• filter:

Little guy beats Citi in arbitration.

  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
Although only for $200. I can't believe Citi would dig in over such a small amount. Makes you wonder if Citi is getting 90% cash back from the arbitrator.

http://frequentmiler.boardingarea.com/2017/06/09/fine-print-beat... 
 

Member Summary
Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
Amazing how many thousands of dollars Citi spent to fight a $200 bonus which the customer was clearly due.

rated:
Don't forget the 'thousands' of people who sue citi bank and don't win. That probably makes up for 1 win.

rated:
Plus good luck finding a lawyer dumb enough to work for free. The article states he was expecting to get his fees paid by citi from arbitration (but, of course did not)

rated:
Bend3r said:   Plus good luck finding a lawyer dumb enough to work for free. The article states he was expecting to get his fees paid by citi from arbitration (but, of course did not)
  
This whole thing is kind of dumb/weird. If some random CSR told me "$4000 per month", the first thing I would assume is "$4000 per billing cycle" but it would also cause me to ask for clarification about when the start and stop date is for each month.

rated:
Yeah. We make money because we follow their rules. I wouldn't jeopardize my lifetime Citi relationship over $200.

rated:
Yeah, this is silly. No wonder fine print is getting so bad. Plus, why assume? If there is any confusion, call and ask Citi (is it per month or per cycle).

Even better, almost all banks let you change your cycle date. Change it so that it is as close to the calendar month as you need.

Rasheed

rated:
I would say it's pretty clear Citi was in the right here and I am very surprised they lost.

rated:
KatoKrazy said:   I would say it's pretty clear Citi was in the right here and I am very surprised they lost.
  
I wouldn't have gone to this kind of trouble over it, but, as a general rule, ambiguity in a contract is interpreted against the party that wrote the contract.  If they said months, then it was ambiguous (although I would have interpreted it as billing cycles, it's not the only way it could be interpreted).

rated:
forbin4040 said:   Don't forget the 'thousands' of people who sue citi bank and don't win. That probably makes up for 1 win.
  
Exactly.  I think that's why they can be so pig-headed about such things.  They don't want stories of being beaten floating around out there encouraging others to challenge them.

(Especially as in this case it sounds like the problem is Citi's agent misspoke, Citi was enforcing the rules as they were supposed to be.  Credit card spend requirements are always based on the billing cycle, not the calendar.)

rated:
I'm waiting for the Chase Sapphire Reserve customers claiming they didn't their $300 travel credit for the calendar year because of Chase's obfuscated definition of calendar year.

rated:
Bend3r said:   Plus good luck finding a lawyer dumb enough to work for free. The article states he was expecting to get his fees paid by citi from arbitration (but, of course did not)
  
What's this guys contact info?

rated:
rasheedb said:   Yeah, this is silly. No wonder fine print is getting so bad. Plus, why assume? If there is any confusion, call and ask Citi (is it per month or per cycle).

Even better, almost all banks let you change your cycle date. Change it so that it is as close to the calendar month as you need.

Rasheed

What do you mean by fine print getting so bad? If you mean long and detailed that is the best possible scenario. The more they detail about their rules in the contract the easier it is to fight and win when you follow the rules. Clearly, the bank detailing less rules doesn't provide the bonus to someone who didn't follow the unwritten rules so why is it better that there are unwritten rules?

rated:
Citi's representatives, up to and including their executive offices blatantly lied about my consumer rights and Citi's responsibilities regarding a charge back.  Their executive offices actually did so in writing.  Citi runs an ongoing, systemic, deliberate misinformation campaign that in my opinion, is meant to deprive their customers of their rights.

I received a damaged, used product instead of the new one ordered, and the retailer required I pay return shipping and a restocking fee that amounted to 1/3 the cost of the item. I refused and contacted Citi to charge it back.

Every single Citi representative, including supervisors and managers told me that I had to return the item at my expense and nearly all said I had to pay the restocking fee. The fact that Visa International's rules and state law said otherwise made absolutely no difference and they told me repeatedly that they were required to abide by neither - they made up their own rules.  I challenged Citi in writing and it went to an arbitrator.  They and the seller lost.

By contrast, when I asked a first line customer service rep at Chase about their charge back procedure, she actually knew the rules and assured me that Chase followed them. 

Citi is an abysmal company.



 

rated:
I wondered what it says in the contract? does it say billing cycle or by month? Could Citi appeal?

rated:
So in best case, Citi had to pay $1700+$850+their own lawyer fees (even if they're used to the process, probably at least a couple of hours of work, say $450 total to keep things neat), all in all $3k expense to NOT pay $200? And $200 over that if the arbitrator rules against them. Along with some bad PR.

How dumb can you get when your best outcome is the loss of $3k? I guess they may be banking that many customers will shy away at the cost of hiring an attorney but that's a fairly stupid gamble for $200 potential savings. I guess you don't want to give in too easily if customer has no claim so that you don't just hand out $200 to anyone at the slightest claim. But here it was clear the customer had spent enough ($17k total @ 2% fees = $340), to make it profitable to keep them in business even after paying them $200. It's unfathomably stupid and very poor business. If customer takes that level of spending somewhere else, they stand to lose much more than $3k over the long run.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017