Complaint Review: Citi

"I ask her who privacy guard was and she said ' I think they are part of Trigiant corp' but did't know where they were located. Citicards is owned by Citigroup in NYC as far as I know but she did not know where her own company's headquartersis located."

The company which provides that privacy guard service is "Trilegiant". Citcards is part of citibank (now all the various branches of the company are changing to the name of just "citi" as part of marketing campaigne stressing one-stop shop for fiances) and there really isn't a headquarters for the company, as various functions are based throughout the country, but techincally the address for credit reports, etc is sioux falls, South Dakota. Citicards has an agreement with Trilegiant to offer their Privacy Guard service, and it is possible that this whole thing may have come from a box on the application which is checked agreeing the the privacy guard, or it could have been a box to check online if you were checking your statments there. Citi offered the option and somehow there was a belief that a box was checked. I'd recommend requesting a copy of your application if you filled out a paper one, to see if that box was checked. If it was unknowingly checked, then the charges are legit, if not, then you can send that copy of the ap back with a note challenging that you never signed up for the service. The case would be reviewed and depending on how much time has passed, some or all of the privacy guard charges will be removed. If this was the first time you've ever been charged for it and that's already been removed, you're fine. Just to be sure though, I would call customer serivce and ask them to check to make sure you're not enrolled in any "protection programs" (use exact wording). The rep can cancel the enrollment if so.

"I ask her who privacy guard was and she said ' I think they are part of Trigiant corp' but did't know where they were located. Citicards is owned by Citigroup in NYC as far as I know but she did not know where her own company's headquartersis located."

The company which provides that privacy guard service is "Trilegiant". Citcards is part of citibank (now all the various branches of the company are changing to the name of just "citi" as part of marketing campaigne stressing one-stop shop for fiances) and there really isn't a headquarters for the company, as various functions are based throughout the country, but techincally the address for credit reports, etc is sioux falls, South Dakota. Citicards has an agreement with Trilegiant to offer their Privacy Guard service, and it is possible that this whole thing may have come from a box on the application which is checked agreeing the the privacy guard, or it could have been a box to check online if you were checking your statments there. Citi offered the option and somehow there was a belief that a box was checked. I'd recommend requesting a copy of your application if you filled out a paper one, to see if that box was checked. If it was unknowingly checked, then the charges are legit, if not, then you can send that copy of the ap back with a note challenging that you never signed up for the service. The case would be reviewed and depending on how much time has passed, some or all of the privacy guard charges will be removed. If this was the first time you've ever been charged for it and that's already been removed, you're fine. Just to be sure though, I would call customer serivce and ask them to check to make sure you're not enrolled in any "protection programs" (use exact wording). The rep can cancel the enrollment if so.

"I ask her who privacy guard was and she said ' I think they are part of Trigiant corp' but did't know where they were located. Citicards is owned by Citigroup in NYC as far as I know but she did not know where her own company's headquartersis located."

The company which provides that privacy guard service is "Trilegiant". Citcards is part of citibank (now all the various branches of the company are changing to the name of just "citi" as part of marketing campaigne stressing one-stop shop for fiances) and there really isn't a headquarters for the company, as various functions are based throughout the country, but techincally the address for credit reports, etc is sioux falls, South Dakota. Citicards has an agreement with Trilegiant to offer their Privacy Guard service, and it is possible that this whole thing may have come from a box on the application which is checked agreeing the the privacy guard, or it could have been a box to check online if you were checking your statments there. Citi offered the option and somehow there was a belief that a box was checked. I'd recommend requesting a copy of your application if you filled out a paper one, to see if that box was checked. If it was unknowingly checked, then the charges are legit, if not, then you can send that copy of the ap back with a note challenging that you never signed up for the service. The case would be reviewed and depending on how much time has passed, some or all of the privacy guard charges will be removed. If this was the first time you've ever been charged for it and that's already been removed, you're fine. Just to be sure though, I would call customer serivce and ask them to check to make sure you're not enrolled in any "protection programs" (use exact wording). The rep can cancel the enrollment if so.

"I ask her who privacy guard was and she said ' I think they are part of Trigiant corp' but did't know where they were located. Citicards is owned by Citigroup in NYC as far as I know but she did not know where her own company's headquartersis located."

The company which provides that privacy guard service is "Trilegiant". Citcards is part of citibank (now all the various branches of the company are changing to the name of just "citi" as part of marketing campaigne stressing one-stop shop for fiances) and there really isn't a headquarters for the company, as various functions are based throughout the country, but techincally the address for credit reports, etc is sioux falls, South Dakota. Citicards has an agreement with Trilegiant to offer their Privacy Guard service, and it is possible that this whole thing may have come from a box on the application which is checked agreeing the the privacy guard, or it could have been a box to check online if you were checking your statments there. Citi offered the option and somehow there was a belief that a box was checked. I'd recommend requesting a copy of your application if you filled out a paper one, to see if that box was checked. If it was unknowingly checked, then the charges are legit, if not, then you can send that copy of the ap back with a note challenging that you never signed up for the service. The case would be reviewed and depending on how much time has passed, some or all of the privacy guard charges will be removed. If this was the first time you've ever been charged for it and that's already been removed, you're fine. Just to be sure though, I would call customer serivce and ask them to check to make sure you're not enrolled in any "protection programs" (use exact wording). The rep can cancel the enrollment if so.

I am a victim of their Scam at CitiCorp Bank to the tune of $92, 300.65. You might want to contact the Postal Inspectors for fraud Identity theft and also Secret Service and Federal Trade Commission. Download form 3949A for Internal Revenue Service, fill it out, make a copy for yourself and send it back to IRS via Certified Mail. When they find wrongdoing You get a 10% Reward. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. It figures that the scam originated in NYC through some of their other company names and then South Dakota.

I initially found my Identity Theif through the South Dakota office and was talking to her on a three way conversation that was in fact recorded. She had all kinds of credit cards, property investments you name it. Good luck to you.

That's a Dangerous game you're recommending. Yes, in those instances courts have appealed that HOWEVER, Citibank has several different divisions of their cards. All of which run differently.

I work for Citibank doing the Home Depot Credit Services, we have records of the actual receipts customers receive at the store. So you see, if someone were to sue Citibank Home depot credit services for the same thing, the bank would be able to provide the exact services/merchandise given.

I don't suggest this particular tactic to anyone. I would let the credit card provider know the charges are in dispute then settle any information and disputes with the merchant who has charged the account.

Citibank is unable to provide legal proof of charges on customer accounts because, as seen in the following case, they rely on witness testimony. I am not an attorney, nor am I giving legal advice. I am simply sharing information I have discovered that may be of assistance to you or others disputing charges with Citibank or any other credit card company for that matter. This information is worth investigating further if you intend to refuse to pay for a charge that your credit card company insists that you pay. You have the right to dispute it, but they don't have to reverse it if they decide they think you owe it, regardless of what the truth really is.

Credit card companies have lost class action suits and as a result have modified their agreements to require mandatory arbitration, and waiving all rights to sue the credit card company individually or in a class. Yet if they lose arbitration, which they do about 3% of the time, they simply sue anyway. This alone is enough reason to close your credit card account. Their agreements should be illegal, and would be in any other industry. However, simply refusing to pay, closing your account, and leaving the disputed balance could correct the problem. Notify credit bureaus and leave customer comment detailing why account was closed, since the credit card company will report a deliquency. Then attempt annually to get the account removed whenever you find a single error of any kind on the report. If it isn't removed, force the issue with the credit bureau. If the credit card company sues, take note of the following case. It reveals that credit card companies don't keep audited records of credit card accounts, nor do they have original contracts. All needed to meet evidence requirements in court. A decision against a defendant where Citibank sued over a credit card balance was overturned by an appeals court due to lack of evidence. (BTW - monthly statements don't meet the requirements for conclusive evidence to prove money owed and can be contested. If it did, I could simply print an invoice and mail it to someone, and when they refused to pay, file a lawsuit and win with the invoice.)

CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., A Bank Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent
vs. DANNY H. WHITELEY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 25925

COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

149 S.W.3d 599; 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1809

November 23, 2004, Filed




PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RIPLEY COUNTY.
Honorable Paul McGhee, Circuit Judge.

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded with directions.

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes


COUNSEL: Appellant's attorney: Daniel T. Moore.

Respondent's attorney: Mayer S. Klein, Michael J. Payne.

JUDGES: JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge. Shrum and Barney, JJ., concur.

OPINIONBY: JOHN E. PARRISH

OPINION:
Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., (plaintiff) brought a suit on account against Danny H. Whiteley (defendant). The case was heard by the trial court without a jury. Judgment was entered for plaintiff in the amount of $ 4,218.58 principal, interest in the amount of $ 728.14, and costs. Defendant appeals. This court reverses and remands with directions.
Plaintiff's petition alleged defendant was "indebted to it on account
of goods, services and/or merchandise provided by Plaintiff at Defendant's instance and request"; that "the charges for said goods,
services and/or merchandise provided by Plaintiff to Defendant [were] reasonable." Plaintiff alleged that payment was demanded but had been refused. n1n1 Plaintiff's attorney assured the trial court at the commencement of trial that plaintiff had no credit card agreement signed by defendant;
that plaintiff was "suing on an account theory, suit on account."

[*2]
Plaintiff called an employee, Paula Sullinger, as a witness. Ms. Sullinger stated she was "a manager in the recovery unit" located in
Kansas City. Ms. Sullinger identified plaintiff as a banking corporation authorized to do business in Missouri. Ms. Sullinger testified, over the objection of defendant, that although there was no documentation of a credit card account, she had knowledge that defendant maintained a credit card account with plaintiff. She testified, over the objection of defendant, that an account maintained by plaintiff revealed a balance owed by defendant. Ms. Sullinger
explained, again over defendant's objection, that charges were posted to accounts based upon notification by merchants of charges made by a
cardholder; that any documentation for a charge belonged to the merchant and was not maintained by plaintiff.

Ms. Sullinger was asked whether she had knowledge about what goods were purchased by defendant for which charges were made to the account plaintiff sought to collect. She had no knowledge concerning what defendant would have purchased from a particular merchant. Ms.
Sullinger had no knowledge whether charges were fair and reasonable.

No other evidence was [*3] offered on the question of reasonableness of charges.
Ms. Sullinger was asked the following questions and gave the following
answers about the nature of plaintiff's business.
Q. My question is, you, being Citibank of South Dakota, didn't provide
any merchandise, did you?
A. No.
Q. You didn't provide any goods to the defendant, did you?
A. No, just a service.
Q. And you didn't come out and perform any services for the defendant
and charge him for that, did you?
A. No, just paid the merchants for him.
Defendant asserts one point on appeal. He argues the trial court erre in granting judgment for plaintiff on its suit on account "because
there was no evidence to support the judgment in that [plaintiff] failed to prove that [defendant] received any goods, services or
merchandise provided by [plaintiff]." Defendant contends further that there was no evidence that anything plaintiff claims defendant
received was reasonable in cost. Defendant further asserts that any theory of recovery plaintiff may assert, other than the suit on
account it pleaded, would constitute a variance to which plaintiff timely objected at trial.
"A suit on open account means a suit in contract [*4] for each purchase transaction." Medicine Shoppe International, Inc. v. Mehra, 882 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo.App. 1994). To recover on a suit on account, a plaintiff must show an offer, an acceptance, and consideration between
the parties as well as the correctness of the account and the reasonableness of the charges. Welsch Furnace Co, Inc. v. Vescovo, 805
S.W.2d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 1991). "Such evidence consists of proof that:
1) Defendant requested plaintiff to furnish merchandise or services;
2) plaintiff accepted the offer of the defendant by furnishing such merchandise or services; and 3) the charges were reasonable." Id.

Even if this court were to accept plaintiff's assertion that providing credit to a credit card holder amounted to providing a service for
purposes of maintaining a suit on account, an issue this court need not and does not address, the evidence was silent as to the reasonableness of any charge that was made to defendant. A party
bringing a cause of action cannot prevail if one or more elements of the cause of action are not supported by substantial evidence. Vintila
v. Drassen, 52 S.W.3d 28, 38 (Mo.App. 2001); [*5] Mills Realty, Inc.v. Wolff, 910 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Mo.App. 1995).

Further, as asserted by defendant, defendant scrupulously objected throughout the trial to any
evidence that was outside plaintiff's pleadings. Defendant's point is granted. The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded. The trial court is directed to enter judgment for defendant.
JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge

Shrum and Barney, JJ., concur
Hope this helps.

Joe, I read with anger and horror your accusation about Privacy Guard billing you without your (or someone in your households) authorization. I understand that there are people that steal CC #'s and charge up things on card holders accounts, but frauds and scams DON'T put the companies name and phone # on your statement. When you called our call center it sounds like you were giving the person an attitude instead of speaking in a business manner. What she was trying to articulate to you was if you would like proof that your household requested this service we would like to have your request in writing so that we can address your concern. If we are unable to prove to you that your household did request PG we are happy to refund each and every month we billed you. One thing you must bite your tongue on is that if you believe you have been wronged don't belitle the person or company. I have worked for Trilegiant for 12 years and while I regret we market our service to every Tom, d**k, and Harry ( many who pay no attention to what they are enrolling into, and then don't check statements when billed) the service is something very usefull to protect your identity. It has nothing to do with bankrupcy or any other ins. It is for those of us blessed with excellent credit and who want to protect that rating from thieves and errant entries on our credit reports.

I want to thank Julie from Kansas for responding.
Well we received our new cards after cancelling the old ones per citibanks suggestion to stop privacy guard billing us for something I never ordered and guess what? Yep they are on our new card, can you believe this!!!!!
So we called them again and they promised to take it off our bill. I did as julie suggested and ask them to send all my statement to see how many times they have billed us. The person told me that security would have to do this and that they will be in touch and he would send us another affidavate to fill out for fraud. I will let you all who read this if the problem gets resolved.
JOE

Your line should have been Citi WON'T do anything, not can't. Other credit cards CAN and DO credit back fraudulent charges. Citi cards DO NOT. A couple of years ago I had a contract with a tanning salon. I cancelled the contract after the alloted time and in the interim received a new credit card. This card was not Citi owned when I got it and I should have used my better judgment and cancelled it immediately, but I did not. A few months later, guess what? The tanning salon did several charges to my card. I called Citi and told them I wished to dispute the charges, called the tanning salon and asked them how they got an expired card to go through and they said "we messed with the expiration date till it worked". I called Citi back and told them what the tanning salon had said and they REFUSED to allow me to dispute the charges. I will never own a Citi card again and should any of my other credit cards be bought out by Citi, they will be hitting the shredder as well.

Sir, I am sitting here reading your story and it is one I have heard before. I work for citi and am a customer service rep taking incoming calls with questions reguarding cards. Privacy guard is owned by Trilegant Corporation. I am not sure where they are located because we are not told that information. Citibank and Citicorp are the same thing. Yes they all spun out of the original bank in Ny but our headquarters is in South Dakota. I am sorry that you have had such a bad experience with the company and I hope you are willing to let that go. Privacy guard would have been something that was told to you over the phone by one of our reps be it an outgoing or an incoming call. Every so often it is possible that a sale could go through when it is not supposed to but this is very rare. This may though, be something that has happened to you. It is a mistake and it should be taken care of. Unfortunatly you should check with PG because this charge maybe something that has been showing up farter back then Feb. If you were told it has been six months that is because we only have access to see back that far. You should call the number on the back of your card and request copies of your billing statements back for at least a year. Make sure you know exactly how much you have been charged. Get all of your information together and then call PG. Tell them everything you know and insist on speaking with somebody higher than a customer service rep. They should be able to take care of this for you, I have seen it done before. Just remember the person you are speaking to on the phone at that time is not the one that did and unauthorized sale, and they do have the power to help but they are not going to want to do anything for you if you do not respect their job also. Furthermore, at this point there is nothing that Citi can do, it is in the hands of Trilegant now. Citi does not have the power to credit back your account because of something that Trilegant will not work with you on.