thing it would do for the OP is avoid a frivolous claim. Because the OP defaulted, the arbiter will not be able to requests a removal from the credit report because at this point, it will not fix the damage caused by the OP. At best, the arbiter might demand a refund of one late fee and maybe some damages but I doubt that would amount much more than a couple of hundred dollars. This still leaves the OP owing something.

As I told the OP, there will be some pain here at this point. How much pain is up the OP and whether than keep standing their ground that they can default because Citi made a mistake or the OP admitting that they did not act properly in their own regard to the issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WhoCares1000 no one is benefiting from your lecturing.  I don't understand it.

And I think you slipped up "I don't think a company is allowed to get away with saying that our automated system "  "OUR". I'm assuming you work for Citi and are trolling this board.

My credit claim may not be as solid as I would like.  But it is a claim.  Citi has also 1. Sent a debt notice about me to a third person not related to this case. 2. Threatened attorney fees when they know they would not apply 3. Filed a lawsuit against me when I had already filed for arbitration.  Causing further damage to by background check.   All infractions of Rosenthal Act. 

So if you do work for Citi, you didn't play by the rules.  There are consequence. As you've noted in your disciplinary lectures to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.